***Official*** Super Series

[jlo33692]

Why do you think they played that way then?Im sure they wanted to win,Ohh maybe the bowling had something to do with it?Maybe it is not always because the team(all of them 3 times)33 wickets,batted poorly,maybe someone actually bowled and fielded well

 

[tooextracool]

OK then TEC it is not half obvious that you do not rate Watson at all, i can name at least 8 of his wickets that i do not think were lucky as common sense would tell you that all wickets in 12 cant be luck,this was not against a run of the mill side this was a world 11, But if i named the balls i felt were good and got the batsman out rather than getting them selves out you will surley refute them and say you thought they were luck,so the excersise is pointless.What i will say in Watsons defence is that you yourself said that anyone who say flintoff 4 years ago would have seen that he was no good.
You will at least ackwoledge that people do get it wrong sometimes and think a bowler is crap then the bowler gets a couple of MOM and unlucky not to get a MOS,as well as claiming more wickets than anyone else in the series,and people then have to take note that this is a very quick bowler ,with a willingness to work his butt of and learn,as reverse swing and things are balls that can be learned,then the chances are that you may also have the call on watson wrong,as you did with Flintoff. However TEC i think you are never going to be convinced about Watson even if he plays in the super test and gets a bag of wickets,you will just say they are lucky wickets,i dont know what more the bloke can do to at least get you to admit that he has the potential to be a good bowler and allrounder? TEC do you like any one in the aussie side? ,if so ca n you tell me which ones as i have read your other posts and you have said langer,overated,ponting overrated,watson just hopeless,tait the same,hayden overrated,im thinking you dont like the aussies for some reason hahaha come on now be truthful...

if he takes wickets of good deliveries, or actually bowls well i have no problem in giving him credit, in much the same way that i gave him credit for his innings with the bat in the final ODI of the super series.
as far as my bias against aussies is concerned, you'd have to either be out of your mind, or just not be capable of reading my posts because many many times ive supported and rated aussie players very highly. i rate bevan higher than anyone else on this forum, i rate martyn extremely highly, i rate katich higher than most people on this forum, i rate martin love higher than most people, i rate brad hogg in ODIs and like most sane people i rate mcgrath and warne very very highly.

 

[honestbharani]

Before this so called Super series which Australia won basically because they were the better side (as a team), there have been six one day games played at the Telstra Dome.

One of them between SAF and Australia was tied.

Of the other five three were won by the team chasing
- Australia (vs Pakistan) in June 2002
- Pakistan in (vs Australia) June 2002
- Newzealand (vs Australia) in Dec 2004

and two have been won by the team batting first.
- Australia (vs SAF) in August 2000
- SAF (vs Australia) in August 2000

So it does not look like the team batting first has any significant advantage here.

Actually, I did not know how the other games won. But I was practically sure that the team chasing found it extremely difficult during the first ever series played in this stadium between RSA and Australia. That is why I brought it up. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[honestbharani]

One point that TEC makes does make a lot of sense. You just cannot expect every player who has a poor record now to do as well as Flintoff has done, just because he had a poor record around that time too. If I am not mistaken, even Pathan's stats as an all rounder compare rather well against Watson's.

 

[honestbharani]

Can someone tell me why a season in which Lara has scored 4 test hundreds from five matches is called "decent"? I wonder what a "good" season would then be.

 

[Zinzan]

It'll be Vettori because Kumble isn't in the squad, but it should be Kumble...he has a record superior to Vettori against Australia in recent times, did very well against Aus last time he played against them both home and away and took 12 wickets in his last Test at Sydney.

I was sure Kumble was in the test squad?? And haven't read anywhere that the test side had been named

 

[marc71178]

almost anybody who watched freddie bowl 4 years ago would have told you that he was no good.

Also, I don't think he was that quick back then was he?

Yet now he is...

 

[marc71178]

I was sure Kumble was in the test squad?? And haven't read anywhere that the test side had been named

Nope, he was left out for some reason unknown to most people.

 

[tassietiger]

It's just too tempting to resist, I have to say it.

To all of the people (English supporters in particular) that reckon Australia have won the one dayers so far because World XI have been playing badly, I'd like to point you to the Ashes threads, where there was the recurring quote:

"Australia are only playing badly because England have made them."

 

[Jono]

It's just too tempting to resist, I have to say it.

To all of the people (English supporters in particular) that reckon Australia have won the one dayers so far because World XI have been playing badly, I'd like to point you to the Ashes threads, where there was the recurring quote:

"Australia are only playing badly because England have made them."

That is true, the tables have turned.

 

[Pratters]

Nope, he was left out for some reason unknown to most people.

Shocking really his exclusion. Would have been the perfect pairing with Murali at Sydney.

 

[greg]

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,16882794-23212,00.html

 

[Jono]

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,16882794-23212,00.html

A very interesting article, and I agree with a lot of points. Most particularly with Vaas, as how he didn't make it was beyond me. He's a great ODI bowler with a good record vs. Australia.

