Who is really to blame for Australia's batting collapses post 2007 in Ashes series?

[Ruckus]

Averages are not the be all and end all in cricket. a 50 is a job half done much like if a person painted half your house. I'll take 100 and 0 over 50 and 50 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

How are they any different at all? It doesn't matter how the runs are distributed across the innings, the match total is the same.

 

[TumTum]

Completely agree with DeusEx here. I have always said averages do tell the whole story (as long as they are played in the same conditions).

 

[benchmark00]

How are they any different at all? It doesn't matter how the runs are distributed across the innings, the match total is the same.

I'm definitely with TEC here... there's a big difference. In reality you're not always going to get a start, so when you do, you should kick on more often than not.

With that, not everyone in your team is going to get a start.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How are they any different at all? It doesn't matter how the runs are distributed across the innings, the match total is the same.

Getting out for 0 is excusable, people fail regularly, getting out early will happen. Getting out once you are the set batsman is letting your team down, your job once you get to that sort of score is to go on and put your team in a strong position. A 50 is not enough to put your team in a strong position in Test cricket, especially opening the batting.

 

[TumTum]

And when you get a 0 you are getting your team off to a very bad start.

 

[tooextracool]

No matter where you play, if you bat first in the game there is always going to be something in it for the bowlers in the first session. Sure, there may be a little less grass coverage in Australia compared to England, but it's certainly not easy by any measure. There's still seam movement and swing.

You quote 1/517 and 5/650... Both of these innings were played when the pitch was at its best, not in the first session on day one.

The new ball will always do something irrespective of how old the pitch is. The difference between Cook and Strauss and Watson and Katich this series has been that when that when Cook and Strauss got starts they have gone on and scored big runs. Accepting 50 is accepting mediocrity, there is absolutely no one in the history of cricket that has consistently managed to score 50 every game. Bottom line is that Watson is the man in form and him not converting is a problem because when hes out of form he's going to regret the time he didnt score the 100s that he should have.

 

[TumTum]

The new ball will always do something irrespective of how old the pitch is. The difference between Cook and Strauss and Watson and Katich this series has been that when that when Cook and Strauss got starts they have gone on and scored big runs. Accepting 50 is accepting mediocrity, there is absolutely no one in the history of cricket that has consistently managed to score 50 every game. Bottom line is that Watson is the man in form and him not converting is a problem because when hes out of form he's going to regret the time he didnt score the 100s that he should have.

By that theory Cook/Trott/KP will get out to a cheap score for every match this entire series and Aus will win the Ashes?

 

[benchmark00]

The new ball will always do something irrespective of how old the pitch is. The difference between Cook and Strauss and Watson and Katich this series has been that when that when Cook and Strauss got starts they have gone on and scored big runs. Accepting 50 is accepting mediocrity, there is absolutely no one in the history of cricket that has consistently managed to score 50 every game. Bottom line is that Watson is the man in form and him not converting is a problem because when hes out of form he's going to regret the time he didnt score the 100s that he should have.

I agree that it's frustrating that he hasn't gone on and made a hundred... but if Ponting, Clarke et. al. were all in form and making big runs, you'd be sitting here saying that Watson is doing a great job of taking the shine off the new ball.

As I said, it gets exasperated because the middle order has been fragile. If he was in the middle order and doing what he's doing I'd be more inclined to be very critical of him

 

[tooextracool]

How are they any different at all? It doesn't matter how the runs are distributed across the innings, the match total is the same.

It does make a difference. Scoring 600 in the first inning gives the team a huge psychological advantage, even if they score 100 in the 2nd inning. This is not equivalent to scoring 350 in the first and 2nd inning IMO.

 

[Ruckus]

I'm definitely with TEC here... there's a big difference. In reality you're not always going to get a start, so when you do, you should kick on more often than not.

With that, not everyone in your team is going to get a start.

For the sake of the argument, I'm assuming he does (because it more closely represents his pattern of scoring). In theory if he scored a 50 every innings, it is literally no different to scoring a 100 every second innings (and 0's in between).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Getting out for 0 is excusable, people fail regularly, getting out early will happen.

Just to clarify, it's not excusable when it gets to the levels of Marcus North.

 

[Ruckus]

Getting out for 0 is excusable, people fail regularly, getting out early will happen. Getting out once you are the set batsman is letting your team down, your job once you get to that sort of score is to go on and put your team in a strong position. A 50 is not enough to put your team in a strong position in Test cricket, especially opening the batting.

So you are saying getting a 100 and 0 is going to put your team in a stronger position than getting a 50 and 50, even though the match total is the same?

 

[TumTum]

It does make a difference. Scoring 600 in the first inning gives the team a huge psychological advantage, even if they score 100 in the 2nd inning. This is not equivalent to scoring 350 in the first and 2nd inning IMO.

Yeah, it would mean that you probably lost the match scoring 100 in the 2nd dig

 

[benchmark00]

Showing a real lack of cricket insight here.

 

[Ruckus]

It does make a difference. Scoring 600 in the first inning gives the team a huge psychological advantage, even if they score 100 in the 2nd inning. This is not equivalent to scoring 350 in the first and 2nd inning IMO.

That's pretty nonsense imo. If they are losing any 'psychological advantage' by only scoring 350 in the first innings, then they are also coming back much stronger in the second innings with another 350. No difference.

 

[TumTum]

Using England's scores this series and comparing them with Australia's doesn't make any sense because one side is in great form whilst the other is not.

 

[tooextracool]

I agree that it's frustrating that he hasn't gone on and made a hundred... but if Ponting, Clarke et. al. were all in form and making big runs, you'd be sitting here saying that Watson is doing a great job of taking the shine off the new ball.

As I said, it gets exasperated because the middle order has been fragile. If he was in the middle order and doing what he's doing I'd be more inclined to be very critical of him

Well I think everyone goes through patches of bad form to be honest and you arent going to have 7 batsmen in the side who are all in the form of their lives at the same time. To some extent its up to the ones in form to cover up the ones who are out of form. Hussey and Haddin have done that. Watson and Katich havent IMO.

 

[TumTum]

Well I think everyone goes through patches of bad form to be honest and you arent going to have 7 batsmen in the side who are all in the form of their lives at the same time. To some extent its up to the ones in form to cover up the ones who are out of form. Hussey and Haddin have done that. Watson and Katich havent IMO.

True, but Katich/Ponting/Clarke/North are quite a lot of people out of form. So it doesn't make sense comparing them against a team with hardly any players out of form.

 

[tooextracool]

True, but Katich/Ponting/Clarke/North are quite a lot of people out of form. So it doesn't make sense comparing them against a team with hardly any players out of form.

Sorry but North is rubbish. I refuse to acknowledge him.

 

[TumTum]

Anyways this thread is not for exploring why we don't post 500s more often, but why we collapse for cheap scores. And in that case Watson doesn't come anywhere near close as the problem.