Watson wants to be test opener.

[Pratters]

Perm.. Watson isn't exactly a proven better option. His test record, the three tests he has played, has been dismal. If it was a case of an established player making a return, there can be a logical argument for the player who got the chance because of that established player's injury to make way. However, in the Watson-Symonds scenarion, it is different as Watson wasn't an established player. Loads of players get chances only in test cricket because some one else was injured. As Symonds has started making runs, it is very much logical to let him remain in the team and see how it goes as it stands right now.

 

[pup11]

I think with Jacques more than anything else its his fielding thats the biggest hurdle in his path to cementing a place in the Australian side.

He is a superb short-leg fielder, but apart from that his fielding is pretty dire in general.

 

[Perm]

Perm.. Watson isn't exactly a proven better option. His test record, the three tests he has played, has been dismal. If it was a case of an established player making a return, there can be a logical argument for the player who got the chance because of that established player's injury to make way. However, in the Watson-Symonds scenarion, it is different as Watson wasn't an established player. Loads of players get chances only in test cricket because some one else was injured. As Symonds has started making runs, it is very much logical to let him remain in the team and see how it goes as it stands right now.

I think their respective FC records say a lot. Besides the fact that Watson could actually be an effective bowler at Test level, whereas Symonds is next to useless.

 

[pup11]

Btw, where is D.Hussey's career heading atm.

He was in good form last season and has a lot of experience under his belt, but the Aussie selectors simply don't seem to rate him.

What do you guys think would he ever play for Australia??

 

[Perm]

Btw, where is D.Hussey's career heading atm.

He was in good form last season and has a lot of experience under his belt, but the Aussie selectors simply don't seem to rate him.

What do you guys think would he ever play for Australia??

He scores most of his runs in the County Championship I think, and the Australian selectors don't rate the standard that highly.

 

[Pratters]

I think their respective FC records say a lot. Besides the fact that Watson could actually be an effective bowler at Test level, whereas Symonds is next to useless.

We are talking test cricket here. A lot of players had better FC records than Symonds and yet the selectors went for him. Now that that he is making runs, it makes sense to back your decision. I am not saying I would have picked Symonds initially but once he has been picked and starting to make runs, you have to back it rather than chop and change. Also, since you pointed a moderate FC record.. that does not always mean you will fail at the test level. Look at Trescothic.

On the bowling front.. it is subjective whether that should tilt the weight for your selection in this case.

 

[Perm]

We are talking test cricket here. A lot of players had better FC records than Symonds and yet the selectors went for him. Now that that he is making runs, it makes sense to back your decision. I am not saying I would have picked Symonds initially but once he has been picked and starting to make runs, you have to back it rather than chop and change. Also, since you pointed a moderate FC record.. that does not always mean you will fail at the test level. Look at Trescothic.

On the bowling front.. it is subjective whether that should tilt the weight for your selection.

I think it is fairly obvious that Watson is a better batsman in the longer form of the game than Symonds, his FC stats just add some weight to the argument.

I see no reason why the bowling shouldn't be a factor, Watson could perform quite capably as a first change bowler whereas Symonds is a part timer and no more, he is unlikely to take many wickets in Test cricket.

 

[Athlai]

I think it is fairly obvious that Watson is a better batsman in the longer form of the game than Symonds, his FC stats just add some weight to the argument.

I see no reason why the bowling shouldn't be a factor, Watson could perform quite capably as a first change bowler whereas Symonds is a part timer and no more, he is unlikely to take many wickets in Test cricket.

Do you think that fact that Symonds is such an out there player that he may influence players outside of his own performance? It is a team after all.
He is also a very very good fielder which I think goes slightly ignored in cricket when selecting a player.

(Question was not rhetorical, I want to know what you think)

 

[Perm]

Do you think that fact that Symonds is such an out there player that he may influence players outside of his own performance? It is a team after all.
He is also a very very good fielder which I think goes slightly ignored in cricket when selecting a player.

(Question was not rhetorical, I want to know what you think)

The ability to unite a team isn't something that I rate very highly TBH. The Australian's are already a pretty tight-knit team, having Symonds in there would do a bit of team morale, but not at the expense of runs or wickets.

Also, fielding shouldn't be a huge factor in deciding if a player is "better" than the other player. Watson is no slouch, and is perfectly serviceable for both the Test and ODI teams.

 

[Pratters]

I think it is fairly obvious that Watson is a better batsman in the longer form of the game than Symonds, his FC stats just add some weight to the argument.

Obvious how?

I see no reason why the bowling shouldn't be a factor, Watson could perform quite capably as a first change bowler whereas Symonds is a part timer and no more, he is unlikely to take many wickets in Test cricket.

Bowling can be a factor in cases but in thie scenario, it is susepct how good a bowler Watson is. A lot of people put Watson as a batsman who can bowl a bit. His FC bowling average of 30 is no flash. Symonds is worse than Watson at 36 but both are mediocre stats. I highly doubt Watson can be a first change bowler in tests for Australia.

 

[pasag]

Btw, where is D.Hussey's career heading atm.

He was in good form last season and has a lot of experience under his belt, but the Aussie selectors simply don't seem to rate him.

