James Hopes v/s Shane Watson

[iamdavid]

Watching Watson bat in last years 50 over world cup and more recently in the 20/20 stuff I really get the impression he's taken his batting to another level.
He always had the technique and the mentality to be an excellent longer form batsman, however he was so robotic and one-paced in his batting, and he relied so heavily on boundaries for his runs that I really didnt think he'd ever be much of a one day player.

However he's really developed alot more fluency and appears so much better at keeping the scoreboard moving nowdays, his batting is pretty much complete.
There is no doubt in my mind that he is more suited to the number 7 role in ODI's (taking only batting into account) than Hopes is, Watson has the power and the technical proficiency, whereas Hopes has some nice shots but not so much substance to his batting and as we've already seen he's a muppet against spin.
The bowling however is the only point of conjecture, Watson has looked alot better with the ball over the past few months to me (since his latest comeback), however he's still, despite his pace, very flat, predictable and hittable. Hopes on the other hand will never scare anybody but he does a job.

 

[Top_Cat]

Watching Watson bat in last years 50 over world cup and more recently in the 20/20 stuff I really get the impression he's taken his batting to another level.
He always had the technique and the mentality to be an excellent longer form batsman, however he was so robotic and one-paced in his batting, and he relied so heavily on boundaries for his runs that I really didnt think he'd ever be much of a one day player.

However he's really developed alot more fluency and appears so much better at keeping the scoreboard moving nowdays, his batting is pretty much complete.
There is no doubt in my mind that he is more suited to the number 7 role in ODI's (taking only batting into account) than Hopes is, Watson has the power and the technical proficiency, whereas Hopes has some nice shots but not so much substance to his batting and as we've already seen he's a muppet against spin.
The bowling however is the only point of conjecture, Watson has looked alot better with the ball over the past few months to me (since his latest comeback), however he's still, despite his pace, very flat, predictable and hittable. Hopes on the other hand will never scare anybody but he does a job.

Yes, I went there.

 

[howardj]

The problem with judging these two guys is that they never get a long enough extended run at the very top level - Watson because of injury; and Hopes because of being squeezed in and out of the side. On the available evidence, Watson is better in FC, while Hopes probably gets the lolies with his bowling in ODIs. Again, both have had only very limited, spasmodic opportunity with the bat for Australia in ODIs.

 

[Burgey]

someone is still sour about origin lol

Nah, I'm pretty happy Qld countered our selection of a lock at 5/8 by picking a full back as theirs. Wrong call imo.

 

[Arjun]

Having seen both, I'd say Watson was a problem case for the Australians- talented batsman, talented bowler, but regularly injured. We often saw him lose his place to the likes of Harvey, Symonds and now Hopes. However, the IPL has seen a fitter, highly productive Watson. He's more than just the average utility player- he's a leading run-scorer for the team, and also their leading wicket-taker. He's also very effective on the field, as is the case with almost all Australians. However, going by his injury record, let's just see how long it lasts.

We know Hopes will last a lot longer, but he isn't much good, so we don't see him get a match too often. One can guess why. His bowling is dreadful- often match-losing, given how many sixes are hit off him. That's set back his IPL team a few times. His batting is supposed to make up for that, but he's mostly a six-hitter. That's not a bad thing, but he won't last too long, and his problems against spin add up to problems. To settle with one of these two, I'd pick Watson, but have Hopes on the bench, just in case.

 

[anoop4real]

Watson is better

 

[Debris]

I picked Watson as I assume we are talking tests. One-days is a bit of a toss-up.

 

[chooka_nick]

Who is the better cricketer? Watson
Who is better suited to the role that the all-rounder has to occupy in the Australian ODI set-up at this time? Probably Hopes.

Summed it up quite well imo.

 

[Richard]

This poll is like comparing Flintoff to Irani or Cairns to Adams. The genuine and not to mention brilliant allrounder easily dispatches the bits and pieces player.

Ronnie Irani was very probably a better batsman than Flintoff; Cairns was better with bat and ball than Adams, and Watson might well end-up being so than Hopes.

Irani is a little too patronised of times. There have been many worse cricketers play for England.

 

[SJS]

Ronnie Irani was very probably a better batsman than Flintoff; Cairns was better with bat and ball than Adams, and Watson might well end-up being so than Hopes.

Irani is a little too patronised of times. There have been many worse cricketers play for England.

I am not so sure of that. Though I agree there have been worse cricketers to have played for England than Ronnie.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps I should rephrase: Irani was probably a better batsman in the longer form. Flintoff > Irani at one-day batting, certainly.