naresh091
International Cricketer
hussey cleaned up.great bowling by viru.india getting stronger in this match.one more wicket,india will be in top.
Australia's Tour Of India - 2008
- Thread starter SciD
- Start date
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
Sehwag's gotten our 3 best batsman out.
Shocking.
Shocking.
Maybe India don't need Harby. The way Sehwag is bowling they could play 3 pacemen. Of course on this track they could have gone with him and still had Sehwag to bowl.
Wish we had played Krejza, just watching what Sehwag is doing is certainly bringing out the what ifs again. You know your spin depth is in trouble when Sehwag would easily be the best spinner in Aus.
Wish we had played Krejza, just watching what Sehwag is doing is certainly bringing out the what ifs again. You know your spin depth is in trouble when Sehwag would easily be the best spinner in Aus.
King Pietersen
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Location
- Manchester
Now it's time for Shane "The Gun" Watson to show of his apparent batting prowess. Good bowling from Sehwag, he's more decent deliveries in this 1 spell than Cameron White has all series. If India can skittle Clarke out, then it should be fairly plain sailing from there on in. Watson and Haddin haven't exactly looked like playing a Laxman-esque innings in this series tbh.
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
Didn't see Watto bat in the last Test, did ya? His better then any England batsman barring Kevin Pietersen, but then again his South African.
I'm going to bookmark this post if he gets a ton.
King Pietersen
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Location
- Manchester
Yeh I did. He made 78, then when the pressure was really on to stick around he got out cheaply for 2. He's only got a Test average of 25 after 6 matches, his ODi average is only 35, and it's only his FC average of 45 that makes him look respectable. I've seen him bat, and there's no chance that Watson is a better batsman than Pietersen, Cook, Bell, Collingwood and Strauss, I'd even say Matt Prior's a better batsman. Prior's got a test average of 40 after tests against West Indies, Sri Lanka and India, and that was after having a poor series with the bat against India.
Go ahead, if Watson plays an innings anywhere near as good as Laxman or Gambhirs then I'll admit I'm wrong, but if doesn't, it'll be my chance to gloat
.
Go ahead, if Watson plays an innings anywhere near as good as Laxman or Gambhirs then I'll admit I'm wrong, but if doesn't, it'll be my chance to gloat
.
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
An average of only 35 in ODI cricket? LMFAO!Yeh I did. He made 78, then when the pressure was really on to stick around he got out cheaply for 2. He's only got a Test average of 25 after 6 matches, his ODi average is only 35, and it's only his FC average of 45 that makes him look respectable. I've seen him bat, and there's no chance that Watson is a better batsman than Pietersen, Cook, Bell, Collingwood and Strauss, I'd even say Matt Prior's a better batsman. Prior's got a test average of 40 after tests against West Indies, Sri Lanka and India, and that was after having a poor series with the bat against India.
Go ahead, if Watson plays an innings anywhere near as good as Laxman or Gambhirs then I'll admit I'm wrong, but if doesn't, it'll be my chance to gloat
Mate, they're only a handful of English players in ODI cricket history that average more then Watson that have played more ODI games then him.
The only reason why he averages so low in Test Cricket is because his batting at number 6 when he is clearly a top 4 batsman.
The same goes with ODI cricket when he has batted at number 6 & 7 for the majority of his career but he still averages 35.
He'd be averaging over 40 in ODI cricket if he was English and opening the batting for them.
Watson is a much better batsman then anyone from England barring Cook & Pietersen.
Batsman like Strauss, Shah, Collingwood, Prior, Bell would all look like mediocre batsman at first sight if they had to bat along side the likes of Ponting, Hayden & Hussey and if they were constantly injury prone.
King Pietersen
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Location
- Manchester
Andrew Strauss: 53 tests, 3943 runs at 41.07. 78 ODi's, 2239 runs at 31.98. Only slightly worse than Watson's record in ODi's.
Ian Bell: 43 Tests, 2923 runs at 42.36. 75 ODi's, 2399 runs at 36.34. A better ODi and Test record than Shane Watson.
Paul Collingwood: 39 Tests, 2689 runs at 42.01. 149 ODi's, 3689 runs at 35.13. Again, a better ODi and Test record when compared with Watson.
Matt Prior: 10 Tests, 562 runs at 40.14. 28 ODi's, 590 runs at 23.60. Watson's got a far better ODi record, but Prior's test record, batting at 7 is miles better than Watson's, and they've played almost the same amount of Tests.
Therefore, all of those have better Test records than Shane Watson, and Bell and Collingwood both have better ODi records. Strauss, who was known as a poor ODi player also didn't have a record far off Watson's. Watson's not as good as you claim. He may have a good FC record, but that means nothing on the International scene, and he's proved nothing to me so far that would prove that he's better than Strauss, Collingwood, Prior and Bell. Your ODi claim was proven false as well, as both Collingwood and Bell have better records, and have played more ODi's.
Ian Bell: 43 Tests, 2923 runs at 42.36. 75 ODi's, 2399 runs at 36.34. A better ODi and Test record than Shane Watson.
