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

[Ruckus]

Chanderpaul was a 19 year old when he made his debut and played a lot of those innings at number 5/6 from where it is not that easy to convert into centuries.



Don't think anyone would be complaining if Watson had a 100/50 ratio of 40%+ as an opener. BTW, comparison to Chanderpaul, Inzamam, and Richards is not fair. They batted at 5/6 for significant portions of their careers.

Use his very own batting partner then, Katich. Converstion 'rate' of 40%, yet still averages over 45.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Use his very own batting partner then, Katich. Converstion 'rate' of 40%, yet still averages over 45.

Sure. I don't see as many people complaining about Katich's conversion. In fact as opener he has 8 centuries and 17 half centuries, which is not bad at all.

BTW, I am not implying that Watson should be made the fall guy or something. Just that he is not utilizing his good form. He will fall down to a 40 average opener once his good form runs out and he does not start playing the big innings.

 

[TumTum]

Yeah that's true actually. Why are they called conversion rates then, when it is really just a ratio of 50's to 100's?

Cricket statisticians are poor at maths.

 

[Ruckus]

Cricket statisticians are poor at maths.

Poo

 

[TumTum]

You just divide the 100/50 ratio by 2 to get the true % percentage rate. So Hayden's conversion rate is approx. 52%. So that means 52% of the time when he gets a 50 he will convert it into a hundred.

You maths is poor as well

Conversion Rate (%) = 100s / (100s + 50s) * 100

Hayden's conversion rate is 50.85%

 

[Ruckus]

You maths is poor as well

Conversion Rate (%) = 100s / (100s + 50s) * 100

Hayden's conversion rate is 50.85%

Indeed haha

 

[GIMH]

For the sake of the argument, I'm assuming he does (because it more closely represents his pattern of scoring). In theory if he scored a 50 every innings, it is literally no different to scoring a 100 every second innings (and 0's in between).

Surely you've been watching cricket long enough to know that's not true? See below:

a) It's the general pattern of cricket. Most people average more in the first innings than the second.
b) It's how cricket works, the team with the first innings lead ends up being in the best position to win the match. It's especially important if you bowl first, because the more runs that you make in the first innings means that you have to chase less in the conditions that are usually the toughest to score in (4th innings of match).

I know some cricket fans love their stats but I never thought I'd see anyone actually argue that average was all that mattered.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Using England's scores this series and comparing them with Australia's doesn't make any sense because one side is in great form whilst the other is not.

The trouble is and the point we are making is Watson is in form as much as any England player and not cashing in, hence why he is being targetted for criticism. If he was scoring a scratchy horrid 50 it would be different but he looks as good as anyone on either side and keeps throwing it away when set. That is inexcusable.

 

[TumTum]

The trouble is and the point we are making is Watson is in form as much as any England player and not cashing in, hence why he is being targetted for criticism. If he was scoring a scratchy horrid 50 it would be different but he looks as good as anyone on either side and keeps throwing it away when set. That is inexcusable.

England have bowled 100x better than Australia too.

 

[TumTum]

Surely you've been watching cricket long enough to know that's not true? See below:



I know some cricket fans love their stats but I never thought I'd see anyone actually argue that average was all that mattered.

They are talking about completely different things.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

England have bowled 100x better than Australia too.

Not going to disagree there but the thing is when Hussey is set you sit there thinking "damn, how the hell are they going to get him out" yet if Watson is set you think " Doesn't matter he will throw it away soon".

That is something that probably enters the players heads too as they know Watson fails to go on more often than not.

 

[TumTum]

Not going to disagree there but the thing is when Hussey is set you sit there thinking "damn, how the hell are they going to get him out" yet if Watson is set you think " Doesn't matter he will throw it away soon".

That is something that probably enters the players heads too as they know Watson fails to go on more often than not.

Hussey has been the best batsman from both teams by a long way imho. Also you guys don't worry about Watson as much because the rest of the line-up is collapsing anyway.

 

[vcs]

The discussion here can be understood by taking the examples of Watson and Ponting.

Watson has been in really good form and has not been converting his 50s into 100s or big 100s during this run of form. When Ponting was in really good form, he was converting every other 50 into a 100. This is reflected in the fact that Watson's average in his good form is around the 45-50 mark and Ponting was around the 65 mark.

When Ponting has hit bad form, his conversion has gone down, so have the number of starts and so has his average to around 40. When Watson hits bad form, his average will drop lower. Or even if it is around the 40 mark, he would have wasted his good form by averaging only 50 in that period of good form.

Most top class batsmen in top form would have averages around the 65 range and not 45-50 which Watson has, and that can be achieved only by converting starts into 100s.

Yes, one can argue simplistically that scoring 50 in every innings does the job. But that's not how real life works :

1. The batsman will invariably go through a form slump.

2. In any particular test innings on a normal track, typically 2-3 of the top 7 do fail.

3. During any particular time, there are going to be batsmen in the line up who are not in the best form of their lives. To cover up for their lower output during this productivity slump, the batsman in form needs to score big.

Loving your posts, mate. Very well put.

Watson does not deserve to be "blamed" for Australia's collapses, but it is certainly an area of his game he must improve upon if Australia are to get back to the pinnacle of the game. Gambhir and Sehwag, are IMHO, the biggest reason for India ascending to the top of the rankings despite having an average bowling attack. Australia were at the peak of their powers when the Hayden-Langer partnership was at its very best. W. Indies of the 80's had Greenidge-Haynes, etc. etc.

 

[Ruckus]

They are talking about completely different things.

This. No idea what you are referring to Geraint...

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Hussey has been the best batsman from both teams by a long way imho. Also you guys don't worry about Watson as much because the rest of the line-up is collapsing anyway.

Disagree, i think Bell has been the star man just hasn't had chance to show it properly yet as you don't get him in early enough.

 

[marc71178]

Having read through 3 pages of basically the same 2 points being made repeatedly from both sides I summarise that it's Twatto's fault.

 

[GIMH]

They are talking about completely different things.

I find Jack's point applicable to the general argument.

Look at it another way. England piled the runs on second dig in Brisbane, but scoring big first up woud have given us a much better chance of winning. It's not a case of looking at how many runs were scored but the context of the game.

 

[four_or_six]

Given that batting collapses are arguably your biggest problem, and that they are Watto's fault, you should drop him.

 

[TumTum]

I find Jack's point applicable to the general argument.

Look at it another way. England piled the runs on second dig in Brisbane, but scoring big first up woud have given us a much better chance of winning. It's not a case of looking at how many runs were scored but the context of the game.

Well then you are talking about in which innings the batsman score runs, which is different to what DuesEx is saying about your career consistency. Although I don't agree with the notion that scoring in the 1st dig is more important, but I am sure this has been discussed before.

Given that batting collapses are arguably your biggest problem, and that they are Watto's fault, you should drop him.

 

[GIMH]

It's not quite as simple as first innings runs being more important but I would choose a batsman who scores first innings hundreds over one who scores two fifties.

I basically take exception that average is all that matters because it ignores so many other factors.