However "fortunate" his 100 at Old Trafford was, he still averages over 40 in his last 20 Tests. And you're only saying he is underperforming because he happened to have a period three years ago when he averaged almost 70 for 18 months. For most batsmen, averaging 40 while captaining a side is pretty good.social said:
With respect, Watson is not an example of a bowler who would add anything (well very little) to a team through the creation of a five man attack. (If you are arguing for him as a long term investment that is a slightly different matter). The point about the value of England's five man attack, as i said, is that they provide an attack for most conditions. They will always have 2-3 bowlers for who the conditions are in their favour (aside from batting paradises, obviously). As things stand their are NO conditions which could be said to be particularly in Watson's favour, with which he could be expected to take a bagful of wickets. He's not good enough. What he would offer is the possibility of giving the other (wicket taking) bowlers a rest, and the false security of having "3 seamers" (in case Australia lose the toss) if the selectors want to play two spinners in any game. That's not quite the same thing.social said:
So you're saying that Giles would do a better job relatively than Watson?greg said:
Well yes, as a bowler. I did say that England didn't really have an attack for Indian wickets. Giles can, and did, cause problems when conditions are in his favour - particularly in this series bowling at left handers into the footmarks. (it is not a coincidence that he was seen as ineffective in the second innings at Old Trafford when it was righthanders that were causing England all the trouble). I also doubt that Watson would be able to keep things (relatively) tight.social said:
Why in two years? if there not good enough now what is to say they will be then? But if they get better in two years. God damm I mean The ashes will stay with england.social said:
Ok fine. We''ll go round in circles.Retox said:
I think the point at that time was that there werent any better players available (except for Read and Thorpe).greg said:Strange. I didn't hear that sort of talk when we named an unchanged team after the Lords test
One (non-serious) injury a few years ago becomes "struggling with knee injuries, lost his pace and bounce" (even though he never had much of either). A bit of an exaggeration (and in defiance of the evidence of the last year (average in the low 20s) that he's bowling better than ever, including 3-4 matchwinning contributions. A bit tough to say he has to improve on that!social said:
I can see cases for Bell (hasn't lived up to his tag) But I am sure after the next series if he hasn't performed he will be gone (and thats the right way)social said:Ok fine. We''ll go round in circles.
Bell, Geraint and Giles are obviously not good enough - let's punt more than 20% of the Ashes winning side immediately.
Harmy has one more series to improve on averaging 36 or he's gone as well.
Give Vaughan a testimonial year as a reward for winning the Ashes and, if he still averages 35, out he goes.
Hoggard can stay because you'll need someone to take the shine off the new ball.
Or maybe we should give these under-performers time to find form or else we'll have to look at replacements.
Now, who are they?
It's a strange concept, the idea that a team might have better players available than are currently in the team. You tell us we should "worry about lack of depth", we think we're just fine, thank-you, but good luck yourselves!social said:I think the point at that time was that there werent any better players available (except for Read and Thorpe).
Read hasnt been selected and Thorpe has retired yet all of a sudden, England has an embarrassment of riches in reserve?
Oh yeah, I forgot, Udal
