*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Richard]

how does Hogg have 112 wickets of 95 games

Because bad bowlers sometimes get wickets - it's one-day cricket, no-one goes completely wicketless. And that's 87 wickets in 79 games, at a decidely middling economy-rate and average.

how did watson managed to have an average of under 20 with the ball through the last year.

Because even bad bowlers get the odd good period sometimes. It wasn't the last year - it was 9 games. And in his previous 34 games his figures were 221-1085-21 (that's 4.91-an-over at 51.67). Which is decidedly poor.

 

[Goughy]

How can you even say watson can bowl only a bit, i mean he was in tremendous form last year with the ball. Even yesterday he looked the best of the aussie bowlers, IMO he is one of the better 2nd change bowlers in world cricket atm, and his bowling and white's bowling are not in the same class for sure.

Haha, I wouldn't quite go that far, but he's obviously more than just a batsman who bowls in ODIs. It's been rare in recent times that he doesn't take wickets, and he usually bowls most of his full 10. And really, for a guy who also averages 30 odd with the bat his bowling is quite good. There's probably only Flintoff and Kallis who are clearly better bowlers in that bracket atm, with Gayle and Shoaib Malik also up there.

Im not trying to rag on Watson as he looks like a decent player with a good future. However, I just want to address a couple of points.

1) He averages under 30 with the bat (only just, but certainly not 30 odd). Pedantic I know but still true. However, my main point is below

2) The problem putting Watson in with the company described above is that the others would all make the team for their primary skill and their second is a huge bonus. Flintoff- Bowling, Gayle- Batting, Kallis- Batting, Malik- Batting.

Would Watson make the team on the strength purely of one of his skills? Would he make it as a specialist batsman or bowler like the others would? If he could do it as a batsman then that is fair enough and his bowling would then be a great addition. Im just concerned that Aus is weakening both their batting and bowling by playing a guy that isnt the best available player. Aus may be better served by getting their best players in their XI rather than trying to double up with a guy like Watson.

 

[open365]

Good point Goughy.

I think Australia's depth and quality of back up players is second to none, they have international standard(In my opinion) cover in every position.

Sure the players that are coming in aren't exactly McGrah or Warne status but it's no use comparing every aussie player to the great he is replacing.

A lot of countries have a a problem finding 11 players of international quality, i don't think that's the case with Australia, due to a great domestic structure and i'm assuming coaching and development centres for young talent, they will always have enough good players to make competition for places.

 

[The Argonaut]

The reason why Watson's ODI average is so low is that they have tried him mainly batting at 7. He has to score quick runs at the end and more often than not score a quick 20 and gets out going for the big one. The same could be said about Symonds years ago. They need to bump him up the order and forget about his bowling. He made a good fist of opening not long ago and would be a better long term option than Hayden.

Watson's bowling is not quite good enough. If he's to persist he needs to get faster as he bowls at a good hit me pace or develop more variety through seem movement. Sure he will have good days but more often than not he will leak runs.

 

[Prince EWS]

Because bad bowlers sometimes get wickets - it's one-day cricket, no-one goes completely wicketless. And that's 87 wickets in 79 games, at a decidely middling economy-rate and average.

He took wickets in 22 games running or something though. That's pretty consistent.

Because even bad bowlers get the odd good period sometimes. It wasn't the last year - it was 9 games. And in his previous 34 games his figures were 221-1085-21 (that's 4.91-an-over at 51.67). Which is decidedly poor.

There's no denying that his bowling was quite average early in his career - but even if you forget the figures which many say flatter him, it's quite obvious to see that he's three times the bowler today. He has picked up a yard of pace - going from a 130-135km/h bowler to a 135-140km/h bowler - something that might not seem much, but is so important given his complete lack of swing. Most importantly though, his accuracy has improved tenfold and he is a much more thinking bowler.

