***Official*** Pakistan in Australia 2016/17

[GotSpin]

The number of starts he squandered during his peak is just unforgivable. He was able to turn a cruising total of 2/100 into a sudden 4/100 very easily.

 

[GotSpin]

You can say it as many times as you want, it's not going to make it true

Watson might have gotten it tough for being a nancy, but there's no denying that his big knocks more or less came when it didn't matter. Yeah, if you froth over continuous 50s, awesome, but the bloke just ****ed up so many starts

 

[TheJediBrah]

Watson might have gotten it tough for being a nancy, but there's no denying that his big knocks more or less came when it didn't matter. Yeah, if you froth over continuous 50s, awesome, but the bloke just ****ed up so many starts

No one's going to argue with that. He should have averaged 45 with 15-20 tons

 

[Victor Ian]

So sad we had to trade in Symonds for being a bad boy.

 

[Shri]

Vettori was a better batsman than Watson like how Cook is a better batsman than Jayasuriya. Limited game but applied it to be of more use to his side. On batting skill alone, its Watson any day by a mile.

 

[Victor Ian]

Am I alone in my Symonds worship? I feel he should have played another couple of years. He had made his breakthrough and was a reliable #6 averaging about 50. Not far off Watson with the ball either. Symonds should have played 40 odd test and the same for Watson after Symonds retired. I am still really pissed about that whole weedgate thing. Not only did it take away two years of what would have been a great player, but it also lower Tendulkars colours for telling fibs. It is not Tendulkars fault, as I can understand how he HAD to support his teammate. It just really makes me dislike Harby, who I used to like too. Three players shot down with one unfortunate quip. I think this may be the most frustrating day in cricket for me.

 

[cnerd123]

Pakistan literally went from number 1 to losing 6 in a row, their worst ever losing streak in their entire history.


I love this team.

 

[Furball]

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.

In theory Watson is a better batsman but his actual batting output was inferior.

 

[91Jmay]

I was just thinking this tbh.

Flintoff made the most of his talent, performed very well when it mattered in memorable moments and as a result rated very highly in general. probably overrated.

Watson immensely talented, but largely squandered. Rarely performed when it mattered, or when he did people tend not to remember it as he's remembered more for his meme-ness. Massively underrated by most.

ftr their stats are very similar. Almost identical bowling averages, Watson's batting average about 4 runs higher IIRC.

Flintoff didn't make anywhere near the most of his talent. That is a ridiculous, ridiculous comment. Bloke by his own admission was an alcoholic, bulimic for parts of his career. He had the batting ability to average 38+ and bowling ability to average 28-30.

Watson is underrated Test batsmen though, probably similar to Flintoff in that regard if not better.

I was merely making the point that mentioning their names together is a sin.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Watson was worse at his role in the batting lineup (being a top order batsman) than Flintoff and Vettori were at theirs (lower-middle order attacker and lower order annoying gnat respectively), but he was a better batsman.

I reckon if you put Watson in Vettori or especially Flintoff's roles, he'd have done as well as them imo. But put Vettori/Flintoff in at the opening slot or at no.3/4, they'd struggle massively. Watson would've been good down at number 6 if given the licence to just go out and play like an ODI game. That's what he should've always batted. And I know he batted there a bit and didn't get too many runs, but given an extended run, his stats would've looked good imo.

 

[91Jmay]

Watson was worse at his role in the batting lineup (being a top order batsman) than Flintoff and Vettori were at theirs (lower-middle order attacker and lower order annoying gnat respectively), but he was a better batsman.

I reckon if you put Watson in Vettori or especially Flintoff's roles, he'd have done as well as them imo. But put Vettori/Flintoff in at the opening slot or at no.3/4, they'd struggle massively. Watson would've been good down at number 6 if given the licence to just go out and play like an ODI game. That's what he should've always batted. And I know he batted there a bit and didn't get too many runs, but given an extended run, his stats would've looked good imo.

If Watson had to bowl as much as Flintoff he'd literally have broken in half.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Talking strictly batting here.

 

[Victor Ian]

Well, strictly batting - Symonds was better. (sorry - I've grown sick of the Watson, Freddy, Vetori discussion - you're about to repeat the same cycle for the fifth time)

 

[91Jmay]

Talking strictly batting here.

Watson couldn't play 6 and strictly bat. No role in that Aussie team for him there, there would have been a better 6.

 

[Daemon]

Agent Nationaux, whenever you're ready to appear from under your blankets, please accept your new avatar -

 

[Gob]

Shane Watson was a batsman. Dan Vettori pretended to be a batsman.

 

[Noah]

In theory Watson is a better batsman but his actual batting output was inferior.

No, he was clearly better in output too. People can talk about how frustrating or disappointing his career was but it's only disappointing because he was genuinely good. You still have to make 50s and score a lot of runs before people start banging on about how you're underachieving.

As a batsman he scored a lot of runs and had a very good peak - much better than Flintoff and Vettori achieved. Let's not forget that for all the underachieving, he was still named Australia's best cricketer twice, with his batting being a key component of that. There was a 2 year period where he averaged 50+ in test cricket and was in Australia's top 3 batsmen - that's not something Vettori or Flintoff are close to achieving.

Whether you want to look at peak or career, Watson outperforms Vettori and Flintoff. The fact that he underachieved doesn't mean what he did achieve wasn't of a good quality.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I just cannot get away with Watson. Always found him extremely average, Fred was a player who took an entire test series (2005 Ashes) by the bollocks. Watson never did anything remotely approaching that.

 

[Bijed]

I just cannot get away with Watson. Always found him extremely average, Fred was a player who took an entire test series (2005 Ashes) by the bollocks. Watson never did anything remotely approaching that.

Quite possibly true (though I don't have a knowledge of Watson's entire test career), but in my opinion a player who is consistently decent is just as valuable to a team over a length of time as someone capable of great things but inconsistent (I realise that this does not apply perfectly to the Watson vs Flintoff debate). They may not look as valuable as some other team members from looking at any one scorecard, but I genuinely feel that players like that deserve more recognition than they get

 

[Daemon]

smh guys. next you're going to tell me bradman was better than tendulkar