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

[Ruckus]

because when you score 50 in each innings, you need someone to do it twice (once in each innings)?

When you score a 100 in one innings, you actually do the job in one innings. When you score a 50 in each you've basically done half the job in each innings and so someone else has to cover up for you in both innings.

Or alternatively (and more reasonably), when you score a 100 in one innings there is minimal pressure on the next batsmen, and when you score a 0 in the other innings there is a high amount of pressure on the next batsmen. Scoring two 50's doesn't mean the next batsmen feel they have to cover for your - it means the start is adequate and the amount of pressure is somewhere in between.

 

[Ruckus]

I'm not sure where in my post you have drawn that conclusion from. I said if you have batters with good conversion rates, it becomes irrelevant whether you score 0 + 100 or 100 + 0 because the odds are that someone out of the 7 will score a 100 every inning.

I think you are looking at the end average as the be all and end all. Averages are meant to be a guide, absolutely no one should look at an average and say hes averaging 50 therefore hes doing fine. You look at his performances first, Watson has barely made one match winning contribution, and this while playing on some of the flattest tracks in the world. If that makes you happy then this argument is not going to go anywhere.

Firstly, I already think it's irrelevent whether you score 0 + 100 or 100 + 0. Secondly, even if the rest of the batsmen don't have good conversion rates but still average the same, it is literally just as likely the totals for the match will the same. I don't think averages tell the whole picture, because they say nothing about how a player has faired against good bowlers, in pressure situations etc. How a players scores are distributed over an innings, however, makes no difference.

 

[Jono]

All this talk of conversion rates, yet Ponting received a huge amount of praise for reaching 70+ three times out of four innings in the recent Indian series, even though he didn't go on with it.

 

[vcs]

He was criticised (rightly) for his cheap dismissals in the first innings of the Tests (run-out and LBW to Raina are terrible ways to get out) but his knock in the 2nd innings at Bangalore was superb.

 

[tooextracool]

Or alternatively (and more reasonably), when you score a 100 in one innings there is minimal pressure on the next batsmen, and when you score a 0 in the other innings there is a high amount of pressure on the next batsmen. Scoring two 50's doesn't mean the next batsmen feel they have to cover for your - it means the start is adequate and the amount of pressure is somewhere in between.

Think the point is that adequate = average = ordinary = Watson's career thus far. If a guy isnt making match winning contributions then it is a problem irrespective of whether he is averaging 50. Ultimately cricket is about winning games, not chipping in with minor contributions.

 

[Ruckus]

All this talk of conversion rates, yet Ponting received a huge amount of praise for reaching 70+ three times out of four innings in the recent Indian series, even though he didn't go on with it.

Yeah he should have been given praise, because he had a good series average of 56 or something. But considering before that series he had been averaging poorly, one would like to think he should have been able to get somewhat better returns than that.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Since the topic of Ponting's performance in India is being discussed, imagine if Ponting had scored 150 in the first innings at Bangalore. Australia's first innings score in that scenario would have been at least around 575. And it is highly unlikely that they would have lost the test, even if he followed that up with a golden duck in the second innings.

 

[Uppercut]

Think the point is that adequate = average = ordinary = Watson's career thus far. If a guy isnt making match winning contributions then it is a problem irrespective of whether he is averaging 50. Ultimately cricket is about winning games, not chipping in with minor contributions.

But when you remember that in addition to making a fifty nearly every innings at the top he's a genuine wicket-taking threat and fields at first slip, questioning his contribution becomes a bit lol.

 

[stephen]

Yeah I don't think Watto is the problem.

Australia have regularly been getting good starts. The problem has been that we have been putting on like 80 runs for the last six wickets. That is largely because Hussey has been out of form and North is dire.

 

[Jono]

Think the point is that adequate = average = ordinary = Watson's career thus far. If a guy isnt making match winning contributions then it is a problem irrespective of whether he is averaging 50. Ultimately cricket is about winning games, not chipping in with minor contributions.

1st Test: Australia v Pakistan at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Match winning.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I don't think Watto is the problem.

Australia have regularly been getting good starts. The problem has been that we have been putting on like 80 runs for the last six wickets. That is largely because Hussey has been out of form and North is dire.

Yep very true. We've been putting on good starts, say, 0/80, then it goes to about 3/150, then if one of Katich or Clarke get out (the two batsmen usually in by now), boom, it all falls to pieces.

---

Jono defending Watson? Well I never.

But when you remember that in addition to making a fifty nearly every innings at the top he's a genuine wicket-taking threat and fields at first slip, questioning his contribution becomes a bit lol.

Please don't mention his slip fielding...

 

[Jono]

Jono defending Watson? Well I never.

Yeah I feel dirty.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah I feel dirty.

PORN

 

[GotSpin]

The sight of Ponting smiling is so arousing...and unfortunately, just not seen enough

 

[Ruckus]

The sight of Ponting smiling is so arousing...and unfortunately, just not seen enough

 

[GotSpin]

wtf did you post that for. Disgusting. I've reported your post as indecent

 

[GIMH]

Get used to it. That'll be your avatar for either a year or two come January.

 

[stephen]

Dirty Englishman has our trophy. He should learn to not touch other peoples' stuff.

 

[stephen]

Dirty Englishman has our trophy. He should learn to not touch other peoples' stuff.

 

[Burgey]

Dirty Englishman has our trophy. He should learn to not touch other peoples' stuff.

Englishman?










Oh no, don't say that!!! It's so old that line, you can't use it at all. Neither can Chimpy or the other crims/ convicts... Chortle ****ing chortle.

Always knew the Poms had pasty skin (for the most part, there are notable exceptions I wish to stress). Just never realised it was so thin.