Watson's place in the team isn't something I'd expect Richard to understand - it's not based on figures, on List A domination, or good economy rates - it's based purely on the fact that anyone who watches him play can tell there is something there... he has a batting technique that specialist most batsmen in world cricket wouldn't be even close to equalling and he bowls with a good, strong action at good pace with every-improving accuracy and wicket-taking naus.

 

[Prince EWS]

Im not trying to rag on Watson as he looks like a decent player with a good future. However, I just want to address a couple of points.

1) He averages under 30 with the bat (only just, but certainly not 30 odd). Pedantic I know but still true. However, my main point is below

2) The problem putting Watson in with the company described above is that the others would all make the team for their primary skill and their second is a huge bonus. Flintoff- Bowling, Gayle- Batting, Kallis- Batting, Malik- Batting.

Would Watson make the team on the strength purely of one of his skills? Would he make it as a specialist batsman or bowler like the others would? If he could do it as a batsman then that is fair enough and his bowling would then be a great addition. Im just concerned that Aus is weakening both their batting and bowling by playing a guy that isnt the best available player. Aus may be better served by getting their best players in their XI rather than trying to double up with a guy like Watson.

The idea is that Watson should theoretically make the team based on his batting. Now, there are probably better candidates at this stage - he wouldn't make the team if he couldn't bowl. But Watson's batting is good enough for international cricket in both forms as a specialist bat - he's a better batsman than a lot going around in other sides at the moment. There are probably better batsmen in Australia - at least at one day level - but if you have a guy who averages 50.75 in domestic First Class cricket and 34.83 in domestic List A cricket with the bat who can bowl accurately at 140km/hr and is ever-improving at this discipline, you have to pick him based on the fact that if he gets settled, he will absolutely brilliant for the team.

Really though, the selectors have to wake up the fact that he's next to useless at #7. Australia have several players in their batting order who are capable of being just as effective at #6 and #7 as they are higher up but they are being held up higher because they "deserve it." Well really, who deserves what should be irrelevant to what is best for the team, and Watson batting in the top 4 is certainly that as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

He took wickets in 22 games running or something though. That's pretty consistent.

Taking 1-51 is hardly a great achievement. Hogg has certainly not been a top-class bowler.

There's no denying that his bowling was quite average early in his career - but even if you forget the figures which many say flatter him, it's quite obvious to see that he's three times the bowler today. He has picked up a yard of pace - going from a 130-135km/h bowler to a 135-140km/h bowler - something that might not seem much, but is so important given his complete lack of swing. Most importantly though, his accuracy has improved tenfold and he is a much more thinking bowler.

Watson's place in the team isn't something I'd expect Richard to understand - it's not based on figures, on List A domination, or good economy rates - it's based purely on the fact that anyone who watches him play can tell there is something there... he has a batting technique that specialist most batsmen in world cricket wouldn't be even close to equalling and he bowls with a good, strong action at good pace with every-improving accuracy and wicket-taking naus.

They can think there's something there... that's all. And for a long, long time... there was nothing. Yes, he's undoubtedly better now than he was, but such changes (the increase in pace, the slight improvement in accuracy) did not coincide with the improvement in figures. He continued to be poor for a while after making said improvements.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Watson has what it takes to be an excellent Test batsman and quite possibly a useful bowler - but in ODIs he's certainly no top player. He's had the odd few moments recently, starting with that 4-for. Such platitudes (good technique, pace in bowling) are not the most important things in ODIs. And from what I've seen, his wicket-taking nous is certainly not improved, any more than his accuracy. He's got a few wickets recently, but mostly that's been a consequence of poor batting combined with the tightness of the likes of McGrath and Bracken.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, he's undoubtedly better now than he was, but such changes (the increase in pace, the slight improvement in accuracy) did not coincide with the improvement in figures. He continued to be poor for a while after making said improvements.

I'd like to see some statistics on that because I'm sure his figures have improved since said change. He picked up extra pace from the World XI series onwards (which I know you won't include, but go from then on, if you will), and he improved his accuracy after the Ashes.

