ian harvey Vs Shane Watson

[vicpride29]

Yeah i think Watson has the age and all that but you have to remember what Australia needs in a team. Do they need a batsman or a bowler. IMO i think that the selectors are going to have a few headaches in the near future if Ian Harvey keeps up his good form. In the last 2 years of International Cricket he has averaged 27 with the ball.

 

[Eclipse]

Rik is probably right though at this stage England would probably be better off with Harvey.

Give Watson some time maybe 5- 6 years and he should be one of the very best allrounders in the world.

Or though I would not say England's batting line up in ODI cricket is "Strong" no offence but you dont have one player there who avrages over 40 with Knight gone. My observations would be solid with a tendancy to implode on itself and collapse.

 

[Rik]

But basically Watson has the edge in all departments, hes a faster bowler

When will people understand that "Faster" doesn't mean "Better"?

 

[Rik]

Rik is probably right though at this stage England would probably be better off with Harvey.

Give Watson some time maybe 5- 6 years and he should be one of the very best allrounders in the world.

Or though I would not say England's batting line up in ODI cricket is "Strong" no offence but you dont have one player there who avrages over 40 with Knight gone. My observations would be solid with a tendancy to implode on itself and collapse.

Not far off, England do collapse but Tresco is a very fine ODI batsman and when Collingwood and Flintoff come back we have a class finisher and a thrilling if inconsistant hitter. The weak link is the fact that we don't really have a number 3 batsman now that Vaughan probably will open. I think that Troughton will fill part of that problem, although I would have preferred to see him slot into an experianced batting lineup so he gets time to feel his feet. I cannot see how Key will benefit the side and McGrath can be anything, a top order bat or a middle order bat, we just don't know. This squad is quite a confusing one with very little strength in batting, the only experianced player in the top 5 will be Trescothick!

 

[V Reddy]

When will people understand that "Faster" doesn't mean "Better"?

He is not a fast bowler too. He is at best a fast medium. He doesn't cross the 136 mark often and so he can't be picked just b'coz he bowls faster than Harvey as he is not fast enough

 

[Rik]

He is not a fast bowler too. He is at best a fast medium. He doesn't cross the 136 mark often and so he can't be picked just b'coz he bowls faster than Harvey as he is not fast enough

Harvey has one of the best slower balls in world cricket, he is a very useful bowler and someone I would love to have in my team. He's medium pace but it doesn't matter, he changes his pace and bowls the ball in the right areas. What more do you need? I wish he would value his wicket rather than try and hit everything as if it is personal though.

 

[V Reddy]

Harvey has one of the best slower balls in world cricket, he is a very useful bowler and someone I would love to have in my team. He's medium pace but it doesn't matter, he changes his pace and bowls the ball in the right areas. What more do you need? I wish he would value his wicket rather than try and hit everything as if it is personal though.

I was replying to Bronco's comment that Watson is a faster bowler than Harvey but he is not fast enough to select ahead of Harvey based on his speed.

 

[Eclipse]

Harvey has one of the best slower balls in world cricket, he is a very useful bowler and someone I would love to have in my team. He's medium pace but it doesn't matter, he changes his pace and bowls the ball in the right areas. What more do you need? I wish he would value his wicket rather than try and hit everything as if it is personal though.

Thats pritty accurate If only he did not throw his wicket away.

I must add just as a side note Watson also has a great slower ball I remember Nick Knight had no idea about his slower balls on sevral occasions during the VB series.

As far as speed goes well Watson is going to have to compleatly re-invent his action he may end up slower or faster he will probably be quite a diffrent bowler.

 

[Simon]

Umm Watson has been recorded at 145 plus. He is the 4th fastest bowler behind, Lee, Williams and Gillespie anywhere in the Australian set up.
Watson also has a very good slower ball.
Look at both of their ODI records and its obvious sho is the better player.

 

[Eclipse]

That is true Watson has been clocked at 145 kph but the fastest delivery I have ever seen him bowl is 140.1 other than that he is usualy about 130-136kph.

 

[Bazza]

Watson:
ODIs:
23 15 7 288 77* 36.00 67.76 0 1 6 0
136.5 8 632 18 35.11 3-27 0 0 45.6 4.61
List-A:
44 35 10 734 96 29.36 62.78 0 4 10 0
257.5 9 1337 34 39.32 3-27 0 0 45.5 5.18

Harvey:
ODIs:
53 40 11 549 48* 18.93 86.72 0 0 13 0
413.1 22 1955 60 32.58 4-28 2 0 41.3 4.73
List-A
213 186 22 3974 92 24.23 0 19 62 0
1623.1 120 6922 332 20.84 5-19 16 7 29.3 4.26

On this I would pick Harvey. He is a better bowler and a capable number seven. For me it's more important in ODIs to have five bowlers than seven batsmen, especially considering the strength of Australia's top six!

Domestically Watson has 16 wickets in 21 games at 44. For me that's just not good enough, and he needs to perform for his state before he can be considered as a world class allrounder.

 

[Top_Cat]

I've been in the next net when Watson was clocked at 147km/h. Sure, that's different than in matches but more poignant is the fact that he showed up with some stress fractures in his back a week later.

He's had stress fractures at 12, 14, 16 and 18 years of age befor the current lot. The fact he's only been bowling just over 130km/h is more a reflection of that than anything else.

On current form and proven ability, I'd pick Harvey any day right now but Shane Watson is a potential superstar with the bat and ball. You'll all see soon enough. As someone who's seen him close up and trained with him, I find it hard to believe he won't be. Plus he's a heck of a nice guy.

 

[vicpride29]

Remember being fast is sometimes a disadvantage as they can hit you better and get more pace on it.

 

[marc71178]

I wouldn't personally like to see Harvey coming in at 7 for my side, even if it is behind a strong top order!

 

[Bazza]

I don't see what's wrong with Harvey at number seven. Especially considering you still have (theoretically) Lee and/or Bichel plus Hogg/Warne behind him.

I'd take that top eight or nine for England in a second.

TC - Nice guys don't always win. I'm sure all the English players are nice guys! :P

 

[Top_Cat]

TC - Nice guys don't always win. I'm sure all the English players are nice guys!

Heś a nice guy as well as being one heck of a cricketer. If he wasnt a nice guy (like Mike Clarke), well he still be merely an awesome player.

 

[marc71178]

Bazza, if a side loses early wickets, they need a solid batsman ready at 7 - Harvey would not inspire confidence in my side in that situation.

 

[age_master]

harvey is a crappo bat, he has showed that in far too many games recently - we may as well play another bowler...

 

[luckyeddie]

harvey is a crappo bat, he has showed that in far too many games recently - we may as well play another bowler...

What - like Harvey?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What - like Harvey?

The veteran makes a good point. Harvey is a very useful ODI bowler, especially when you have 4 other specalists and he will score good runs for you once every 5 or 6 innings whereas a specialist bowler may not ever score runs for you but once every 50 or so occasions.