***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[steds]

Can anyone elaborate on this? The bold-letter bit?

Yes. It's the bit where he can't bowl

 

[Nate]

Not really.

Most likely, they're putting it on a pay channel I don't have.

That ain`t cool. You got any mates who do?

 

[Mister Wright]

Forget the stats and answer me honestly without your maroon-tinted glasses for once; do you honestly think Watson is a better batsman than Clarke? Because having watched plenty of both (and I think Watson has fantastic all-round potential), there's no way those averages are instructive as to who the better batsman is. Clarke, without a doubt.

Maroon-tinted glasses? you have to be joking. Everyone knows I think both players aren't ready for test cricket. As far as batting ability goes, I think Watson is by far the better the first class batsman, but I think Clarke is the better one day batsman. Watson doesn't time his innings' well enough in one day cricket and can get caught down, but Clarke has an amazing ability to score freely in one dayers, no matter what the situation, even if it is usually highly risky.

In first class cricket, it is pretty much the opposite, Watson tends to get himself in before he starts playing shots, whereas Clarke want's to play shots from ball one.

 

[vic_orthdox]

From the Benaud interview on Cricinfo:
(http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/217739.html)



Can anyone elaborate on this? The bold-letter bit?

Haha, it was a piece of classic commentary from Richie when he "picked up the flaw". As they showed a close-up, slow motion shot of Gillespie's action from front-on, Richie goes "Well, that just about sums everything up".

Richie believed that Gillespie's front shoulder, and hence the rest of his front arm, was falling away to the left as he was bowling, instead of working in a straight line. Hence, he forces the ball out more with his bowling shoulder, which makes it harder to control, and usually - and has here - results in more deliveries heading down leg, as well as losing a yard or two of pace.

 

[Pratters]

And i said the same thing a day earlier than Waugh come up with the statement that Australia is missing the 5th bowler.

And I said the same thing before the test match started!

 

[Knopfler]

I am 99.9% sure that Australia will play 5 bowlers (McGrath or no McGrath). Not only has our attack been missing a bowler since the first test, but Australia need to win this game to save the ashes. To win a game you have to bowl a side out twice, even if you score 1000 runs.

 

[Top_Cat]

Maroon-tinted glasses? you have to be joking. Everyone knows I think both players aren't ready for test cricket. As far as batting ability goes, I think Watson is by far the better the first class batsman, but I think Clarke is the better one day batsman. Watson doesn't time his innings' well enough in one day cricket and can get caught down, but Clarke has an amazing ability to score freely in one dayers, no matter what the situation, even if it is usually highly risky.

Well, maroon-tinted glasses is about the only reason I can think of why you'd rate Watson above Clarke in either form of the game because although Watson's stats are better, just watching them both bat one can tell who the superior player is. So you say Clarke plays too many shots? Well it's a matter of time before he reigns that in and in time he will likely have far superior stats to Watson, particularly if Watson has to bowl more. What you really mean is that Watson is the better PERFORMED player. Because in both defence and attack, Clark leaves Watson in the shade. Watson is a fantastic player, no doubt, but come on.....

 

[sqwerty]

Well, maroon-tinted glasses is about the only reason I can think of why you'd rate Watson above Clarke in either form of the game because although Watson's stats are better, just watching them both bat one can tell who the superior player is. So you say Clarke plays too many shots? Well it's a matter of time before he reigns that in and in time he will likely have far superior stats to Watson, particularly if Watson has to bowl more. What you really mean is that Watson is the better PERFORMED player. Because in both defence and attack, Clark leaves Watson in the shade. Watson is a fantastic player, no doubt, but come on.....

Clarke was Australian cricket's player of the year last year........surely he's a better talent than Watson who has never done a thing at international level despite numerous opportunities. Not saying Watson isn't any good but he should have made his mark by now if he is going to be anything.

Then again....he's no different to Symonds for the first couple of years of his international career so here's hoping.

 

[Mister Wright]

Well, maroon-tinted glasses is about the only reason I can think of why you'd rate Watson above Clarke in either form of the game because although Watson's stats are better, just watching them both bat one can tell who the superior player is. So you say Clarke plays too many shots? Well it's a matter of time before he reigns that in and in time he will likely have far superior stats to Watson, particularly if Watson has to bowl more. What you really mean is that Watson is the better PERFORMED player. Because in both defence and attack, Clark leaves Watson in the shade. Watson is a fantastic player, no doubt, but come on.....

Have you seen Watson bat in first class cricket? Or are you just going by how he bats in one dayers?

I've seen a fair bit of him now at the 'Gabba in first class, and there is nothing wrong with his defence, while Clarke has a good defence I don't think you would say that it is that much better than Watson's that it is superior.

There may be a reason why Watson is a better performed player in first class cricket, and that is because he's the better first class batsman. Considering the difference in their first class batting averages is 7 runs, and Clark is struggling to keep his average above 38.

 

[sqwerty]

Have you seen Watson bat in first class cricket? Or are you just going by how he bats in one dayers?

I've seen a fair bit of him now at the 'Gabba in first class, and there is nothing wrong with his defence, while Clarke has a good defence I don't think you would say that it is that much better than Watson's that it is superior.

There may be a reason why Watson is a better performed player in first class cricket, and that is because he's the better first class batsman. Considering the difference in their first class batting averages is 7 runs, and Clark is struggling to keep his average above 38.