 

[aussie]

Nope, he was left out for some reason unknown to most people.

nope its quite clear, he was left out because Vettori's record vs Australia is better

 

[Pratters]

nope its quite clear, he was left out because Vettori's record vs Australia is better

If record vs Australia is the criteria, Kumble has one of the best.

Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in India, 1996/97 [Series]
Ind 1 65 130 9 5/67 9/130 14.44 2.00 43.3 1 0

Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in India, 1997/98 [Series]
Ind 3 191 416 23 6/98 8/106 18.08 2.17 49.8 2 0

Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in Australia, 1999/00 [Series]
Aus 3 146.2 450 5 2/72 3/174 90.00 3.07 175.6 0 0

Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in Australia, 2003/04 [Series]
- 3 206.1 710 24 8/141 12/279 29.58 3.44 51.5 3 1

Obviously Kumble has a superb record in India and we shouldnt be looking at that as the matches are in Australia but I just mentioned because you said Vettori should be chosen because of his record against Australia.

However what is important is Kumble, despite his poor series in his first tour in Australia (which he says was because of lack of totals by batsmen and so he couldnt put the pressure he needed on batsmen - a very legitimate reason) Kumble came out triumphs the last time around - 24 wickets in 3 tests.

Murali is an attacking bowler. Kumble is an attacking leggie too but who is very persistent too. The two would have formed a potent combination.

 

[social]

i havent see too much evidence of this potential. hes largely been innaccurate, hes rarely had any answers to players taking it to him, and on the whole he has 0 variety in his bowling.



what point of watson is a 'rubbish bowler' do you not understand?
i never compared their batting abilities, but if irani was a very very poor bowler, then can you imagine how bad watson is given that hes actually worse?

TEC, you've officially got no idea if you think that Irani is, was or ever will be a better bowler that Watson.

He was, without doubt, one of the worst players ever to have represented a major cricketing nation.

 

[Jono]

That's just rubbish TEC. Irani a better bowler than Watson? I don't know if you said that for 'shock value' or because you actually believe that, but either way its a stupid comment.

That being said, I think its time people stop justifying Watson's potential by saying "He was better than Freddie when he was Watson's age". It just really isn't a good argument.

 

[jlo33692]

That's just rubbish TEC. Irani a better bowler than Watson? I don't know if you said that for 'shock value' or because you actually believe that, but either way its a stupid comment.

That being said, I think its time people stop justifying Watson's potential by saying "He was better than Freddie when he was Watson's age". It just really isn't a good argument.

Yep spot on jono.
He has made the side because of his own talent and potential. They never selected him because he is or was better than Flintoff. Also just because he might not be able to reach the same peak as flintoff has does not mean he wont be succesfull. He is at the start of a potential career as an allrounder for australia.So far the selectors would be very happy with what they are seeing and he definatly has the potential to learn as the othewr bowlers do. I to am getting peed of everytime i click on to see the same argument time and time again, Fact is he isnt flintoff,he is in the ODI side he has the 2 ODI MOM awards to show he is on the right track. One other point i dont think i have seen anyone comment on was the drop in wicket yeilded Australia over 900 runs in 3 innings and only the loss of something like 17 wickets i think so it was obviously a batsmans wicket,However people are pointing at watsons 12 wickets and saying they were expensive and he was lucky,well most bowlers need some luck and all the other bowlers were expensive,The best in world cricket at the moment took something like 1 for 130 runs going into the last game(Fred again) I guess we will have to wait as thats all we can do with watson but like everyone else(nearly everyone) i think he has done not5hing wrong in his new style of bowling and is certainly a motre than capable batsman.

 

[jlo33692]

if he takes wickets of good deliveries, or actually bowls well i have no problem in giving him credit, in much the same way that i gave him credit for his innings with the bat in the final ODI of the super series.
as far as my bias against aussies is concerned, you'd have to either be out of your mind, or just not be capable of reading my posts because many many times ive supported and rated aussie players very highly. i rate bevan higher than anyone else on this forum, i rate martyn extremely highly, i rate katich higher than most people on this forum, i rate martin love higher than most people, i rate brad hogg in ODIs and like most sane people i rate mcgrath and warne very very highly.

I have looked TEC and i cant find where you have given Watson any credit for his effort but im sure you have it somewhere.
You may have credited Bevan,Love,hogg, but they dont play no more or didnt play in the series.It is all the others that you dont seem to credit that is why i thought you dont like the aussies much,so just for the record could you give me your view on the others in the ODI and test team,as from what i have read you said they are mostly over rated but must be doing something right to remain the best in ODI. You do make some valid points TEC and i thank you for your honesty cant say i agree with your views but you stay consistent in your views and obviously have a great passion for the game M8.

 

[aussie]

That being said, I think its time people stop justifying Watson's potential by saying "He was better than Freddie when he was Watson's age". It just really isn't a good argument.

why not?