England in Australia

[cricketmad09]

There are lot of guys who had extra ordinary first class averages but test cricket is different and he does not feel like a top order batsman heis good a lower middle order otherwise he would be cannon fodder

Maybe in country cricket, where, quite frankly, I could score a couple of runs.

Mick Lewis doesnt score a 50 and a 17 ball 38 if the bowling is world class.

 

[sifter132]

Do you even follow cricket? Watson has been one of the most inform batsmen since he came back from stress fractures. Also if Watson comes in at 4/50 he will be at his best. He is a technically sound and is a top order batsmen. Follow the game before you make ridiculous comments that make yourself look like an idiot.

Watson first class average of nearly 50. Clarke just over 40. Who has done more?

Right on brother - Watson is perhaps Australia's most underrated batsman. Don't be fooled by his ODI records. He was shafted for a long time by being put at 7, which doesn't suit his game. But I think as an opener he will be a great success. Onto some stats to back me up. Since 2003 Watson has scored 2,590 FC runs at 53.96. Compare that to Clarke who has scored 2,058 FC runs at 43.79 as well as averaging 36.23 in his Tests. Also had a look at Jaques who has scored 6,527 FC runs in the same time at 56.76.

Watson, Clarke & Jaques are probably my 3 favourite players at present, but only 2 of them deserve a spot in the side. I'd love to see Clarke play some more FC cricket, if he can't play for NSW because of his ODI duties, he needs a county contract to boost his record and show he can be consistent over a long period.

And I'd love to see Jaques get Watson's spot if he can't make it. He'd be a great 6. He has shown he can bat in the middle order, is good enough technically to open and can score at a good rate. Only problem is he's a lefty and they probably don't want another lefty, especially after Flintoff owned Katich and Gilchrist last series.

Just as long as it ain't Symonds, I'm happy
Symonds, Gilly and Warney would have to be the dodgiest 6,7,8 - not by total production cause they have decent averages, but they are all hit and miss type batters, prone to low scores. From memory, we had some middle order collapses when Symonds was in the team because of this.

 

[Kal-El]

Assumption? He didn't dive to the ground grasping his leg and howling for a doctor. Can't believe it would be a tear, maybe a weak strain. Lots of degrees to hamstring trouble.

You're talking to someone who watches a LOT of AFL, where hamstring injuries are common. When you see the moment the hamstring is damaged as often as I do you learn to be able to tell if it's bad or not.

 

[aussie1st]

Thats the potential I saw in Collingwood, again proving losing Tres may have been a blessing in disguise. Tait's chance have all but gone now.

Clarke has been brought in to cover for Watson.
http://cricket.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&id=37968

 

[Cricket_god]

Lower class domestic comps, sure- hacks don't average close to 50 in Pura Cup. I'm fascinated to know why he doesn't "feel" like a top order batsman, he'd have close to the best technique in the team.

what i saw of him in india he is suspect against the ball coming in and he is heavy on his footwork specially the front foot shots in australia he might do well due to his backfoot play but in conditions where ball does a bit he will find it difficult .why would you not pick a proper batsman surely there is enough class out here Just because england won last ashes because of flintoff does not mean we should follow them. In stead of bits and pieces cricketers A team with 7 batman with gilly as a allrounder and 4 bowlers with 2 fast and 2spin combition would win us most matches. Its another case if there was a genuine allrounder in the making even the english persisted with flintoff because he was always a good bowler latter he developed his batting but watson cannot hold his place as a pure bowler or pure batsman.

 

[genghis_khan]

I would've liked to have seen Symonds get brought in over Clarke, i know it would've been a huge risk but the guy is a match-winner, moreso than Clarke imo and we can't forget the 05 Boxing Day test now can we?

besides i'm fairly confident Watson will play on Thursday.

 

[aussie1st]

Hes been given a number of tests to prove himself, he hasn't done that so the selectors have moved on. Yes on paper he sounds like the perfect player but he just hasn't transferred that into consistent performances.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I would've liked to have seen Symonds get brought in over Clarke, i know it would've been a huge risk but the guy is a match-winner, moreso than Clarke imo and we can't forget the 05 Boxing Day test now can we?

besides i'm fairly confident Watson will play on Thursday.

Clarke is a better selection that Symonds. Symonds, is a batting allrounder who slogs the ball in the air. It's Test Match cricket, don't get me wrong his a very valuable One-day player but we don't need anyone who can do that, we've got Gilchrist & a range of players who can do it. What if we get ourselves in a position like the 3rd Test in last years Ashes?

what i saw of him in india he is suspect against the ball coming in and he is heavy on his footwork specially the front foot shots in australia he might do well due to his backfoot play but in conditions where ball does a bit he will find it difficult .why would you not pick a proper batsman surely there is enough class out here Just because england won last ashes because of flintoff does not mean we should follow them. In stead of bits and pieces cricketers A team with 7 batman with gilly as a allrounder and 4 bowlers with 2 fast and 2spin combition would win us most matches. Its another case if there was a genuine allrounder in the making even the english persisted with flintoff because he was always a good bowler latter he developed his batting but watson cannot hold his place as a pure bowler or pure batsman.