What do you guys think would he ever play for Australia??

He scored 911 runs at 53.58 in Australia last season so I don't think he'd be that far off. Would need quite a few things going right though, I would think.

 

[Athlai]

The ability to unite a team isn't something that I rate very highly TBH. The Australian's are already a pretty tight-knit team, having Symonds in there would do a bit of team morale, but not at the expense of runs or wickets.

Also, fielding shouldn't be a huge factor in deciding if a player is "better" than the other player. Watson is no slouch, and is perfectly serviceable for both the Test and ODI teams.

Against a young fit player like Watson his fielding aspect isn't all that impressive or unique I suppose, but the guys got an excellent arm.

As for team morale, I think just by having a play in your team that won't quit it can bring out the best in some players, is Symonds that man? No idea. Australia do already look like a solid unit.

 

[four_or_six]

Do you think that fact that Symonds is such an out there player that he may influence players outside of his own performance? It is a team after all.
He is also a very very good fielder which I think goes slightly ignored in cricket when selecting a player.

(Question was not rhetorical, I want to know what you think)

I think they certainly see it as though Symonds's 'vibe' or whatever you want to call it is good for the team. It seems like a fairly close-knit team and it must be hard for some of the players who are newer to fit in. I read in Ponting's book about Hodge on his first (I think) tour to NZ sometimes sitting by himself in a coffee shop, and Watson has commented that he felt a lot of awe when he was younger and that it was hard to get his head around being there. That said, there's other more vivacious players that probably don't care, and Symonds strikes me as one of thoses. Maybe also Tait.

 

[four_or_six]

Brad Hodge, Jason Gillespie...

Yeah, Hodge was pointed out to me by someone else, and it's a fair point. I think that was an odd decision at the time, I don't think they'd go there again. Also, chairman of selectors has changed.

I don't count Gillespie in this though.

 

[Perm]

Obvious how?

Just the way that they bat, Symonds gives far too many risks for my liking and has struggled to find the right mix of aggression and caution in his Test career so far. No doubt he is a very good ODI player, but as a Test and FC player I don't think he is very good. Watson on the other hand I rate quite highly, even though I dislike the bloke.

Bowling can be a factor in cases but in thie scenario, it is susepct how good a bowler Watson is. A lot of people put Watson as a batsman who can bowl a bit. His FC bowling average of 30 is no flash. Symonds is worse than Watson at 36 but both are mediocre stats. I highly doubt Watson can be a first change bowler in tests for Australia.

Watson's bowling isn't that flash, I agree. But IMO he is a much, much better bowler than Symonds in the longer form of the game. A bowling average of 30 isn't that bad, especially for an all-rounder. He has more penetration than Symonds and looks more likely to get wickets, at a pinch I think he could be a decent first change bowler, especially if Australia wish to play two spinners (not that I can see it happening in the near future)

 

[Mister Wright]

Perm.. Watson isn't exactly a proven better option. His test record, the three tests he has played, has been dismal. If it was a case of an established player making a return, there can be a logical argument for the player who got the chance because of that established player's injury to make way. However, in the Watson-Symonds scenarion, it is different as Watson wasn't an established player. Loads of players get chances only in test cricket because some one else was injured. As Symonds has started making runs, it is very much logical to let him remain in the team and see how it goes as it stands right now.

Good post.

 

[four_or_six]

Can't see Watson getting Langer's spot... it's too soon isn't it? But Hayden will be gone in maybe 18-months/2 years - if he could put his hand up for that it would look interesting for the team. Also gives him time to hopefully prove his fitness and improve his bowling a little.

That said, I like the attitude he has of giving it a go. Most people said he couldn't slog at seven in ODIs and he went away, worked really hard on it, and has proved he can.

 

[Pratters]

Just the way that they bat, Symonds gives far too many risks for my liking and has struggled to find the right mix of aggression and caution in his Test career so far. No doubt he is a very good ODI player, but as a Test and FC player I don't think he is very good. Watson on the other hand I rate quite highly, even though I dislike the bloke.

That is the way Symonds bats. It does not prove Watson is a better or worse test batsman than Symonds for me.

Watson's bowling isn't that flash, I agree. But IMO he is a much, much better bowler than Symonds in the longer form of the game. A bowling average of 30 isn't that bad, especially for an all-rounder. He has more penetration than Symonds and looks more likely to get wickets, at a pinch I think he could be a decent first change bowler, especially if Australia wish to play two spinners (not that I can see it happening in the near future)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. I don't think the bowling of Watson is that good that it should weigh a lot in his selection right now. Obviously you differ.

 

[The_Bunny]

He scores most of his runs in the County Championship I think, and the Australian selectors don't rate the standard that highly.

He did very well in the Pura cup this season...
I suppose the Aussie selectors are currently spoilt for choice when it comes to batsmen.

 

[four_or_six]

He did very well in the Pura cup this season...
I suppose the Aussie selectors are currently spoilt for choice when it comes to batsmen.

Surely for a straight batsman it has to be Hodge next in line for the non-opening spots. Add Watson in there too, and Voges apparently given his ashes squad selection, and doesn't look to be opportunities for D Hussey unless something weird happens.