Don't read too much into first class averages. The Australian selectors have made some great calls in the past, spotting potential after a handful of first class appearances. Warne and Healy spring to mind and Gilchrist hadn't exactly set the world on fire early on in his career. These guys were pulled from relative obscurity to become legends of the game.

I've always thought the Aus selectors have made a bit of a habit of picking the cream early, before they even get their numbers up in first class cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

Have you seen Watson bat in first class cricket? Or are you just going by how he bats in one dayers?

Both.

There may be a reason why Watson is a better performed player in first class cricket, and that is because he's the better first class batsman. Considering the difference in their first class batting averages is 7 runs, and Clark is struggling to keep his average above 38.

And here you go bringing up averages again. I can think of a few more reasons for the difference; whilst Watson has been busily scoring FC runs, Clarke has been busily scoring TEST runs (yes he's had a bit of a lean period but he's starting to come back from that in this series and still averages 40). If Clarke had been relegated to FC cricket, it's likely he would have had a decent season for NSW, pushign his average futher up. And what would that have proven? That he's a decent player? We all knew that ages ago, hence why he was picked. Watson hasn't had the same opportunities as Clarke at international level, yes, but Watson and Clarke have been compared to each other ever since they were playing U/19's together and since then, Clarke has always looked a class above. And it's not just because he can play shots. Clarke just looks more like a Test player in his attitude and the rest. Watson looks like a very good FC player but just doesn't 'look' like Clarke does as far as scoring runs at the highest level.

Forget the averages. Just watch them both bat and the difference is clear.

A couple of players who prove that FC runs don't always translate into Test runs;

Mark Ramprakash

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/19323.html

Graeme Hick

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/14187.html

Michael Bevan

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/4144.html

 

[Magrat Garlick]

That ain`t cool. You got any mates who do?

Not anyone who's sufficiently interested in cricket to let me watch TV in their home for 30 hours.

I really have no idea about where (or if) it's going to be broadcast, tho...

 

[greg]

Haha, it was a piece of classic commentary from Richie when he "picked up the flaw". As they showed a close-up, slow motion shot of Gillespie's action from front-on, Richie goes "Well, that just about sums everything up".

Richie believed that Gillespie's front shoulder, and hence the rest of his front arm, was falling away to the left as he was bowling, instead of working in a straight line. Hence, he forces the ball out more with his bowling shoulder, which makes it harder to control, and usually - and has here - results in more deliveries heading down leg, as well as losing a yard or two of pace.

And another symptom (cause?) being something about the direction in which his back foot was pointing.

 

[Prince EWS]

Clarke was Australian cricket's player of the year last year........surely he's a better talent than Watson who has never done a thing at international level despite numerous opportunities. Not saying Watson isn't any good but he should have made his mark by now if he is going to be anything.

Then again....he's no different to Symonds for the first couple of years of his international career so here's hoping.

Watson has played ONE test match, yet you say he has had "numerous opportunities". I know hes played a lot of one dayers, but he has been picked to play a role that he has never succeeded at in List A cricket. I expect him to fail there.

As a test match batsman, I can see him succeeding. I dont think hes a one day player, and I dont really rate his bowling, but as a batsman in the longer form I think he could succeed right now.

 

[Storer123]

On form Shane Watson has to be in the Test squad, either for clarke or Katich. My preference would be that Katich is dropped. Watson will also add the depth that Australia need in the bowling department especially if Mcgrath is coming in under an injury cloud.

 

[sqwerty]

Watson has played ONE test match, yet you say he has had "numerous opportunities". I know hes played a lot of one dayers, but he has been picked to play a role that he has never succeeded at in List A cricket. I expect him to fail there.

As a test match batsman, I can see him succeeding. I dont think hes a one day player, and I dont really rate his bowling, but as a batsman in the longer form I think he could succeed right now.

yeah I know he hasn't played any test cricket but he's just been frustrating in the one day internationals. Clarke on the other hand dominated when he first came into the one dayers.

Watson batted ok from memory in that one test match so hopefully he can prove himself one day. I just always wonder what an all-rounders worth is in test cricket unless he is clearly strong at one discipline. I can't see Watson getting many wickets so he's got to hold his own as a batsman as far I'm concerned. With Gilchrist in the side I guess you've got the luxury of being able to carry him a bit and use him as a stock bowler.

 

[sqwerty]

On form Shane Watson has to be in the Test squad, either for clarke or Katich. My preference would be that Katich is dropped. Watson will also add the depth that Australia need in the bowling department especially if Mcgrath is coming in under an injury cloud.

but he's not going to get you many wickets as a bowler so there's not really any point playing him just so that you have 5 bowlers.........unless they bring in MacGill too.

 

[marc71178]

I am 99.9% sure that Australia will play 5 bowlers (McGrath or no McGrath). Not only has our attack been missing a bowler since the first test, but Australia need to win this game to save the ashes. To win a game you have to bowl a side out twice, even if you score 1000 runs.

But if you don't score enough runs (which has been the main problem IMO) you won't solve it by dropping a batsman.

 

[marc71178]

Clarke was Australian cricket's player of the year last year........surely he's a better talent than Watson who has never done a thing at international level despite numerous opportunities. Not saying Watson isn't any good but he should have made his mark by now if he is going to be anything.

How can he make his mark when he's primarily a batsman and seems to always get picked at 8?

 

[Prince EWS]

yeah I know he hasn't played any test cricket but he's just been frustrating in the one day internationals.

So was Langer. That doesnt mean he shouldnt be in the test side. I dont think he should even get in the ODI squad personally, but as a batsman in the longer form, he has the goods.