-
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.
***Official*** Pakistan in Australia 2016/17
- Thread starter smash84
- Start date
Compton
International Debutant
Do I get to take out some weak spells in Watson's game? Or does that just work one way..?
Anyway, we can move decimal points over the place all you like. Push comes to shove, if my team needs a batsman, I pick Shane Watson.
Noah
School Boy/Girl Captain
Bringing up Watson's tonnes is always going to result in a poor reflection of how good his batting was, in the same way that Flintoff's 5-fors will always paint him as a far worse bowler.
Watson had a weird inability to convert hundreds but I don't think there should be any question that he was a superior batsman to Vettori or Flintoff.
Watson had a weird inability to convert hundreds but I don't think there should be any question that he was a superior batsman to Vettori or Flintoff.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Just looking at the batting, yeah Watson is a better bat. Bit I think looking purely at the stats flatters Watson a tad. It's tough to compare with the other two, as Watson's role in team was as a batsman who bowled so there was less tolerance for him being ****, leading to him being dropped more quickly when he went into decline. By comparison, Flintoff and Vettori's batting careers were marked by very long periods of decline where they were still being selected because of what their bowling brought to the equation. Vettori averaged something like 20 over his last 2 years of international cricket, yet his spot in the team was never in any question (well unless you're TH) before he broke down injured.
But yeah, on the whole a guy who averaged nearly 40 in the top 3 is going to trump a guy who averaged around 35 in the middle-lower order any day of the week. Though you can make a reasonable argument that Vettori was the better player of spin.
But yeah, on the whole a guy who averaged nearly 40 in the top 3 is going to trump a guy who averaged around 35 in the middle-lower order any day of the week. Though you can make a reasonable argument that Vettori was the better player of spin.
Last edited:
KRIS 148
School Boy/Girl Captain
If SOK can produce anywhere near similar results to Jadeja in India..then take him. Agar with his greater bounce and variation may just be a better bet imo.
thierry henry
International Coach
Gonna stick up for my decade-ago-self here...I certainly never suggested that (a) we had a better spinner than Vettori or (b) he wasn't a good test match bat.
He just wasn't a particularly good test match bowler and was overrated compared to his own teammates, was the gist of the old argument. It was partly an argument about "who should we say nice things about " rather than "who should be in the playing XI". To the extent that it was the latter, it was more of a general question about cricketing philosophy and the need to field a spinner even when he is unlikely to be effective in the conditions.
He just wasn't a particularly good test match bowler and was overrated compared to his own teammates, was the gist of the old argument. It was partly an argument about "who should we say nice things about " rather than "who should be in the playing XI". To the extent that it was the latter, it was more of a general question about cricketing philosophy and the need to field a spinner even when he is unlikely to be effective in the conditions.
KRIS 148
School Boy/Girl Captain
Perhaps in his prime he was. Not in his last few years when his bowling kept him in the equation. Even that was better suited to the short formats of the game.
thierry henry
International Coach
Oh and btw I rate Vettori's test match batting very highly from that era and am actually willing to entertain the Vettori v Flintoff v Watson arguments on that front....actually I think the gulf in numbers and output over the era where Vettori was a legit all-rounder makes it a bit of an insult to him to compare him to Freddy....
It's really hard to accurately rate Vettori as a batsman though because he is almost unique in test history- the (statistically) "batting" all-rounder who was useless when he batted higher than number 8. On one hand that tends to prove that he wasn't a "proper" batsman, on the other hand the uniqueness of his ability in that position actually enhances his achievements.
It's really hard to accurately rate Vettori as a batsman though because he is almost unique in test history- the (statistically) "batting" all-rounder who was useless when he batted higher than number 8. On one hand that tends to prove that he wasn't a "proper" batsman, on the other hand the uniqueness of his ability in that position actually enhances his achievements.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Nah, Vettori's record on the rare occasions when he batted at 6 and 7 was actually pretty decent. During the period when he was actually a batsmen (we'll call it 2005 through 2012), he averaged 35.17 when batting at 6 and 7 (this is also excluding any cheap runs that he scored v Zimbang). New Zealand really should've pushed him up the order a few years earlier than they did.
Last edited:
thierry henry
International Coach
Fair enough, I was going off memory there and didn't statsguru it. Fair to say though that he still batted at 8 the majority of the time and his record was at its best at that position (and probably way ahead of anyone else who batted so much at #8 in test history)?
thierry henry
International Coach
Flintoff>Vettori>Watson obviously, although Vettori closer to Flintoff than you might think
Yeah Vettori looks like and is a very tall spinner, I don't underestimate his height, but only a small few modern day players are taller than Flintoff's 194cms.
thierry henry
International Coach
Stats don't do him justice/he didn't do his perceived ability justice.
Flem274*
123/5
watson isn't fit to tie flintoff's boots as a batsman. watson should have, could have, would have but didn't.
watson was a far better bowler than he was a batsman
thierry henry
International Coach
uh....how?
In LO cricket Watson is/was an excellent batsman, so this doesn't stack up.
In test cricket he barely took 1 wicket per match so even if he was a tail-ender your claim would hardly stack up.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Two of watson's tons (the ones against England) were meaningless fluff too iirc.