***Official*** South Africa in Australia 2012

[Flem274*]

Ross Taylor 42
Jesse Ryder 40
David Warner 39
Brendon McCullum 35

You're not heading towards NZ territory, you're smack bang in it.

 

[straw man]

I think Warner will be able to do that. And if he doesn't, well then he should probably get the kick because anything much under 40 and we are heading towards NZ territory. And surely we can do better than that. Surely.

...somebody opening who can consistently score 40 off 100, rather than a quickfire hundred once a year.

How about a slowfire 30 off 100 once a year? Tim McIntosh doesn't have much on at the moment

 

[Flem274*]

He'll score centuries against **** teams too, so you won't drop a test to us next time we play you.

 

[Ruckus]

Ross Taylor 42
Jesse Ryder 40
David Warner 39
Brendon McCullum 35

You're not heading towards NZ territory, you're smack bang in it.

I've gotta admit, it's not as bad as I thought it would be.

Ps. I was actually only talking about openers.

 

[Flem274*]

I've gotta admit, it's not as bad as I thought it would be.

Ps. I was actually only talking about openers.

You've got a long way to go if you want to steal our crown for producing meh openers.

 

[Ruckus]

This is true. Would you guys let Peter Forrest open for you in tests if you had the chance? He averages 26 in ODI's, it's pretty impressive.

 

[Flem274*]

I dunno, but Wellington will take him, especially if he gets dropped by his state. He can be their 20th import.

 

[centurymaker]

michael clarke is married now? what?

 

[Spikey]

out with you. get out get out.

 

[AlanJLegend]

But Watson did that, and was massively criticized for it. Regardless of whether they score 50's or 100's, what we really need - and this is a pretty revolutionary thought here - is someone who can consistently average about 40. I think Warner will be able to do that. And if he doesn't, well then he should probably get the kick because anything much under 40 and we are heading towards NZ territory. And surely we can do better than that. Surely.

That is because Watson consistently scored 40 at a run-a-ball and threw his wicket away slogging rather than push on and get big scores. The role of an opener (in a traditional sense anyway) is to see off the new ball so that the middle order can come out and dominate. If you are going to get out for 40 you should be facing a good amount of balls in doing so.

If Warner is going to score 100 off 100 balls more often than not then that is fantastic. But if he is going to get out early or score a quickfire 20 then that does not benefit us whatsoever.

 

[Ruckus]

Na that's just not true re Watson. He is an attacking batsman, but he isn't Gilchrist. Most of his 50's have come at SRs around 50-70, which means the vast mjaority of time he has seen off the new ball. I am probably in a minority (maybe with you here) but I I didn't have much of a problem with Watson being a consistent 50 and out player. The only problem was he hasn't been able to maintain it. If he could have kept his average above 40 doing it, I wouldn't think much of it.

 

[Spark]

This is why we had a problem with Watson scoring 50, though (apart from the fact that it wasted good starts, exposed the middle order needlessly, failed to set up the innings in the way Clarke/Ponting would etc). Good form doesn't last forever and you have to make it count when you can.

 

[Spikey]

i mean, if you're playing on green seaming pitches with the ball swinging everywhere, 50 and out is totally fine. but 50 and out is piss poor in a match like 2nd Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Dec 3-7, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Spark]

Oh yeah that pissed me off so much. We were actually OK before that happened - not great, but OK.

 

[Ruckus]

This is why we had a problem with Watson scoring 50, though (apart from the fact that it wasted good starts, exposed the middle order needlessly, failed to set up the innings in the way Clarke/Ponting would etc). Good form doesn't last forever and you have to make it count when you can.

It's rare for a player to be able to consistently make medium range scores essentially over their entire carer, but it's not without precedent - e.g. Redpath. So yes, it was always unlikely Watson would have been able to maintain the amount of 50's he was pumping out, but not impossible.

Your other points just tie in with the whole 'what is better, a 50 and 50 or 100 and 0' debate, which frankly I think is just pretty meaningless, especially with regards to openers. As AlanJ said, a primary role of an opener is to see of the new ball. So if anything making two 50's in both innings is going to expose the middle order less than a 100 and a small score in the next innings.

 

[Spikey]

'a primary role of an opener is to see of the new ball' is a bit outdated imo. i mean, this ain't early 20th century england. besides which of course the opener is expected to see past the first 10 overs or whatever. everybatsman is expected to be able to see through the first 5-10 overs of his innings. but it seems only openers are allowed to turn their coat in once they get past that point. it's just as important for an opener to actually cash in big after getting past the toughest part of his innings nowadays, which of course was watson's big failing

 

[Top_Cat]

Oye, this again. The 50/50 vs 100/0 is a false dichotomy, FFS.

Also, it wasn't merely that Watson didn't go on with it, was how he got out too. You've opened and your team is 3 for <100 after a woeful, woeful start, if you nick out going for a big drive, you haven't done your job. It meant some **** had to come in at 4/100 (still far from safety) and do the spade work with the added pressure of knowing they were the last of the specialist bats but it also lets the oppo know that you're rattled. That gives them more confidence against the rest of the order which is a really crap advantage to hand them on top of your wicket.

 

[Top_Cat]

Think its about time these ideas were dismantled that runs scored at any time in the match mean the same (they don't), that scoring regular half-tons is perfectly fine (depends on team balance; Redpath could do it because he had heavy scorers after him in the order) and that every wicket is an independent event (they aren't; even professional cricketers aren't robots, they get rocked like we all do under the right circumstances).

 

[Spark]

It's just ****ing weak, and shows an appalling lack of match awareness. Horrible.

 

[Ruckus]

Oye, this again. The 50/50 vs 100/0 is a false dichotomy, FFS.

Also, it wasn't merely that Watson didn't go on with it, was how he got out too. You've opened and your team is 3 for <100 after a woeful, woeful start, if you nick out going for a big drive, you haven't done your job. It meant some **** had to come in at 4/100 (still far from safety) and do the spade work with the added pressure of knowing they were the last of the specialist bats but it also lets the oppo know that you're rattled. That gives them more confidence against the rest of the order which is a really crap advantage to hand them on top of your wicket.

It's not a false dichotomy because it doesn't even attempt to describe all of the possible outcomes - it's pretty clear it's just meant to be an example of two contrasting scoring patterns which sum up to the same total of runs (or 'average' across the match), and can be used to illustrate if each pattern has a different effect on a match as a whole.