Taking 1-51 is hardly a great achievement.

To be perfectly frank, it's not the worst return if both sides score 290, which has happened a fair bit recently in matches Watson has played.

And from what I've seen, his wicket-taking nous is certainly not improved, any more than his accuracy. He's got a few wickets recently, but mostly that's been a consequence of poor batting combined with the tightness of the likes of McGrath and Bracken.

It would have been quite easy for Watson to just get smashed around and not take any wickets if he was as bad a bowler as many make out - the tightness of Bracken and McGrath have resulted in batsmen going after Watson yes, but since the Ashes series, they have by and large failed to do so and have just been dismissed instead - surely a sign of good one day bowling if ever I've seen one. He's a smarter bowler these days - more variation in how wide he comes on the crease, increased amounts of slower bowls and genuine evidence that he's thinking when he bowls rather than just trying to biff it down there.

 

[Richard]

I'd like to see some statistics on that because I'm sure his figures have improved since said change. He picked up extra pace from the World XI series onwards (which I know you won't include, but go from then on, if you will), and he improved his accuracy after the Ashes.

Personally I was thinking 2004\05, that was when I noticed the sea-change (and when many people seemed to be commenting on it). He was certainly bowling at 140k+ that season.

To be perfectly frank, it's not the worst return if both sides score 290, which has happened a fair bit recently in matches Watson has played.

Hogg?

It's not the worst but it's hardly an achievement that can form part of a magnficent chain.

It would have been quite easy for Watson to just get smashed around and not take any wickets if he was as bad a bowler as many make out - the tightness of Bracken and McGrath have resulted in batsmen going after Watson yes, but since the Ashes series, they have by and large failed to do so and have just been dismissed instead - surely a sign of good one day bowling if ever I've seen one. He's a smarter bowler these days - more variation in how wide he comes on the crease, increased amounts of slower bowls and genuine evidence that he's thinking when he bowls rather than just trying to biff it down there.

All well and good but still many of the wickets have been taken with genuine poor deliveries, or in spite of being expensive. And there's no denying that his economy-rate has not made any significant improvement.

 

[Goughy]

Watson's place in the team isn't something I'd expect Richard to understand - it's not based on figures, on List A domination, or good economy rates - it's based purely on the fact that anyone who watches him play can tell there is something there....

. There are probably better batsmen in Australia - at least at one day level - but if you have a guy who averages 50.75 in domestic First Class cricket and 34.83 in domestic List A cricket with the bat .... you have to pick him based on the fact that if he gets settled, he will absolutely brilliant for the team.

hmm, which is it. Nothing to do with figures or a lot to do with averages?

I havent quoted the part I referencing now. You mention that there are better batsmen then Watson in Aus but that he would make it into a lot of other International teams. I dont really see the relevance. He plays for Australia and that is his benchmark, not Bangladesh, England etc. If there are better OD batsmen in Australia then they should play. However, if Watson can make it as a specialist batsman or bowler then he should play and his other discipline is a massive bonus.

I never quite understand the logic of picking someone when there is some one better. Especially in this case where he cant bat at #7. Generally guys that do both, but not good enough to make the team on either, fill the late middle order positions with the specialist batsmen batting higher. Watson batting high means that either a specialist batsman must drop lower in the order or an extra bowler can be played. Neither makes much sense, as why should a better player drop down to cover Watsons failings with late middle order batting and if an extra bowler is played then Watson isnt required to bowl that much and is playing as primarily a batsmen when there are others better.

If he cant bat at 7 then he shouldnt play unless he is one of the best six batsmen Aus have available to them.

 

[Prince EWS]

hmm, which is it. Nothing to do with figures or a lot to do with averages?

I was talking about his international figures originally. His domestic averages obviously have a lot to do with it.

If he cant bat at 7 then he shouldnt play unless he is one of the best six batsmen Aus have available to them.

