-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Who is really to blame for Australia's batting collapses post 2007 in Ashes series?
- Thread starter TumTum
- Start date
Ruckus
International Captain
No it doesn't, both results are tied matches...*Bold= 1 team
1.
550
300
400
150
2.
550
400
150
300
Ruckus
International Captain
Haha beat me to it.Ties it technically.
TumTum
Banned
If you guys want to have this discussion again, just go to page 4, it has already been done.
You have to look at both sides of the story, some of you are only looking at the positives of scoring in the 1st dig, also assuming that if you fail in the 1st dig you will fail in the 2nd dig too.
Averages take into account both innings, so even if you fail in the 1st dig you will still be doing your team a great favor by scoring in the 2nd.
You have to look at both sides of the story, some of you are only looking at the positives of scoring in the 1st dig, also assuming that if you fail in the 1st dig you will fail in the 2nd dig too.
Averages take into account both innings, so even if you fail in the 1st dig you will still be doing your team a great favor by scoring in the 2nd.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
I'll stop discussing it when you stop being wrong.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, no kidding. Sorry to be blunt but I do wonder about some peoples' playing experience here. Walking off after your oppo scores 400 full of half tons feels far different to the same score if one or two guys smash you around the park.
Slightly related but runs are a poor measure of what actually went on in a cricket match and calculated averages are poor predictors, should be used as a guide only. To use an English example, Ian Botham's 149* at Headingly, from all accounts most of the Aussies walked off thinking "Lucky ****, we'll still win this." His 105 a couple of Tests later left them in awe/demoralised and is rated the far better knock. Less runs but one of them left a bigger impact on the opposition.
It's a pointless discussion to disregard context because it absolutely matters and often decides the course of a match before further runs scored or wickets taken do.
Slightly related but runs are a poor measure of what actually went on in a cricket match and calculated averages are poor predictors, should be used as a guide only. To use an English example, Ian Botham's 149* at Headingly, from all accounts most of the Aussies walked off thinking "Lucky ****, we'll still win this." His 105 a couple of Tests later left them in awe/demoralised and is rated the far better knock. Less runs but one of them left a bigger impact on the opposition.
It's a pointless discussion to disregard context because it absolutely matters and often decides the course of a match before further runs scored or wickets taken do.
Last edited:
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Couldn't be more true. Especially when it's 2 people at the top of the order that don't get out.
Ruckus
International Captain
Sigh...I agree that if two players get the bulk of those runs it will be more demoralising. But what about the other side of the coin (how many times has this been said now?)? What about in the second innings when those same two players get out for ducks or very low scores? You don't think that is going to let the opposition bowlers back into the game? Getting a batsmen out for a low score is a tremendous boost for the bowling side - hence why wickets so often fall in clumps.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Or, as England have done, if you score heavily enough in the first innings you don't have to bother batting again.
Can't stand all this Watto hate.
Can't remember the last series so won't mention it. England have bowled really well for the majority of this series. Ponting, Clarke, No 6 batsman, Hughes are all out of form. A batsmans job is to score runs - none of them did that in this series. Yes Watson could have tonned up and taken some pressure off but I don't think it would have mattered with the way Enlgand bowled and that group batted. In any event, you should rightfully expect your middle order to dig you out of a hole every now and then and they didn't.
Bottom line. Watson could improve his teams chances of favourable results with more hundreds. It does mean he is somehow responsible for someone else's failings. The middle order minus Huss need to score more runs. That's it. Doesn't need to be and isn't more complicated than that.
Can't remember the last series so won't mention it. England have bowled really well for the majority of this series. Ponting, Clarke, No 6 batsman, Hughes are all out of form. A batsmans job is to score runs - none of them did that in this series. Yes Watson could have tonned up and taken some pressure off but I don't think it would have mattered with the way Enlgand bowled and that group batted. In any event, you should rightfully expect your middle order to dig you out of a hole every now and then and they didn't.
Bottom line. Watson could improve his teams chances of favourable results with more hundreds. It does mean he is somehow responsible for someone else's failings. The middle order minus Huss need to score more runs. That's it. Doesn't need to be and isn't more complicated than that.
TumTum
Banned
Which would increase your average anyway.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Why the **** are you still blabbering on about averages?
TumTum
Banned
Because we are discussing 2 50s vs 100 & 0 (or 0 & 100 whatever).
The consistency is that you must be averaging 50. You will average higher if you make a big 1st innings score and don't bat again.
I agree he should make more hundreds and it would help Australia more than 30-50 does but won't I don't agree with is him getting blamed for collapses.
Watson is not responsible for Clarke waving his bat around in a different postcode to his body, or North having a bigger backlift than an swing and no amount of discussing mental effects of 100s vs 50s changes that.
And after all It's TEST cricket, if you can't handle not coming in at 2/200 mabye you're out of your league.
Last edited:
Ruckus
International Captain
Yep, but you could also assume the the 100 and 0 would simply be in seperate matches (in which case the argument is still exactly the same). I.e. yes the 100 would have a positive effect on the team blah blah, but the 0 in the next game would be equally negative.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
He's not to blame per se, but if you're racing to 50 and getting out, and the batting lineup happens to be prone to collapsing quite a lot, then a lot of the time it's either going to be your dismissal which triggers a collapse, or you're going to be exacerbating a collapse by getting out in the middle of a collapse.
Both openers were guilty of that at the Oval in 2009. Australia got off to a good start in reply to England, before Watson was dismissed, triggering a collapse. Katich exacerbated it by getting out in the middle of the collapse. If he'd hung around a bit, then the collapse-stopping batsman would have had a well set batsman at the other end with whom he could attempt a rebuild.
Watson, by and large is not to blame for Australia's batting lineup being so collapsy, but he's not helping his team either.
Last edited: