LongHopCassidy said:
I think this is too good to let die - who here can prove Shane Watson will surpass Andrew Flintoff as an all-rounder?
Apologies for the proper workers for this not being up to scratch, but I'll have a go nonetheless.
Given that Shane Watson has played only 3 tests, we're go by first class stats, as Watson clearly hasn't had enough international experience for his stats to be properly counted.
Batting:
Watson: 82 innings, 3325 runs @ 44.93, HS 203*
Flintoff: 228 innings, 7559 runs @ 35.48, HS 167
So here we can see that Watson not only has the better average, but also the better top score, despite playing only 48 matches to Flintoff's 146. This is a clear indication that Watson has what it takes to become a world-class allrounder, able to secure his place in the team on both his batting and bowling. And the fact that this highest score is not out shows that Watson places a higher price on his wicket.
In fact, when this is explored with more depth, the shocking difference between the two men is exposed. Shane Watson has 8 not outs from his 82 innings, which comes out to 9.75% of his innings, or almost one in ten innings in which Watson is not out. Freddie, on the other hand, has a mere 15 not outs from his 228 innings, an appalling 6.58% of his innings.
Bowling
When the first class bowling averages are compared, Watson again comes up trumps here.
Watson: 48 matches, 86 wickets @ 31.39, SR 52.18, BB 6/32
Flitnoff: 146 matches, 252 wickets @ 31.65, SR 64.92, BB 5/24
Watson's bowling average is clearly superior to Flintoff's. Yes, it is only a difference of .26, but hey, would we still like Bradman so much if his average was 99.68? Additionally, Watson' has a better strike rate by over 12 balls, clearly showing that he is the more dangerous bowler, striking over 2 overs quicker than 'Mr Infredible.' The fact that Watson picks up 1.79 wickets per match further more supports the fact that Watson is a more dangerous bowler, with Freddie again coming in second, with only 1.73 wickets a match.
Watson has also showed his worth as a bowler, with one ten wicket haul under his belt. How many times has the great, wonderful and giant-slaying Flintoff taken? Zero. None, whatsoever. In all his 146 matches--that's three times as many as Watson-- Flintoff has never managed to take 10 wickets in a first class match. He also has taken only three five wicket hauls from these 146 matches, which equates to almost one five-for per every 49 matches. Watson, on the other hand, with two five-fors in his 48 matches, averages one per every 24 matches, which is a staggering two times better than Flintoff.
Clearly, all this is damning proof that Andrew Flintoff has nothing on the all-round ability of Shane Watson. Watson clearly has a bright test career ahead of him, especially as he is a full four years younger than England's wonderboy Flintoff. All I can say is, watch out England.
