Greater All-Rounder - Shane Watson Vs. Andrew Symonds

[rickyp]

i find it interesting to read that people say watson hasnt taken his chances. Could someone please do the honour in reproducing symonds pre 2003 world cup stats?

 

[brad352]

i find it interesting to read that people say watson hasnt taken his chances. Could someone please do the honour in reproducing symonds pre 2003 world cup stats?

                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St
career               161  4037 156   38.81   5  21 121  5/18   37.38  1  69  0
pre-WC                54   762  68*  23.81   0   2  44  4/11   32.13  0  23  0
Watson                57   856  79   30.57   0   6  58  4/39   32.72  0  13  0

 

[puddleduck]

So all Watson actually needs is a big hundred or two, a five-for and some decent hauls with the ball, and he's pretty much on a par stats wise with Symonds.

Still, Symonds has become one of the most complete ODI players ever to play the game, so Watson does have some way to go yet.

 

[rickyp]

thank you brad for proving my point

watson > symonds - at watsons current age

 

[Roofrom50]

Nah Shane Watson is the better player, at the age of what Watson is now, he has a future ahead. Watson is the better bowler and batter, but Symonds has the edge in the field

 

[rickyp]

watsons batting is so technically correct, its great to watch him. I just spent the last 2 hours watching his 55 against england and it was superb

 

[PhilD123]

I am finding it hard to believe how these two are compared at the moment. What has Watson proved in world cricket? I can't remember him blowing a team apart with bat or ball in ODI cricket. Whereas Symonds is a fixed member of the Australian ODI side and is starting to gradually improve in Tests. He contributes well with both bat and ball and with bat he can change a match on his own.

Watson can improve and make match-winning performances but at the moment its Symonds hands down.

 

[rickyp]

im only comparing them at the same time in their careers, which watson wins comfortably

 

[sifter132]

                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St
career               161  4037 156   38.81   5  21 121  5/18   37.38  1  69  0
pre-WC                54   762  68*  23.81   0   2  44  4/11   32.13  0  23  0
Watson                57   856  79   30.57   0   6  58  4/39   32.72  0  13  0

Those stats are great. It really shows the area of improvement in Symonds game since 2003, and it's certainly not his bowling - his average since 2003 with the ball is 40.38 and he is taking 0.72 wickets per match, both worse than pre-2003. But by making his big hundred against Pak in 2003, he showed he had the capability to make a big score, something he hadn't shown previously. He had been batting at #7 mainly, if I remember (behind Michael Bevan), and finishing the innings with big hits. He just needed an opportunity, and as fortune would have it Steve Waugh was dropped before the WC, and Bevan and Lehmann were in the squad, but not fit for game 1. World, meet Andrew Symonds.

This is the kind of development that is sure to happen with Watson. His batting will be more appreciated when he gets the opening gig, something which can't be too far away given the age of Hayden and Gilchrist. He has already shown the role suits him well and he's now made 3 50s in a row opening up.

Where he may outperform Symonds is with the ball in ODIs and in Test cricket. He is already a decent 5th bowler for ODIs, but unlike Symonds he has room to improve his bowling - as he already has decent pace. And the only thing that has stopped him winning a place in the Test side is injuries, Symonds was the 2nd choice this summer.

 

[irottev]

Age is irrelevent. The question is who is the greater allrounder. That means now. Did he say at this stage in their careers? Nope.

Symonds by miles.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I am finding it hard to believe how these two are compared at the moment. What has Watson proved in world cricket? I can't remember him blowing a team apart with bat or ball in ODI cricket. Whereas Symonds is a fixed member of the Australian ODI side and is starting to gradually improve in Tests. He contributes well with both bat and ball and with bat he can change a match on his own.

Watson can improve and make match-winning performances but at the moment its Symonds hands down.

Watson is a better batsman (which is Symonds stronger point) and his a better bowler aswell. Symonds is a way better fieldsmen but is that really enough to take over the batting & bowling department?

 

[Griffo]

There is no doubt that Watto has plenty of potential he is statistically a better first class player than andrew flintoff but Symonds made the the best aussie ODI side and watson didnt

 

[PhilD123]

Watson is a better batsman

Perhaps in Australian State Cricket, but I haven't seen him do anything special with the bat in ODI's.

 

[irottev]

Symonds is a far better batsman then Watson. Watson is the better bowler though. I mean Symonds is just a part timer.

 

[stereotype]

let me tell you when you judge someone as a better batsman or not....and when both players have played a few internationals like these guys have...first class statistics and first class averages of 50 or something are irrelevant....Tests and ODI's is where the best batsmen in the world are to be judged and in that case Symonds is so so so far ahead of Watson battingwise..

I think Watson is a better allrounder because i think he is more an all round talent...but Watson better than Symonds??? I would take a Symonds 100 off 80 balls over a technicially correct 55 from Watson anyday.....comparing the stats pre world cup 2003 is irrelevant as well because Symonds exploded after that...there is nothing to say Watson will jump like that...

Without Watson we do fine...Symonds gets injured and we bomb out of the CBS to a team that couldnt beat us all series, then we get smashed by the kiwi's...

the point im making in the first paragraph is that international cricket is a totally new arena to state or domestic cricket...

its like comparing Domestic or state cricket players by seeing what they did at grade level.....which isnt smart either...some smashing grade players simply can't cut the mustard at state level...its a whole new ball game..

Im not saying that Watson is horrible but i dont think Symonds is a proper direct comparison to Watson in terms of career path