Most teams, if not all teams have a wicketkeeper who can bat. If they can't bat then they don't make the squad. I wouldn't pick Gilchrist as a pure batsman in the Test Squad if he couldn't keep anyway so I wouldn't call him an allrounder.

I'm sure Watson could hold his place as a Test batsman, so I would call him a proper batsman. If you hadn't noticed unless you're a top quality batsman as in the best in the world, you will find that many batsman struggle in conditions which favours the bowlers a bit but in this case we're talking the 2006/07 Ashes which is being played in Australia. I'd imigane Watson would be used to these conditions as he is Australian.

Also, I heard one of the commentaitors once say that Flintoff was a batting allrounder who developed his bowling, not his batting.

 

[Cricket_god]

Clarke is a better selection that Symonds. Symonds, is a batting allrounder who slogs the ball in the air. It's Test Match cricket, don't get me wrong his a very valuable One-day player but we don't need anyone who can do that, we've got Gilchrist & a range of players who can do it. What if we get ourselves in a position like the 3rd Test in last years Ashes?



Most teams, if not all teams have a wicketkeeper who can bat. If they can't bat then they don't make the squad. I wouldn't pick Gilchrist as a pure batsman in the Test Squad if he couldn't keep anyway so I wouldn't call him an allrounder.

I'm sure Watson could hold his place as a Test batsman, so I would call him a proper batsman. If you hadn't noticed unless you're a top quality batsman as in the best in the world, you will find that many batsman struggle in conditions which favours the bowlers a bit but in this case we're talking the 2006/07 Ashes which is being played in Australia. I'd imigane Watson would be used to these conditions as he is Australian.

Also, I heard one of the commentaitors once say that Flintoff was a batting allrounder who developed his bowling, not his batting.

Do you mean watson is a better batsman than clarke and phil you got to be joking he would not hold down his place as a regular batsman in any good international side let alone australia.

flintoff developed his batting if you follow cricket then you would know it.Earlier He could not control himself with the bat and feared spinners .He has now developed in to a good batsman but a even better bowler which is natural.

 

[Kal-El]

Watson's on the news now saying he hopes to play and that he could be ok. I doubt he'll play. The test in 5 days away and hamstrings aren't something you take a chance with. If it goes again during the game not only are we a batsman down, we're a bowler down also. Plus it would leave him out of another test or two, I wouldn't take the risk.

 

[irottev]

Dizzy is bowling well. Wow, 2-21 off 15. Fantastic to see. I really think he deserves to make the side over Clark. Maybe not Tait or Johynson because they're younger guys, but definatly over Clark!!!

Tait has done well too, 3-58 off 19. A lot of no-balls but I think he has always had a wee problem with them. If he's bowling well it's a small price.

They want cover for Watson, bring on Dizzy! Better bowler and scores some handy runs with the tail.

 

[sifter132]

Do you mean watson is a better batsman than clarke and phil you got to be joking he would not hold down his place as a regular batsman in any good international side let alone australia.

flintoff developed his batting if you follow cricket then you would know it.Earlier He could not control himself with the bat and feared spinners .He has now developed in to a good batsman but a even better bowler which is natural.

I think Watson is a more consistent batter than Clarke, maybe not as flashy or as good looking (in a cricket way : ), but his results speak for themselves. Saying he has shown nothing at Test level is crap he's played 3 games, not everyone scores centuries on debut and since Clarke did that he has been pretty average. He bats high for Queensland and did so for Tasmania too (even when his back was stuffed and he couldn't bowl). He IS a batsman, just the media is trying to hype this "search for an all-rounder like Flintoff" rubbish so they've been focusing on his bowling and his potential allrounder status.

I just hope Ponting doesn't give him overs just because he can bowl a bit, he did that with Symonds - it seemed as though Ponting felt obligated to bowl Symonds just because he was selected as a batting all rounder. Just because Flintoff can bat at 6 and skittle teams doesn't mean we should expect Watson or Symonds to be able to, in fact they should only get the ball for 5 maybe 10 overs a day.

 

[evertonfan]

Delighted to see both Collingwood and Bell in the runs, Bell in particular. This will be a great confidence booster for the lad.

 

[BigCrickNan]

Good practise for england good to see bell get hundred. Gojo is probably marked down for all 5 tests because of his magical 14. As for the aussies i reckon tait should play he bowled well.

 

[angryangy]

Yes, little sign of an England assault directed at Tait so far. Test selection aside, it's surprising he's so far down the pecking order for the ODI team. He should get at least one game this summer, if for no other reason than seeing two 150+ kph bowlers open the attack.