Shane Watson

[toothpick]

What does everyone think of him? Personally, I don't rate him at all but some people think he is Australia's answer to an all-rounder? Your thoughts..

 

[ramkumar_gr]

What does everyone think of him? Personally, I don't rate him at all but some people think he is Australia's answer to an all-rounder? Your thoughts..

To call Watson an allrounder , we have to redefine what do we mean by all-round abilities. He should come nowhere near the Australian team.

 

[GotSpin]

His terrible, come back in a few years sonny

 

[andyc]

He seems to be a bit underrated on this forum. His batting is definitely good enough for a top 6 berth, and should be treated as a batsman who can bowl a bit, which is really just what Australia needs, since Symonds hardly gets heaps of overs.

 

[GotSpin]

I would rather a specialist batsmen replace symonds if need be, because its not like he bowls alot.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Watson is a class batsman, and improving all the time. With the ball he's got a long way to go, but there's a lot more potential there than people on this forum seem willing to give him credit for. The fact that he bowls at pace with a good action is enough to indicate that with a bit of work he could become a useful bowler at test level.

As far as I'm concerned, he deserves a solid run in the team, similar to what Symonds has recieved. Give him 10 tests, and if he's not performing them drop him by all means, but writing the guy off given the opportunities he has had is absurd. He's a top order batsman who has been put into the ODI side batting at 8 and bowling first change, and when he's been given solid opportunities he's usually shown a bit of ability. If nothing else he's a much better option at test level than Symonds.

Add to that the fact that every time he gets a decent run going in ODIs (2002/03 VB series, 2005 Super Series etc) he gets injured, and he hasn't really had a chance to show his ability.

 

[Natman20]

I pressume everyone is talking about tests as Andrew Symmonds should be in ODIs as he is a great player however I see his bowling as unpenetrable in Tests and easy to pick off for a lot of players. He is definately an ODI player. Now back to Shane Watson...

 

[Ikki]

Watson, solid batsman. In fact, when it comes to test just on that alone I'd drop Symonds and bring in Watson. He can bowl at 140k's and has a decent action. Will take wickets, maybe not Clark figures, but he will do well. If he actually works on it, and if he shows the promise his potential seems to show, he'd hit Flintoff tier.

 

[alternative]

IMO Symonds shouldn't be in the aussie test team, should be replaced by Clarke.. and as for the all round abilites, i would rate Symonds higher over Watson, as Symonds can change the game in a matter of a session, whereas Watson probably is not in that league as of yet..

Symonds Bowling ability can definately be matched with Watson, if not better with his variety of offspin and medium pace.. so IMO Watson is no where near Symonds or anyone in the team.. he might be in couple of years down the track.. but definately not now..

 

[Pothas]

I was very impressed by Watson for his short time at hampshire, he scored a couple of very good centuries and bowled really well in the C&G Final last year. This is obviously just county level but he was far more impressive than either Katich or Clarke were at the Rose Bowl.

What do people think of Thornley on this forum? He is hampshires second overseas player this year and i dont know much about him apart from he played for Surrey a bit last year

 

[andyc]

What do people think of Thornley on this forum? He is hampshires second overseas player this year and i dont know much about him apart from he played for Surrey a bit last year

Decent batsman from what I saw during the season here, and can tie up an end with the ball.

Edit: Way to quote the wrong post...

 

[Pedro Delgado]

As far as I'm concerned, he deserves a solid run in the team, similar to what Symonds has recieved. Give him 10 tests, and if he's not performing them drop him by all means, but writing the guy off given the opportunities he has had is absurd.

I concur with this.

On a tangent, I'm still wondering how or why Symonds has failed so miserably, again. I didn't much of the SA series (thank you Sky and your dodgy equipment) what's up with him? He seems to have all the talent in the world in the ODI format.

 

[Dasa]

I concur with this.

On a tangent, I'm still wondering how or why Symonds has failed so miserably, again. I didn't much of the SA series (thank you Sky and your dodgy equipment) what's up with him? He seems to have all the talent in the world in the ODI format.

He only has (or seems to have) two gears - block everything or smash everything.

 

[Jono]

To put it simply, even taking into account Symonds and Watson's apparent all-round abilities, at the moment:

Clarke > Watson > Symonds.

Hence why Clarke should come straight into the team ahead of Symonds IMO, and Watson can get a go when Martyn hangs them up. But for now, and this is including the Ashes, Clarke in, Symonds gone for good, Watson to wait a while. Then Watson can slot in at 4 or 5 (I reckon Hussey can bat 4 when Martyn goes, or even now but Martyn is fine for now) with Clarke at 6.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think it sorta hinges on what the Oz selectors are looking for. If it's solely a top-6 batter than there's really no argument: Clarke (or Hodge or Jacques) ahead of either Watson or Symonds.

It seems to me tho as if Watson's elevation was inspired by envious glances at Sir Frederick, now he's fit it seems almost perverse to stick with Symonds who doesn't seem to be able to adapt his batting to the longer format and whose bowling is barely above the useful part-timer level in tests. At nearly 31 he's unlikely to improve a great deal either. Watson's bowling has far more potential (even if it needs time to develop, working with Cooley could be a boon for him) & his batting def has top 6 potential. No lower than 4 for me tho, he seems the type of batter who needs time to construct an innings rather than one who hits the ground running.

 

[howardj]

To put it simply, even taking into account Symonds and Watson's apparent all-round abilities, at the moment:

Clarke > Watson > Symonds.

Hence why Clarke should come straight into the team ahead of Symonds IMO, and Watson can get a go when Martyn hangs them up. But for now, and this is including the Ashes, Clarke in, Symonds gone for good, Watson to wait a while. .

Yep. The time for giving Watson an extended Symonds-like run in the Test team, is post-Ashes. With the Ashes, the selectors must be focussed on winning - not blooding players. To that end, Clarke (who, let's not forget, averaged the same as Ricky Ponting in the last Ashes series) in at six for Symonds, and Watson to bake in the Pura Cup oven for another summer.

 

[Prince EWS]

This thread was specifically designed to have a dig at me. It's turned out to be a decent discussion though, and all's well that ends well I guess.

As for Watson, it's no secret I rate him pretty highly. Very good batting technique, especially against the seamers and a good strong bowling action as well. He just needs to be a little more patient with the ball and learn to concetrate completely at all times with the bat and he'll certainly be test class. If he's not a better test player than Andrew Symonds, I'm James Franklin.

 

[chaminda_00]

Watson just needs to learn to do something with the ball. ATM he just bowls up and down which is not enough for Test Cricket. You got to be able to swing or seam, which he really doesn't do on a regular bases. Personally i would try him in the Test side as batsmen who can bowl. Lets not forget he got a better FC average then Clarke and Symonds. I think in few years time when Warne and McGarth retire Australia are going to need five bowlers, but by that time Watson would probably make the side as front line batsmen anyway. Really in terms of young batsmen coming through only Clarke, Crosgrove and Jaques are better.

 

[tooextracool]

He only has (or seems to have) two gears - block everything or smash everything.

he also doesnt have the required technique to succeed consistently in test match cricket

 

[luckyeddie]

There's a coincidence.

Remove one letter from the thread starter's name and you've got the description of a CW legend.