ian harvey Vs Shane Watson

[vicpride29]

I was just wondering who Australia will play when our summer comes around again and Watson has recoverd from injury. And to all the people from England who would you rather have play for your side?

 

[Simon]

im sure the english would like both in their side, but they cant have either.
Shane Watson is a better player for sure, not only that he is still developing. He will be major part of the aussie side for years to come.
And i see harvey as a bits player. nothing more than someone who comes in to cover injuries, i guess we are just blessed.

 

[Kenny]

I think Watson probably has the edge in terms of his batting, but I think Ian Harvey is a smarter bowler at this stage.
Of course Watson will improve in that area especially, and he certainly is the future.

 

[luckyeddie]

Harvey has so many tricks up his sleeve - and quite often they come off.

A bit like Ronnie Irani, only good.

I'm a big fan.

 

[Eclipse]

Well Watson has plenty of Talent and I really respect his work ethic for a young player.

I know alot of the senior aussie players have been extremly impressed with his dedication to improving himself and working hard on all fasets of his game.

I dont think Harvey has ever had that kind of dedication.

It will be interesting to see how Watson goes with re-modeling his action because no doubt it will be hard and he may take some time to regain form with the ball.

I tend to agree that Harvey is the better bowler but Watson is much better as a batsman & should injury preventing one day be a better bowler to.

 

[luckyeddie]

Oh, and welcome to the best cricket board in the world, vicpride29

 

[Rik]

I don't think we would want Watson, we've got enough "all-rounders" who can barely bowl...

I'd go for Harvey, sometimes he gets runs though not all the time, but he is a much more effective bowler and that's more important when your playing in a strong batting side.

 

[Tim]

The standard of all-rounders in Australia is probably their weakest link. Harvey has been good at bowling but has struggled with the bat, Symonds the reverse..infact both for Symonds up until recently where he's improved alot with the bat.
Watson looks to be good at both but hasn't really made his mark yet.

I'd stick with Watson, they've invested time in him & he's probably close to paying the ACB off.

 

[Kenny]

A bit like Ronnie Irani, only good.

I was gobsmacked that England persisted with Irani last (Australian) summer.........he had no impact, but was played again and again.

Must wear the right colour tie.

 

[Rik]

I was gobsmacked that England persisted with Irani last (Australian) summer.........he had no impact, but was played again and again.

Must wear the right colour tie.

Adam Hollioake and Hussain don't get on, so he picked Irani as if to say "there ain't no chance in hell your getting a game"

Irani played in all the games and did not deserve to play in any of them.

 

[Kenny]

Adam Hollioake and Hussain don't get on, so he picked Irani as if to say "there ain't no chance in hell your getting a game"

Irani played in all the games and did not deserve to play in any of them.

Agreed - like I said, Irani wore the right coloured tie!!
Hollioake is a vastly superior all - rounder, no question.

 

[marc71178]

I don't think we would want Watson, we've got enough "all-rounders" who can barely bowl...

Yet again you make a thinly veiled attack on someone who has not been selected as an all rounder, but a batsman who can fill in!

 

[Rik]

Yet again you make a thinly veiled attack on someone who has not been selected as an all rounder, but a batsman who can fill in!

Marc, get a life, your going insane. Unless you are both blind and stupid Watson IS an all-rounder and is considered as such by everyone in Australian cricket in every form of the game he plays.

 

[marc71178]

I was talking about your comment about English "all-rounders"

 

[Rik]

I was talking about your comment about English "all-rounders"

So why are you mentioning it in a thread about the Australian ALL-ROUNDER Shane Watson? :rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

So what then does:

I don't think we would want Watson, we've got enough "all-rounders" who can barely bowl...

mean then? Either it's having a go at Watson's bowling, or it's having a go these perceived all-rounders who have never attempted to proclaim they are all-rounders?

 

[Rik]

So what then does:



mean then? Either it's having a go at Watson's bowling, or it's having a go these perceived all-rounders who have never attempted to proclaim they are all-rounders?

Unless...oh sorry, you already answered that earlier...

It means that I'm having a nudge at Si for saying he would get into the England team, because if you look at his stats in ODIs they are not impressive in the bowling figures. Yet again you've gone all high and mighty and got the wrong idea and made yourself look the fool. Well done.

 

[Rich2001]

Oh come on boys, it's quite obvious that you will never agree on the subject and it's getting quite boring/annoying that this is about the 4th or 5th thread that has been turned into a England All-Rounders debate between you both, fair enough in the correct thread but lets leave the others to talk about their subject.

As they say, if you have nothing nice to say to each other, then don't say anything at all.

 

[Langeveldt]

The all rounders spot is obviously their weak link, IMHO they should not play an all rounder at all if it is going to be a burden...

If an extra batsman is needed bring in Clarke or Love....

If an extra bowler is needed, well take your pick, Bichel, noffke, Williams etc etc....

 

[Simon]

i think conditions need to be taken into account. Harvey has been very succesful in England and i believe should go on the enxt ashes tour if hes in form. But basically Watson has the edge in all departments, hes a faster bowler, better batsmen, better fielder and has age on his side.