• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** West Indies in Australia

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Dwayne Smith is perhaps the easiest specialist batsman to dismiss in world cricket right now. The South Africans showed this wonderfully well. Full and angling in to the stumps, and Smith'll get himself out in the same way every time. He has loads of talent though.

Omari Banks has much tighter technique and is far more sensible. Hence, he's a better batsman in my mind.
word i agree with this, well said (repetiton) 8-)
 

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
aussie said:
nahh i wont say you HAVE to pick Watson if stew plays but playing watson gives the attack a more flexible look, but i'll wait and see what the selectors do.
It's just that personally, I don't like the idea of carrying only two specialist fast bowlers into a Test
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
burkey_1988 said:
It's just that personally, I don't like the idea of carrying only two specialist fast bowlers into a Test
Watson isnt a specialist fast bowler anyway, so you'd still be doing it whether you played Watson or not.
 

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
Prince EWS said:
Watson isnt a specialist fast bowler anyway, so you'd still be doing it whether you played Watson or not.
Oh, you know what I mean. Not a "specialist" as such, but a third fast bowler nonetheless
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
aussie said:
nahh i wont say you HAVE to pick Watson if stew plays but playing watson gives the attack a more flexible look, but i'll wait and see what the selectors do.
I wouldn't want a 2 man pace attack with no back-up from the batsmen.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
aussie said:
nahh i wont say you HAVE to pick Watson if stew plays but playing watson gives the attack a more flexible look, but i'll wait and see what the selectors do.
After Watson's performance last night he is a certainty for the Super test and most likely beyond.
 

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
Mister Wright said:
After Watson's performance last night he is a certainty for the Super test and most likely beyond.
Meaning MacGill is a certainty for the Super test and most likely beyond ?
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
You what?

Can you translate that into English please?
you said "I wouldn't want a 2 man pace attack with no back-up from the batsmen" and i'm saying dont be down talking my bowling attack....
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Why, because they're Australian so immune from any negative comments?

And since when have they been "your" bowling attack anyway? 8-)
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
marc71178 said:
Why, because they're Australian so immune from any negative comments?

And since when have they been "your" bowling attack anyway? 8-)
Because Watson doesn't deserve the critisism he is getting. Let's all hit the rewind button and remember how Flintoff began his international career.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I was talking about a suggested team when Watson wasn't in it, yet someone still went with the 2-2 split though...
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
marc71178 said:
I was talking about a suggested team when Watson wasn't in it, yet someone still went with the 2-2 split though...
Ok, fair enough. We got our wires crossed. Going with 2-2 would be a good option if we could put 100% confidence in Brett Lee, but we can't so we'll need Watson if we go with the 2 spinners.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Mister Wright said:
Ok, fair enough. We got our wires crossed. Going with 2-2 would be a good option if we could put 100% confidence in Brett Lee, but we can't so we'll need Watson if we go with the 2 spinners.
ahh Kyle cut Lee some slack, Lee is gonna shock you this season you wait :p
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
aussie said:
ahh Kyle cut Lee some slack, Lee is gonna shock you this season you wait :p
Look, you can put all the positive spin you like on Brett Lee's recent test performances, but to go in with him as one of only two quick men is a big risk. Even his most blinded supporters would agree with that one, surely.

And no he won't shock me this season. The only shock will be if he continually gets selected for mediocre performances.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
aussie said:
ahh Kyle cut Lee some slack, Lee is gonna shock you this season you wait :p
You mean he'll bowl whole overs in the right place?

No doubt you'll now have a go at me for talking negatively though...
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
I suppose Watson played well. His run-out was excellent, but in between his wickets he was still bowling short & wide and too full at times and he has never looked comfortable when hes batting.

Australia seem to be becoming obsessed that Watson is the next Flintoff..it seems all too familiar with the way India seem to be obsessed with finding the next McGrath.

Granted though, Flintoff started out poorly and maybe with some consistent international cricket, Watson will improve.
 

Top