Paul Collingwood: 39 Tests, 2689 runs at 42.01. 149 ODi's, 3689 runs at 35.13. Again, a better ODi and Test record when compared with Watson.
Matt Prior: 10 Tests, 562 runs at 40.14. 28 ODi's, 590 runs at 23.60. Watson's got a far better ODi record, but Prior's test record, batting at 7 is miles better than Watson's, and they've played almost the same amount of Tests.
Therefore, all of those have better Test records than Shane Watson, and Bell and Collingwood both have better ODi records. Strauss, who was known as a poor ODi player also didn't have a record far off Watson's. Watson's not as good as you claim. He may have a good FC record, but that means nothing on the International scene, and he's proved nothing to me so far that would prove that he's better than Strauss, Collingwood, Prior and Bell. Your ODi claim was proven false as well, as both Collingwood and Bell have better records, and have played more ODi's.
.Mob
International Coach
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I'm sorry, but I find it rather pathetic that he can even claim that it was accidental, or that you are actually defending him. What he did was stupid and he deserves the punishment.
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
Geez, Watson has an average of 35 compared to Strauss' average of 32. That isn't just slighty better, that's a fair way off. Slightly better would be Collingwood's average of 35.15 compared to Watson's average of 35.08.
Your claims of Strauss being a poor ODI player and then referring trying to refer that Watson is a poor player because you think he has a similar average (He doesn't anyway) are laughable because Jayasuriya averages 32/33 in ODI cricket.
Watson's statistics batting in the top 4 in ODI's:
666 runs @ 41.63, S/R: 82.25, 1 hundred, 5 fifties (19 innings)
England could really do with a ODI batsman like Watson opening the batting, eh?
King Pietersen
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Location
- Manchester
Ian Bell wasn't included in that reply. Strange =/
Thing is, we actually don't need him. Ian Bell's doing a good job, and has formed a good partnership with Matt Prior, the keeper, so there'd be no place for Watson. He'd not get in infront of Shah either, as Shah's a far better player, just hasn't been given the chances at International Level. He's got the skill to average 45 in Test Cricket I'd say. Then he'd definitely not get in above Flintoff, or Collingwood. The only place he'd stand a chance of getting in would be at Number 7 where Luke Wright bats.
I just don't rate Watson at all. I've never seen him play and though, god, England really could do with a player like him in our team. We certainly didn't need him against South Africa, who were once seen in the eyes of the ICC to be the best team in the world. Flintoff > Watson.
Flintoff batting in the top 5: 71 matches, 2038 runs at 39.13
Watson in the top 5: 29 matches, 669 runs at 39.35.
Considering Flintoff's bowling is a good few leagues above Watson's, I'd say Freddie's a far better player. England don't need Shane Watson.
Thing is, we actually don't need him. Ian Bell's doing a good job, and has formed a good partnership with Matt Prior, the keeper, so there'd be no place for Watson. He'd not get in infront of Shah either, as Shah's a far better player, just hasn't been given the chances at International Level. He's got the skill to average 45 in Test Cricket I'd say. Then he'd definitely not get in above Flintoff, or Collingwood. The only place he'd stand a chance of getting in would be at Number 7 where Luke Wright bats.
I just don't rate Watson at all. I've never seen him play and though, god, England really could do with a player like him in our team. We certainly didn't need him against South Africa, who were once seen in the eyes of the ICC to be the best team in the world. Flintoff > Watson.
Flintoff batting in the top 5: 71 matches, 2038 runs at 39.13
Watson in the top 5: 29 matches, 669 runs at 39.35.
Considering Flintoff's bowling is a good few leagues above Watson's, I'd say Freddie's a far better player. England don't need Shane Watson.
Last edited:
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
It's funny because you scoff at my arguement of Watson not having enough opportunity but having allot of talent and then you go and make an arguement about an even lesser player like Shah and start trying to claim that his even better then Watson, which is borderline ridiculous.
You think that just because Watson has a good first-class record that it doesn't mean that he'll succeed in Test Cricket?
Then what about Shah? He has a lesser first-class record and plays in a much weaker domestic competiton.
Watson thus far in his International career has shown far more promise.
Trust me, I watch allot more English cricket then what you realise.
I watch as many England games as I watch Australian ones and I've seen the likes of Shah, Bell, Collingwood and all of the batsman that have been tested since the Ashes 2005.
I've also watched allot of Watson batting when his at his best and he is an absolute gun. You can say what you want about his bowling, because it's not half as good as what his batting is.
Watson is an immense talent that is just waiting to happen and once acouple of the top 4 batsman start retiring and he gets his chance then he'll start to bloosum. He has been cruely robbed of injury during the course of his career.
Oh and here are some stats on Ian Bell & Shane Watson.
Ian Bell (as a ODI opener): 716 runs @ 35.80, SR: 69.92, 5 fifties (22 innings)
Shane Watson (as a ODI opener): 555 runs @ 39.64, SR: 88.38, 1 hundred, 4 fifties (15 innings)
The fact that you think a ODI average of 35 is poor, just goes to show how much you know.