And I don't quite understand that logic, really. There's no law to say your best six batsmen must bat in the top 6... the batting order should be determined by what is best for the team, not who the best batsmen are.

If there are better OD batsmen in Australia then they should play. However, if Watson can make it as a specialist batsman or bowler then he should play and his other discipline is a massive bonus.

I never quite understand the logic of picking someone when there is some one better.

There are better batsmen, but there are no better players in general. His batting - when in the top order - is ODI class, and his bowling is almost ODI class as well - and it is ever-improving.

 

[Prince EWS]

why should a better player drop down to cover Watsons failings with late middle order batting

Because it's the best option for the team. Clarke and Hussey have done just as well at 6 and 7 as they have at 4 and 6 - moving them down there is not detrimental at all to their batting, while it benefits the team a great deal by getting much more use out of Watson's batting. Comparative advantage theory, really.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And I don't quite understand that logic, really. There's no law to say your best six batsmen must bat in the top 6... the batting order should be determined by what is best for the team, not who the best batsmen are.

It's limited overs cricket. By it's nature, you want your best batsmen facing the majority of deliveries.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's limited overs cricket. By it's nature, you want your best batsmen facing the majority of deliveries.

That would only apply if Watson was going to go out there and waste deliveries. That's hardly the case considering his strike rate in the top order is over 85.

That theory has been over-used really - you don't need your best batsmen facing the majority of the deliveries if they score more slowly than your other batsmen who then don't get a bat - or, as is the case with Watson, players bat much better in certain positions while others don't seem to be affected.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't really see why Watson has to make the team as a batsman alone. I'd agree that in test cricket he'd need to justify his place as a batsman, but in ODIs that's really not the case at all, and there's plenty of handy ODI cricketers out there who make the side based on their all-round ability and not skills in a single discipline.

Watson's valuable to the ODI team because he offers balance. With no Watson, you either pick a seventh batsman and look for 10 overs from Symonds and the part-timers, which reduces the flexibility of the attack as well as the overall quality, or you pick a fifth bowler or a different all-rounder. With Watson in the side, the bowling attack at full strength has more variety and there's a better balance to the team in general, with seven batsmen plus your Hogg and Lee types and five or six genuine bowling options.

Once it's been established that Watson is of value to the side, the batting order should be determined based on the strengths of the players. If Watson was a mediocre batsmen in all positions, there'd be no justification for batting him up the order, but the fact is that he's done very well from limited opportunities up the order. He's now got five of his six half-centuries in the top four, and he's played under a third of his innings there. Top order average is in the mid 40s, and his SR is better than most as well, in the mid 80s. There's plenty of better finishers in the team, and Watson's always done quite well at the top of the order. There's no real reason not to bat him up there, and move quality finishers like Clarke and Hussey further down.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He's now got five of his six half-centuries in the top four, and he's played under a third of his innings there.

Hardly surprising. So you'd expect any other batsman to, really.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

4 half centuries from 8 innings opening the batting. Needs to put in a hundred up ther soon, though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hardly surprising. So you'd expect any other batsman to, really.

Right, any other batsmen who made consistent runs. If he'd come into the team as a specialist opener he'd certainly be retained at this point. And really, I think it'd be better for the team if he was batting well at the top of the order than doing nothing at 7.

 

[pup11]

The only problem for watson is that he just can play spin bowling well at all atm, whenever he looks like building a good innings he gets out to a spinner. Thats an area he would really have to work hard on if he wants to become a better top order batsman.

 

[Richard]

Right, any other batsmen who made consistent runs. If he'd come into the team as a specialist opener he'd certainly be retained at this point. And really, I think it'd be better for the team if he was batting well at the top of the order than doing nothing at 7.

And after the WC there's little doubt he'll get a few free innings to do so. If he succeeds there, obviously he'll become a long-term option.

Right now, though, Hayden's case - if fit - is pretty irrefutable.