*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[NUFAN]

Virtually every innings of his career other than those couple in, what was it, 2007/08, where he tried opening and scored about 2 runs in 4 innings' or something.

But that was before when he was playing for a different state. Watson now plays for NSW, I would like to know why you think he's not a first choice opener for his state.

 

[Richard]

Are Philip Jaques, Phillip Hughes and David Warner not enough to show that neither Watson nor Katich should come anywhere near opening the batting for NSW?

 

[GIMH]

No bowler has ever taken decent hauls of wickets consistently just by bowling with good accuracy. Yes, Broad does sometimes have the ability to do that (also still sprays it plenty regularly enough), in fact always has done, as long as I can remember him. But it isn't a wicket-taking tool in itself - it's a run-restricting tool and one that enhances, greatly, the potency of any wicket-taking weapons a bowler possesses (as high pace does) but isn't a wicket-taking tool in itself.

If Broad gets his lines right, bowls a full length, and the ball swings, he's deadly, like we saw at The Oval. But there are several reasons why we've only seen that on tiny numbers of occasions - one he routinely bowls too short, two the ball doesn't swing that much outside England at the current time (only recently that it's started swinging properly again in England anyway), three he's still prone to spraying it.

In the Caribbean in 2009, for instance, Broad bowled generally decent areas on mostly flat decks and emerged with some amount of credit, given his extremely poor previous performances. But even against some pretty moderate batting, he hardly dominated. On more flat decks against really good batting like the Australians', I don't see him emerging with remotely good figures even if he bowls as he did in West Indies.

Your point about him spraying it is indeed valid, which is why I said when he gets his line and length right. I don't think he does need the ball swinging big time to do it. His philosophy is to put the ball on the spot and let it do its work itself - the result of this has been decent spells at Edgbaston, a great spell at The Oval and a great spell in South Africa. We'll see - but I don't see swing as the key ingredient personally.

 

[NUFAN]

Are Philip Jaques, Phillip Hughes and David Warner not enough to show that neither Watson nor Katich should come anywhere near opening the batting for NSW?

Do you honestly think that David Warner is a more viable opening batter in first class cricket compared with Shane Watson?

If NSW named a full strength side with Clarke, Watson and Katich in it, Jaques and Hughes is not a definite opening combination.

Also this just shows how versatile someone like Katich is,

 

[GotSpin]

No bowler has ever taken decent hauls of wickets consistently just by bowling with good accuracy

What?

Pigeon???

 

[Richard]

Have lost count of the number of times people (especially on CW) have said "the idea that McGrath did nothing but bowl accurately is plain ill-informed". He did so, so much more than that. Not all of it was immediately obvious to the casual eye, but when you look closely you can see it.

 

[Richard]

Do you honestly think that David Warner is a more viable opening batter in first class cricket compared with Shane Watson?

Probably not (has Warner still not played First-Class cricket? Hadn't last I looked), but Warner is an opener, Watson is not.

If NSW named a full strength side with Clarke, Watson and Katich in it, Jaques and Hughes is not a definite opening combination.

If it isn't, it's brainless selection. Jaques and Hughes are class players, one is a natural opener, the other (AFAIK) was manufactured into an opener 5-6 years ago with great success.

 

[Richard]

I don't think he does need the ball swinging big time to do it. His philosophy is to put the ball on the spot and let it do its work itself - the result of this has been decent spells at Edgbaston, a great spell at The Oval and a great spell in South Africa. We'll see - but I don't see swing as the key ingredient personally.

If you don't mean swing what do you mean by "the ball doing its work itself"? Balls don't swing\seam\cut through their own choice, y'know - the bowler has to do the right thing to cause it (though he can sometimes do so unintentionally).

Broad needs to make the ball do something, and I'm not convinced he has the skill and\or will get the right tools to do so in Australia.

 

[GotSpin]

Have lost count of the number of times people (especially on CW) have said "the idea that McGrath did nothing but bowl accurately is plain ill-informed". He did so, so much more than that. Not all of it was immediately obvious to the casual eye, but when you look closely you can see it.

I wasn't suggesting that he solely relied on accuracy to take wickets, but you've made a blanket statement concerning all bowlers, pitches and opposing batsmen, so I'm sure he would have had numerous hauls which were based upon accuracy.

 

[Richard]

Against decent batting, no bowler will ever take very many wickets purely by bowling accurately.

Of course, accuracy is an incredibly important component in good-quality bowling, but in itself it is not a weapon.

 

[NUFAN]

Probably not (has Warner still not played First-Class cricket? Hadn't last I looked), but Warner is an opener, Watson is not.

If it isn't, it's brainless selection. Jaques and Hughes are class players, one is a natural opener, the other (AFAIK) was manufactured into an opener 5-6 years ago with great success.

No he's not. Warner has batted all over the shop mostly in the middle order in the Futures League. He's batted in the middle order in his first class career to date too. He's seen as a middle order batsman more so than an opener at this stage.

If Jaques is a manufactured opener and Watson is a manufactured opener and Watson is in the Australian team and is performing well, why would it be brainless to select Watson as an opener for his state. Especially when you could have the likes of Katich, Clarke, Khawaja, Haddin and Smith batting from 3 to 7.

