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

[Ruckus]

Bloke who scores big in the first dig far more useful. Waugh and Sehwag to confirm.

Laxman, Gavaskar to deny haha

 

[Spark]

Whether it's first or second dig it is crucial IMO that if you have a good chance to get a big score (and reaching 50 constitutes that) you really make it count.

I mean, look at Bell's innings in this series. You can't honestly say his 50s have hurt us that badly - his hundred, however, has.

 

[TumTum]

I mean, look at Bell's innings in this series. You can't honestly say his 50s have hurt us that badly - his hundred, however, has.

It's because it's Bell and he got an Ashes 100

 

[Furball]

Whether it's first or second dig it is crucial IMO that if you have a good chance to get a big score (and reaching 50 constitutes that) you really make it count.

I mean, look at Bell's innings in this series. You can't honestly say his 50s have hurt us that badly - his hundred, however, has.

To be fair, his innings at Adelaide denied you the chance to bowl us out in a 4th innings

 

[Furball]

Assuming the match context etc. is kept the same, scoring two 50s is the same as scoring 100 then 0. The match total is exactly the same, how is it any different?

All this series has proved is that the value of even a single batsmen averaging highly across the series is immense. E.g. Hussey almost single-handedly put certain results in our favour - yes, he scored 100's along the way, but it wouldn't have mattered if all his scores were 75's (or whatever his series average was).



Which translates to: "Watson needs to average more". Which I think is pretty unreasonable given he is already averaging 50 or so.

No, this series has proven the value of cashing in in the first innings. Every England victory has followed the same pattern - Australia put up a sub par score, England rack up a massive total and bowl Australia out for an innings win.

A batsman's job is not to average 50. It is to score enough runs to allow the team to win matches. Watson might be averaging close to 50 for the series, but he has scored his runs in such a manner that Australia have been behind the 8ball more often than not.

 

[Furball]

Watson and Hayden atm have the same averages as openers. So everytime Hayden will be converting his starts and making 100's, the other times he will also be failing when Watson makes another 50.

Tbh if Watson can maintain an average 50 across his career as opener without scoring many tons, I would prefer that to a Hayden like opener who scores many high scores and many low scores. For a simple reason: the former would be protecting the lower order batsmen from the new ball more often than the latter.

Hayden's tons are more likely to put Australia into a position to kick on and win matches though. Protecting the middle order from the new ball isn't much good when they fold like a deck of cards to the older ball as well, particularly if you've not scored many runs.

50s won't win you Test matches.

 

[four_or_six]

Hayden's tons are more likely to put Australia into a position to kick on and win matches though. Protecting the middle order from the new ball isn't much good when they fold like a deck of cards to the older ball as well, particularly if you've not scored many runs.

50s won't win you Test matches.

Hayden said on TMS that the most important job of the opener was to see off the new ball.

 

[duffer]

If Watson can't convert his fifties when he's in good form then he's going to stink the place out when he is struggling a bit. Not doing it for me at all at the top of the order but there are other bigger weaknesses to sort out first though.

 

[Ruckus]

There is still a basic misunderstanding here. Hayden and Watson average the same as openers. Therefore if Hayden is making more century scores he is making more bad scores than Watson as well (check his batting graph for proof). If it were any other way, then Hayden's average would simply be higher than Watson's. All of what I just said is completely factual, so there is no point in even debating it.

So given all of that, any match winning advantage (or matches won) gained from a Hayden century will be lost when he gets out for a low score. The 50 and 50, or 100 and 0 example is relevent here again.

Assuming the context/way in which they score there runs are the same, neither are more likely to win more matches than the other.

As you mentioned, the rest of the Aus batsmen failed badly. That is not Watson's fault, and to suggest he needs to score very highly in the match to compensate for their failings is harsh.

 

[duffer]

Hayden had a far longer career and experienced far bigger peaks and troughs in form and luck. It's a comparison I can't take seriously at all right now.

 

[Ruckus]

There wasn't any intention to seriously compare Watson with Hayden. It was just used an example because they happen to average the same as openers while scoring in completely different ways.

 

[marc71178]

Yep, as much as cricket is a weirdly team-oriented-but-individual game, no-one truly bats in a bubble.

Twatto runs in one.

 

[duffer]

There wasn't any intention to seriously compare Watson with Hayden. It was just used an example because they happen to average the same as openers while scoring in completely different ways.

Well my point is I don't think he'll be able to maintain his stats over an extended career unless he can make big scores because the horrendous troughs that all batsmen go through will be brutal.

 

[vic_orthdox]

There is still a basic misunderstanding here. Hayden and Watson average the same as openers. Therefore if Hayden is making more century scores he is making more bad scores than Watson as well (check his batting graph for proof). If it were any other way, then Hayden's average would simply be higher than Watson's. All of what I just said is completely factual, so there is no point in even debating it.

So given all of that, any match winning advantage (or matches won) gained from a Hayden century will be lost when he gets out for a low score. The 50 and 50, or 100 and 0 example is relevent here again.

Assuming the context/way in which they score there runs are the same, neither are more likely to win more matches than the other.

As you mentioned, the rest of the Aus batsmen failed badly. That is not Watson's fault, and to suggest he needs to score very highly in the match to compensate for their failings is harsh.

The problem is that you're making all this prognostications on assumptions. You are assuming that all runs are worth the same, that the match situation is the same each time he comes out to bat, that all things are equal. They're not.

If I'd wanted to hear all that, I'd read a mathematics blog.

 

[Furball]

Hayden said on TMS that the most important job of the opener was to see off the new ball.

Agreed, and it's a job Watson does very well. However, once you've done that, you really ought to go on and score big runs, which Watson doesn't do enough of.

He's not the most glaring weakness in the Australian batting lineup, but at the same time you can't just say "oh he's averaging 50, therefore he's not a problem."

 

[Ruckus]

Well my point is I don't think he'll be able to maintain his stats over an extended career unless he can make big scores because the horrendous troughs that all batsmen go through will be brutal.

Na, some players are just consistent and don't really ever have form slumps. Chappell raised one example in the commentary a while back, Ian Redpath: HowSTAT! Player Batting Graph

 

[Redbacks]

Appears the arguments are 50-50 at best

 

[four_or_six]

I suppose at least Watto's played well enought that there's a debate about whether he's partly responsible for the collapses. There's surely no debate about certain other players.

 

[Furball]

The problem is that you're making all this prognostications on assumptions. You are assuming that all runs are worth the same, that the match situation is the same each time he comes out to bat, that all things are equal. They're not.

If I'd wanted to hear all that, I'd read a mathematics blog.

Yeah, the assumption about context is just nonsense. A look at Strauss' last 2 innings tells you that.

 

[Ruckus]

The problem is that you're making all this prognostications on assumptions. You are assuming that all runs are worth the same, that the match situation is the same each time he comes out to bat, that all things are equal. They're not.

If I'd wanted to hear all that, I'd read a mathematics blog.

That's why I have prefaced all of these points with something along the lines of "assuming the context/way in which they score there runs are the same". I have intentionally made that assumption, because otherwise it raises a completely seperate debate - the one you just raised. I had no intention of ever discussing the idea of runs in different match situations etc. The original argument was simply to do with whether or not 100 and 0 (or 0 and 100), is different to a 50 and 50, all things being equal.