Who is favorite

[marc71178]

"Sorry, but Australia have Shane Watson"

Do they??? i mean, he has yet to cement his place, already they are saying that all they need is an allrounder even when Watson is in the team!!
India do have Ajit, who is improving his batting!.

He could hardly do much worse than an average of 8!

One innings does not make him an all rounder, I mean he averages 40 per wicket when he's bowling and 13 with the bat now - that wouldn't get im into any Test side on it's own, so he's not a true all rounder.

At the moment IMO the only true all rounder in the World is Kallis. (this is not including WK/batsmen)

 

[scorpio]

I will put razzak, flintoff, cairns,pollock as allrounders.

 

[marc71178]

Razzaq isn't worth a place in a Test side as a batsmen purely IMO.
Same for Cairns and Pollock.

Fintoff wouldn't get in the England side on the strength of either discipline on its own.

 

[wahindiawah]

Ajit is still better than Watson, who has not done anything with the bat nor the ball

 

[Neil Pickup]

Hmm.. you were asking for it with this thread, weren't you?

I'm agreed with Eddie/Scorpio

Aus-SA-Pak Top 3, Then NZ-Eng-SL-Ind, then the rest won't figure.

And Pakistan for the ICC Champions Trophy.

 

[marc71178]

Ajit is still better than Watson, who has not done anything with the bat nor the ball

He's yet to have the chance at Test level due to the immense strength of the Australian team, but in first class cricket he averages 44 with the bat and 24 with the ball.

Agarkar averages 26 and 27 respectively in what is a far less competitive domestic set-up.

Looks to me like Agarkar is nowhere near the player Watson is already.

 

[Gotchya]

Razzaq isn't worth a place in a Test side as a batsmen purely IMO.

Dont think so, although judging him on his batting merits could be a bit tricky, nevertheless think he's the sort of batsmen who could consolidate an innings if needed and to top off huge scores at the end.

 

[wahindiawah]

He's yet to have the chance at Test level due to the immense strength of the Australian team, but in first class cricket he averages 44 with the bat and 24 with the ball.

Agarkar averages 26 and 27 respectively in what is a far less competitive domestic set-up.

Looks to me like Agarkar is nowhere near the player Watson is already.

Thats the most stupid thing i have ever heard comparing two players by their performances at domestic level of two diff countries.What makes u think Watson is gonna be such a big sucess? he might even be dreopped like Shane and Harvey.

 

[marc71178]

Why is it stupid?

It's all first class cricket isn't it?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Thats the most stupid thing i have ever heard comparing two players by their performances at domestic level of two diff countries.What makes u think Watson is gonna be such a big sucess? he might even be dreopped like Shane and Harvey.

Haven't seen many posts round here if that's the stupidest thing you've read, have you?

First class cricket is supposed to be the same level worldwide, but there are variations - Australian first-class matches are high quality, and Zimbabwean matches are weak, but given 25% tolerance they can be used to compare. Remember Watson plays in the strong Australian setup and Agarkar in the weaker Indian setup

Batting
Watson 44-26 Agarkar. Close...

Bowling
Watson 26-27 Agarkar. Closer, until we remember the different quality of league setups...

Care to illuminate us further as to your train of thought? Or Combine Harvester in this case?

 

[wahindiawah]

Many players does wonders at domestic level but flops at international level.Can't recall all the names but Hicks is one of them.Ur argument that Watson scored more than Ajit at domestic level thus is better is meaningless also since the domestic level we are talking about are of two different countries.

Harvey/Shane also did well at domestic level, but where are they now?? S.Waugh is on record saying that Harvey is the best onedayer bowler, it turned out to be a joke.
Watson may never be able to play at test level, whether he succeed at Onedayer level is yet to be seen!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes, and let's look at the players who have succeeded at Domestic Level and International Level:

Gilchrist
Ponting
McGrath
Hayden
Langer
Gillespie
Warne
Tendulkar
Dravid
Thorpe
Gough
Inzamam
Zaheer
Sehwag
Lara
Pollock

etc...

You get the idea? Now a constructive argument as to how Agarkar could be considered better than Watson?

 

[Eclipse]

That is bullshit Watson is 10 times better than agarkar who cant bat for **** or bowl at all.

Watson is infact a genuine top order batsman and his bowling is also quite impresive at FC level.

 

[marc71178]

Agarkar averages 26 in a domestic set-up where lots of players can average over 50 in a career, and NOT get called up for any higher level cricket.

Watson averages over 40 where the average batting average is far lower than that.

Now work out who's the better batsman?

 

[Gotchya]

The ICC is around the corner now who's your favourite....

Australia
Sri Lanka
South Africa
Pakistan
India/England/N Zealand (difficult to
seperate the three)
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh

Australia are the favourites no doubts there.

Sri Lanka -- may surprise you but after Morocco they are liable to give every team a tough time on their home ground.

South Africa downed by sri lanka in the Morocco cup, still one of the most cosistent and professioanl teams aruond. Tendenccy to choke in big matches is the problem.

Pakistan Some broken teeth and a lot of pride lost, still reckon the ycan easily bounce back, ony for the players to straighten up their agendas ofcourse.

India/England/New Zealand

All three play more or less the same sort of cricket, New Zealand perhaps has the edge in the fielding and an imporved bowling attack but they will be without Cairns, India have a good batting line up but a weak bowling unit which is proving to be the decisive factor in almost every match, where as England have all three in lesser proportions, there batting line is experienced but often are prone to huge collapses. On their day they can upset any of the big un's.

West Indies and Zimbabwe

If we this was 1975(just to make a point) you would kill me for putting the two together, but that has been the story for the WI, fallen from grace they presently pose no threat to the top teams. The odd day may see them win one but at the moment sadly i would rate them on par with the Z men.

Bangladesh Learning to traverse the Learnig curve. Long way to go yet.

Thats my assesment..........

 

[luckyeddie]

I have this sneaky feeling that my quid on Sri Lanka will see me drinking for free on the night of the final - said so a long time ago and I see no reason to change that view.

Basically, it's a guess.

 

[Neil Pickup]

That is * Watson is 10 times better than agarkar who cant bat for * or bowl at all.

Watson is infact a genuine top order batsman and his bowling is also quite impresive at FC level.

Hey, cool it!

There's no reason for expletives when facts and reasoned logic can be used..

 

[Neil Pickup]

And I'm going to stick to Pakistan.

For some reason. Maybe Kenya will have shocked them into doing something...

 

[R_Powell_fan]

I think for pakistan to have a chance of winning their batsman will be key factors, Saeed Anwar, Big Inzi have to find some form and if they do watch out, coz they might really click.

 

[Eclipse]

sorry for swereing Im had a bad day


Any how I dont think we can really compair Agarkars batting to Watsons.
Watson is heaps better and his bowling could not be any worse i mean come on lol