Shane Watson

[andyc]

Just wondering what their respective ages were at 3 tests, and 57 ODIs?

Was thinking of looking into that before, but there was a large spread in Flintoff's career (debuted in '99, 57th game in 2003), so I wasn't really sure how reliable it'd be, but, just going by their 3rd test and 57th ODI...

Flintoff after three tests: 21
Watson after three tests: 24

Flintoff after 57 ODIs: 25
Watson after 57 ODIs: 25

 

[pup11]

Yeah flintoff took a long time to bloom at this level, but i think its time for watto to move on to the next level so that he can touch greater heights since talks of him getting an easy ride have surfaced off late.

 

[Richard]

Watson > Flintoff as a batsman in the longer game anyday.

Flintoff > Watson as a bowler at any time and probably for ever more.

Flintoff and Watson as ODI batsmen? Hard to decide.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Flintoff is certainly more destructive and versatile with the bat in OD cricket.

 

[four_or_six]

Watson > Flintoff as a batsman in the longer game anyday.

Flintoff > Watson as a bowler at any time and probably for ever more.

Flintoff and Watson as ODI batsmen? Hard to decide.

I'd agree with all that. I wouldn't say Watson has had as much batting opportunity as Flintoff would have had in those ODIs so it's hard to say.

From my recollection as and England fan, when Flintoff came in the team we were pretty rubbish so it wasn't as hard as it is for Watson who's coming into a team full of superstars. I also recall long arguments with all sorts of cricket-supporting friends over whether Flintoff was absolute rubbish or the saviour of the world! Sound familiar?

 

[Richard]

Hmm, Flintoff's first 2 Tests were one of the most uplifting comebacks in the history of English cricket (Trent Bridge and Headingley 1998) but he was a member of a pretty poor side for some time (and it was no coincidence that the best side of the time was in 2000 and early 2001 when he was absent). Then he started to become far more effective just before our great upturn in 2004 and played a large part in it.

 

[four_or_six]

I'd agree with all that. I wouldn't say Watson has had as much batting opportunity as Flintoff would have had in those ODIs so it's hard to say.

From my recollection as and England fan, when Flintoff came in the team we were pretty rubbish so it wasn't as hard as it is for Watson who's coming into a team full of superstars. I also recall long arguments with all sorts of cricket-supporting friends over whether Flintoff was absolute rubbish or the saviour of the world! Sound familiar?

Sorry, to clarify I was referring to ODI's only. I don't think comparing anyone's careers after 2/3 tests is sensible.

 

[Fiery]

at Watson and Flintoff being spoken of in the same breath

 

[four_or_six]

at Watson and Flintoff being spoken of in the same breath

I know... don't know why people over-rate Fred so much

 

[Richard]

at Watson and Flintoff being spoken of in the same breath

At the moment, certainly. Can see Watson, at least in Tests, coming closer as the years go by, though.

 

[Smudge]

Yeah flintoff took a long time to bloom at this level, but i think its time for watto to move on to the next level so that he can touch greater heights since talks of him getting an easy ride have surfaced off late.

You make it sound so easy.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Thought I'd just make a dig, instead of starting a new thread. While I acknowledge that yes, he is a top order batsman, and that he isn't going to be able to perform at his best @ number 7. However...

Can anyone name me a batsman (outside of pure openers) who has as much trouble as he does adjusting his game to batting low in the order? You may talk about waiting until he gets his chance at the top of the order, but simply if he doesn't do a good enough job down the order - he may never get that chance. In one-day cricket, you have to be adaptable and versatile to the situation (even Test cricket for that matter), and this seems to be an aspect of Watson's batting that is lacking. He's batted in a very similar manner whether at no. 1 or 7.

Figured this was worthy of a dig. Watson's played four reasonable cameos at 7 in the WC so far and hasn't been dismissed, and is striking at 150 odd. He'd still be a lot better at the top of the order, but there's some encouragement regarding his future down the order if he doesn't become an opener when Hayden and Gilchrist go.

He's looked pretty silly trying to play that premeditated sweep, but he's been pretty effective, and yesterday was one of his best innings down the order once he stopped trying to sweep everything and played a few legitimate shots.

Only bowled in two games in the WC so far, but he did okay in both too, if not quite as impressively as last year.

Incidentally, his batting average is now higher than his bowling average in ODIs.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

S/R of 150+ for the WC so far. Fair effort.

 

[Johnners]

Yeah he's certainly doing all thats asked of him at this stage. The real test for him batting @ 7 will come whilst trying to chase down a target though imo, but in the meantime, he's certainly applying himself well so far. His bowling in the South Africa was great imo, and it seems went unnoticed by many in the media. He went for less than all bar Bracken, and his spell in the 2nd powerplay helped change the course of the match.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think he'll have any problems chasing a total, unless he comes in with 90 needed off 60 or something. Watson's weakest point is always going to be slogging from ball one, but he's had to do that four times in a row now and done decently, so there is hope.