Who is a better young all-rounder Watson or Bravo

[vic_orthdox]

i wont be the one to judge

...

bravo quiet easily

I beg to differ....

Not one to judge, eh?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Bravo - Gun. Will be quite a good cricketer.
Watson - I would say he's as good as a pile of crap, but that would be a very controversial selection dillemma.

Funny how he's got the best FC record of any all-rounder in Australia then, not to mention better than every all-rounder in international cricket as well. Amazing how many runs get scored and how many wickets get taken by a crap player.

 

[tooextracool]

so what next? whos the better left hand bowler bracken or vaas?

 

[tooextracool]

Funny how he's got the best FC record of any all-rounder in Australia then, not to mention better than every all-rounder in international cricket as well. Amazing how many runs get scored and how many wickets get taken by a crap player.

it was also quite funny when hick used to have one of the best FC records at the time.

 

[aussie]

so what next? whos the better left hand bowler bracken or vaas?

dont be moking me TEC

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

it was also quite funny when hick used to have one of the best FC records at the time.

And it took an extended run in the test side before people wrote him off, just like Ramprakash. I'd say Watson deserves the same.

 

[roseboy64]

Quite obviously Bravo is better. He's got the international experience to prove it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Quite obviously Bravo is better. He's got the international experience to prove it.

Obviously Bravo has done more, that doesn't mean he's better. Personally, I think Michael Hussey is a better opening batsman than Akash Chopra, but Chopra has test experience and Hussey doesn't, so by your argument, Chopra is by default a better player.

 

[tooextracool]

And it took an extended run in the test side before people wrote him off, just like Ramprakash. I'd say Watson deserves the same.

and it took an extended period of excellent domestic performances from both of them, unlike watson who hasnt even played 40 FC games. and for someone who can apparently bowl its quite strange that his average in the last couple of seasons have been nothing short of rubbish. and lets not forget that the english side in the 90s wasnt even a ***** compared to the current aussie side, and therefore its not surprising that those 2 got as many games as they did.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

and it took an extended period of excellent domestic performances from both of them, unlike watson who hasnt even played 40 FC games. and for someone who can apparently bowl its quite strange that his average in the last couple of seasons have been nothing short of rubbish. and lets not forget that the english side in the 90s wasnt even a ***** compared to the current aussie side, and therefore its not surprising that those 2 got as many games as they did.

40 FC games is four full seasons in Australia, and until just now Watson has not played extensively in England. Prior to this season he had just the one game in England, so obviously his game count isn't going to be that high. He's also only 24, and that's quite young for this Australian team and he isn't likely to break in unless he continues to perform consistently for a couple more seasons. Regarding Watson's bowling average, well he hardly bowled at all in 2003/04 due to an injury, and played primarily as a batsman, getting four centuries in the season for Tasmania. Following the injury and non-bowling period he's had to remodel his action, and he's more accurate and slightly quicker now, but as yet struggles to consistently move the ball in the air or off the seam. If he's going to be a force with the ball in international cricket, obviously he has to get his bowling back to pre-injury levels. The talent is there for all to see though, particularly as a batsman.

 

[tooextracool]

40 FC games is four full seasons in Australia, and until just now Watson has not played extensively in England. Prior to this season he had just the one game in England, so obviously his game count isn't going to be that high. He's also only 24, and that's quite young for this Australian team and he isn't likely to break in unless he continues to perform consistently for a couple more seasons..

nore does he deserve to break in, until he actually becomes good enough. another couple of good seasons will do that

Regarding Watson's bowling average, well he hardly bowled at all in 2003/04 due to an injury, and played primarily as a batsman, getting four centuries in the season for Tasmania. Following the injury and non-bowling period he's had to remodel his action, and he's more accurate and slightly quicker now, but as yet struggles to consistently move the ball in the air or off the seam. If he's going to be a force with the ball in international cricket, obviously he has to get his bowling back to pre-injury levels. The talent is there for all to see though, particularly as a batsman.

which makes putting him down as a better 'all rounder' than bravo look even more ludicrous. hes obviously ATM only a batsman, hence he can only be considered as such

 

[aussie]

Right both of these two Talented young all-rounders IMO have had enough exposure at the international level for us to make a fair claim on who is better i'd say.

For me Watson looks to be a more technically correct batsman than Bravo & plays the pacers way better & looks a lot more assured at the crease, while both can work on their play vs the spinners, Bravo more so. Bravo's big strength as a batsman is clearly his leg-side play but its also his biggest weakness, i have seen many times him trying to flick deliveries and getting himself out caught of the leading edge.

Bowling wise, its very close, Watson has the potential to become a better bowler to me, he has a lot more pace & has finally showed that he can move than ball & can genuinely produce wicket taking deliveries. Bravo is an intelligent wicket-taker, moves the ball about when conditions suit & has great variation shown by those superb slower balls.

Fielding wise all Bravo, although Watson isn't too bad himself.

So overall i can say Batting goes to Watson, bowling equal & fielding (if you want to consider it goes to Bravo since he is so energetic & athletic but as i said that doesn't say Watson is a bad fielder)

 

[sqwerty]

They're both pretty ordinary by world class standards....Bravo's just less ordinary.

Watson's got to get rid of the attitude. He already thinks he's "the man" when in actual fact he's pretty useless.

 

[Jono]

while both can work on their play vs the spinners, Bravo more so. Bravo's big strength as a batsman is clearly his leg-side play but its also his biggest weakness, i have seen many times him trying to flick deliveries and getting himself out caught of the leading edge.

Bravo has a test century against the bowling of Shane Warne in Australia.

Watson was made to looks like a fool by Murali. He also hasn't even made 100 runs in his test career yet.

 

[Nate]

For mine, Bravo is currently better, but Watson has more potential. Watson certainly did well in this last ODI series, where Bravo didn`t do a lot with the ball or bat with any real confidence. Test-wise, both need more opportunities.

 

[Buddhmaster]

Watson's taken a bloody long time to come good, but he'll only get better.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bravo still ahead. He also strikes me as a guy who'll be more of a matchwinner than Watson, he'll do that "special thing" to turn a game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Better to ask this question after the Ashes, once we've got a proper look at Watson in test cricket. Based on ability alone I'd say Watson's the better batsman and Bravo the better bowler, but it's hard to compare their records when Bravo's got test runs and wickets and Watson hasn't. Watson's been outperforming Bravo in ODIs recently, but we're talking about a relatively small number of games there too.

 

[Perm]

To be perfectly fair, Watson doesn't look like a matchwinner, he doesnt appear as if he could take a 5 wicket haul to really set the game alight or score the quickfire century that puts his team on top. Bravo is by far the more potent matchwinner, as shown by that brilliant 6/ 84 at the Adelaide Oval. the catch to dismiss Warne was magical.

However Watson has hardly had much of a chance to show people what he can do on the international arena so we shouldn't make our judgments until after the Ashes when Watson should get some test experience. He looks very promising though, especially when he's batting.

 

[brockley]

I think both will develop but neither as good as flintoff,but with teams that don't have allrounders these 2 will be useful.Watsons' one day bowling has improved out of sight the last 12 months.