Who is really to blame for Australia's batting collapses post 2007 in Ashes series?

[Ruckus]

Yeah, the assumption about context is just nonsense. A look at Strauss' last 2 innings tells you that.

What do you mean?

 

[duffer]

Na, some players are just consistent and don't really ever have form slumps. Chappell raised one example in the commentary a while back, Ian Redpath: HowSTAT! Player Batting Graph

Ok, so you're basing all this on your belief that Watson is an anomaly like Redpath. Ok.

 

[Ruckus]

Ok, so you're basing all this on your belief that Watson is an anomaly like Redpath. Ok.

Huh? I never said I think Watson is actually going to score across his career in that way, I was just saying if he does it doesn't matter.

I actually think this period where Watson isn't converting is just one of those things. I've always seen him as an aggressive player who could make a fair few centuries over his career. His FC stats show his conversion rate isn't that bad at all; 17 hundreds, 38 fifties.

 

[duffer]

Ok, well I was trying to debate whether he could maintain it rather than just assuming he would maintain it. Personally as stated previously very unconvinced by the guy.

 

[Furball]

What do you mean?

Because every innings has context. Australia came into this Test needing a win to save the series. Watson scoring 45 in the first dig, whilst helping maintain his average, did nothing in terms of helping Australia to a first innings total where they could kick on and win the match.

Strauss has also only made 50s in the last 2 innings he's played. However, at Melbourne he walked out with Australia having only put 98 on the board. Cook and Strauss got England to 150/0 by the close - a great position for an in form middle order to cash in on.

At Sydney, with the exception of when Johnson and Hilfenhaus had a swing, England kept the Australian batsmen on a very tight leash. Strauss then came outand bashed 60 at more than a run a ball, which seized the initiative for England and set them on their way to a big total.

Context matters. You can occasionally get away with making 50s if your bowlers have done the job. If you're batting first you need more than that. No first innings tons since Brisbane, and no innings over 280. You can't tell me the two aren't linked.

 

[Jono]

Saying it did "nothing" is overstating it. But yes, 45 wasn't enough.

 

[Furball]

Saying it did "nothing" is overstating it. But yes, 45 wasn't enough.

Hughes, Clarke and Smith came into the Test massively out of form, Khawaja and Beer were on debut and the rest of the bowling attack got pummelled at Melbourne. Watson contributing 45 really didn't do anything in setting Australia a platform from which to be competitive.

 

[Ruckus]

Ginger, I don't disagree with any of that. But by wanting Watson to get more than 45, is simply wanting him to have a higher average for the match.

 

[Jono]

Hughes, Clarke and Smith came into the Test massively out of form, Khawaja and Beer were on debut and the rest of the bowling attack got pummelled at Melbourne. Watson contributing 45 really didn't do anything in setting Australia a platform from which to be competitive.

When he fell Australia were 2-105 with the ball 44 overs old. He did a good job.

His performance shouldn't be rated based on the quality of the rest of his team. Otherwise so many of Sachin and Lara's innings were "not enough" because their tons had no affect on the match since the rest of the team collapsed for less than 300.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah exactly Jono. I think there is literally no problem with Watson averaging 50 but not converting. But even if you do think there is a problem with that, it seriously pales in comparison with the fact that the majority of our key batsmen had sub-25 averages for the series.

 

[Furball]

Ginger, I don't disagree with any of that. But by wanting Watson to get more than 45, is simply wanting him to have a higher average for the match.

I'm not interested in match averages, I'm looking at what the players are doing in the first innings of a match. A good first innings won't win you a game but it can go a long way to losing you a Test.

Australia have batted first 4 times this series and failed to get past 280 in any of them. Couple that with conceding 620/5 at Adelaide, 513 at Melbourne and 644 at Sydney and there's your answer for why Australia have been getting thrashed. Watson isn't exempt from this - he's averaged 30 in the first innings. How he does in the 2nd innings has largely been rendered irrelevant by how far behind Australia have found themselves in 3 of the 4 Tests they've batted first in.

 

[Ruckus]

How is (innings totals) 400 and 300, any different to 300 and 400?

 

[GIMH]

I don't really uinderstand the context of talking about averages on the basis of one match.

Let's flip it and use bowling. Look at Stuart Broad at The Oval last summer. His average for the match probably wasn't great as he didn't do much second dig. But his first innings spell won England the match (and the series). The second innings was a formality after that.

A big hundred can work very much the same and render the second innings of little importance. I know you're going to come back at me and say that a batsmen who scores a big one will have a good average for the match, but that's not really the point. Averages are a useful way of looking at a player's overall career, among with other things. In an individual match, they mean nothing.

 

[duffer]

How is (innings totals) 400 and 300, any different to 300 and 400?

If you bowl first and cop 550 then there would be a difference in getting 300 or 400 in the first dig.

 

[Ruckus]

why?

 

[Furball]

How is (innings totals) 400 and 300, any different to 300 and 400?

Because scoring 400 makes it a lot harder for the opposition to win. If England had scored their 517/1 in the first innings at Brisbane instead if the second then Australia wouldn't have been in with a shout of winning.

 

[GIMH]

Rather than adding the overall numbers DeusEx, look at context. At Lord's 09, Australia scored ~400 in the second innings. At The Oval, I think it was around 350. Imagine if these runs had been scored first up.

 

[Furball]

why?

If you score 300 in reply to 550 then you give the opposition captain the optionof enforcing the follow on.

 

[marc71178]

Surely that's irrelevant as you're going to follow it up with 400 in the 2nd dig (assuming some of your batsmen haven't run out of their quota of runs yet that is!)

 

[Furball]

Surely that's irrelevant as you're going to follow it up with 400 in the 2nd dig (assuming some of your batsmen haven't run out of their quota of runs yet that is!)

Assuming we're playing timeless Tests, if you score 400 following on you're only setting the opposition 150 to win. Whereas if you reply with 400 first then roll the opposition for 150, your 300 2nd time round wins you the game.