 

[four_or_six]

Would depend. If it was a load of short crap that both Strauss and Cook thrive on, I'd bank on both to have a decent shot at smashing it, like Watson did when the England bowlers bowled to his strength.

England may or may not be able to exploit the fact that neither of those who are likely to open for Australia in The Ashes (or at worst the first part of it) are proper openers. But if they can't do that, they're likely to be in BIG trouble against the middle-order, all of whom (yes, North included) are class players.

How can Katich not be classed as a proper opener? I thought we'd established that he'd averaged 50 over 25 tests, including away in England, South Africa and India. There's no way whether he's played more at 3 domestically is remotely relevant any more.

 

[GotSpin]

Against decent batting, no bowler will ever take very many wickets purely by bowling accurately.

Of course, accuracy is an incredibly important component in good-quality bowling, but in itself it is not a weapon.

Accuracy is a weapon though and would be a highly contributing factor to taking wickets. Obviously, there will always be mitigating circumstances but I think it's illogical to suggest that accuracy is not a weapon for quality bowlers. Though I can't be bothered going down memory lane looking for specific examples, there have been many times when bowlers have been forced to grind away through sheer accuracy in the search of wickets.

 

[DaRick]

Probably not (has Warner still not played First-Class cricket? Hadn't last I looked), but Warner is an opener, Watson is not.

He has. Not very much, though.

Nor should he be really mentioned in this thread.

 

[GotSpin]

He has. Not very much, though.

Nor should he be really mentioned in this thread.

Warner is too stupid to open the batting in first class

 

[Richard]

How can Katich not be classed as a proper opener? I thought we'd established that he'd averaged 50 over 25 tests, including away in England, South Africa and India. There's no way whether he's played more at 3 domestically is remotely relevant any more.

Katich is beginning to look like he could make a decent short-term Test opener, which was more than I thought was likely when he was first (and second) shoved into the role. Regardless of this, he was 33 before he had any lengthy stint as an opening batsman in serious cricket. That makes him a manufactured opener - however good, he is a manufactured opener and nothing else.

 

[Richard]

No he's not. Warner has batted all over the shop mostly in the middle order in the Futures League. He's batted in the middle order in his first class career to date too. He's seen as a middle order batsman more so than an opener at this stage.

If so, then fair enough - I don't think he's someone who's likely to have success as a First-Class opener. Jaques and Hughes, however, most certainly are - in fact, have. To prefer either\both of Watson and Katich to them just because they currently open for Australia would be madness.

If Jaques is a manufactured opener and Watson is a manufactured opener and Watson is in the Australian team and is performing well, why would it be brainless to select Watson as an opener for his state. Especially when you could have the likes of Katich, Clarke, Khawaja, Haddin and Smith batting from 3 to 7.

Because Jaques has established himself as worthy of playing for NSW. Watson has not yet done so - however much he established himself as worthy of playing for Qld.

Good a prospect as these Khawaja and Smith lads seems to be, both should not be playing if all of Jaques, Hughes, Katich, Clarke, Watson and (other) are available. Only one.

 

[Richard]

Accuracy is a weapon though and would be a highly contributing factor to taking wickets. Obviously, there will always be mitigating circumstances but I think it's illogical to suggest that accuracy is not a weapon for quality bowlers.

I think it's illogical to suggest it is. Accuracy is a factor which enhances the effectiveness of weapons such as swing, seam, cut, turn, uneven bounce (not that that's a weapon the bowler can control - it depends on the deck) and the like - the more deliveries you get in the right area and the more you make a batsman play the more regularly you're going to cash-in on any movement you get, and the straighter you bowl the more you're going to make a play-and-miss result in the stumps being hit.

Pace (reducing reaction time the quicker it goes) and height (extra bounce leading to a) uncertainty of batsman and b) extra carry) are the same.

Though I can't be bothered going down memory lane looking for specific examples, there have been many times when bowlers have been forced to grind away through sheer accuracy in the search of wickets.

Possibly they've realised they have almost no chance of actually taking wickets (if the deck is a runway and the ball is a poor-quality one that won't swing) and have resolved merely to try to concede as few runs as they can and hope for mistakes. But no bowler will ever just put the ball in the right place again and again and expect to get wickets. Top-class batsmen will just block that out easily.

 

[NUFAN]

If so, then fair enough - I don't think he's someone who's likely to have success as a First-Class opener. Jaques and Hughes, however, most certainly are - in fact, have. To prefer either\both of Watson and Katich to them just because they currently open for Australia would be madness.

Because Jaques has established himself as worthy of playing for NSW. Watson has not yet done so - however much he established himself as worthy of playing for Qld.

Good a prospect as these Khawaja and Smith lads seems to be, both should not be playing if all of Jaques, Hughes, Katich, Clarke, Watson and (other) are available. Only one.

I disagree, Jaques has been rather disappointing since his injury which cost him the opening spot for Australia.

If Jaques wants to play for a full strength NSW side, he would need to adapt in the middle order, most likely at 4.

1 Watson 2 Hughes 3 Katich 4 Jaques/Khawaja 5 Clarke 6 Haddin 7 Smith..

 

[Richard]

What would be the sense in manufacturing a middle-order batsman into an opener in order to manufacture a manufactured opener back into a middle-order batsman?

Why not just leave Jaques, who has been a successful manufactured opener for a good few years now, as he is?