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

[Furball]

When we are analysing why the team failed, I find those kind of questions directed towards Watson completely unwarranted. Would it have been too much to ask for Ponting to score even one important 50? Would it have been too much to ask for Hughes to average more than 20? Would it have been too much to ask Hilfenhaus to take at least a few more wickets? Would it have been too much to ask Johnson to bowl consistently for more than one match? Etc. etc. etc.

The bottom line is Watson averaged about 50 for the series. If you are going to question a teams performance, you have to get your priorities right.

I am criticising his performance at Adelaide. Having worked so hard with Hussey to rebuild, he deserves a lot of criticism for throwing away his wicket after lunch and exposing the lower order to a newish ball. The fact he'd scored 50 before throwing his wicket away doesn't excuse his performance at Adelaide.

 

[Ruckus]

I am criticising his performance at Adelaide. Having worked so hard with Hussey to rebuild, he deserves a lot of criticism for throwing away his wicket after lunch and exposing the lower order to a newish ball. The fact he'd scored 50 before throwing his wicket away doesn't excuse his performance at Adelaide.

Yeah what I said before about priorities applies to Adelaide as well. His match average was actually over 50, so it is was a perfectly decent performance. Most of the other batsmen were much worse, and the entire bowling attack was lousy (perhaps bar Harris). Once again, he shouldn't be the target of much criticism here.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah what I said before about priorities applies to Adelaide as well. His match average was actually over 50, so it is was a perfectly decent performance. Most of the other batsmen were much worse, and the entire bowling attack was lousy (perhaps bar Harris). Once again, he shouldn't be the target of much criticism here.

His second innings was fairly meaningless though. His match average means **** all.

 

[Furball]

Yeah what I said before about priorities applies to Adelaide as well. His match average was actually over 50, so it is was a perfectly decent performance. Most of the other batsmen were much worse, and the entire bowling attack was lousy (perhaps bar Harris). Once again, he shouldn't be the target of much criticism here.

He'd got himself in on a flat deck and had done some good rebuilding work with Hussey. Throwing his wicket away in that situation was utterly criminal. A match average of 50 is **** all next to Pietersen's 227 and Cook's 148.

 

[GIMH]

If all of the Aussies had scored a 50 in the first innings, they still had a lower total than England...

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah what I said before about priorities applies to Adelaide as well. His match average was actually over 50, so it is was a perfectly decent performance. Most of the other batsmen were much worse, and the entire bowling attack was lousy (perhaps bar Harris). Once again, he shouldn't be the target of much criticism here.

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism of any performance. You don't have to be the best or worst player in a side to be commented on.

 

[Howe_zat]

If all of the Aussies had scored a 50 in the first innings, they still had a lower total than England...

Which is one reason you'd say the Aussie bowling (bar Harris) was the worst part of that performance.

 

[Ruckus]

Sigh... I'm out man.

 

[Teja.]

I'm split between camps here. Is going on and making runs instead of getting out at 50 all the time important? Yes. Is it reasonable for the players who are perceived to be in form to 'cash in', as if they are somehow more responsible than the bats who are out of form? I don't think so.

While I agree that him averaging 50 does not mean he had a great series with the bat, when looked in context, does not mean he had a great series, Watson suddenly isn't more responsible than say, Ponting just because he is the in form bat, IMHO.

Watson's had an average series with the bat; passable, you can say. A fair few have had pathetic series'. They should be the centre of criticism atm tbh, not Twatto.

 

[tooextracool]

It's perfectly reasonable to require a test match opening batsman to score hundreds. For the reasons discussed above, a player who keeps throwing his wicket away is not doing their job properly when they open.

However, it is unreasonable to criticise Watson for not scoring hundreds when he so often makes 50s. That is what he is so good at and is actually a very useful role to have in the side. The issue with this is that Watson is not an opener, does not have the plan or concentration.

As has been noted, saying that Watto needs to convert his scores is asking him to average 80, which he is not capable of and it is unfair to ask of him when so many others would do well to average 50.

The issue is one of selection, and not finding a proper opener. If you are going to criticise Watson for this, you may as well criticise his selection all together, because you are criticising him for being Shane Watson.

(Which, on reflection, could be pretty fair.)

This is only one of several arguments for Watson to move down the order, and him continuing to face the first ball is yet another example of selectorial incompetence.

Interestingly enough his conversion rate in domestic cricket is actually pretty good -15/23. Which goes to show hes not exactly incapable of scoring 100s.

 

[marc71178]

Can't stand all this Watto hate.

Can't remember the last series so won't mention it. England have bowled really well for the majority of this series. Ponting, Clarke, No 6 batsman, Hughes are all out of form. A batsmans job is to score runs - none of them did that in this series. Yes Watson could have tonned up and taken some pressure off but I don't think it would have mattered with the way Enlgand bowled and that group batted. In any event, you should rightfully expect your middle order to dig you out of a hole every now and then and they didn't.

Bottom line. Watson could improve his teams chances of favourable results with more hundreds. It does mean he is somehow responsible for someone else's failings. The middle order minus Huss need to score more runs. That's it. Doesn't need to be and isn't more complicated than that.

Yeah, totally agree. There's that many candidates for the blame that it's not as if we're going to run out of people to point the finger at.

 

[GIMH]

Aw no he didn't

 

[Uppercut]

 

[Joao]

Interestingly enough his conversion rate in domestic cricket is actually pretty good -15/23. Which goes to show hes not exactly incapable of scoring 100s.

Exactly. I honestly believe, and it pains me to say it, but England's bowling is the reason he didn't kick on. Put him on 50* on most of those tracks against anyone but England or South Africa and I'd back him in.

I think it takes too much away from the poms performance to call every dismissal throwing it away.

Except that run out 2nd innings at Sydney - ****ing ****head Watto.

 

[stephen]

I do think that a large part of Australia's failure in this series has to do with a lack of big scores in the first innings.

The reason is psychological in many ways but psychological reasons are still reasons.

A big score in the first innings means:
1) The fielding side are more worn out and frustrated by being in the field longer and their bowlers are more tired towards the end of the innings, giving your tail end batsmen an easier time at the crease
2) You expose your own side to more of the good batting conditions on the second (and sometimes third) day
3) Your opposition feels like they are playing "catch up" for longer in their innings
4) You reduce the need to score big in your second innings on a pitch that is likely wearing (this is massively important if your opposition has a quality spinner like Swann)
5) You inspire the other players in your team, giving them stronger body language and more confidence when fielding
6) You give your bowlers the feeling of more freedom when they bowl and so they are more likely to be patient and not just try for the miracle ball to take wickets
7) It gives you longer at the crease to form a partnership with another batsman in the side who then is likely to score more runs because they are able to build their innings easier

Sure you may average 50 by getting 50 and 50 or 100 and 0, but the partnerships and the extra first innings runs really do help put your side in the ascendency for the test match.

Runs are equally valuable from a mathematical point of view no matter when they are scored, but first innings runs have many more tangible benefits to the mood, motivation and body language of the team. Games like Brisbane are a rarity. Most of the time the team that scores more first innings runs is likely to win.

Watto's biggest problem is not his average or his runs, it's his dire running between wickets.

 

[Spark]

"I feel a bit for our bowlers, because I know they've copped a lot of criticism throughout this series. But I think we as batters have to take a lot of responsibility as well.
"If you can put 400 runs on the board as England have shown, your bowlers generally bowl a lot better than what we have. Putting 100, 200, 250 on the board and expecting the bowlers to get them out for that sort of target, I think we're asking a hell of a lot."

Really, what more can you say?

 

[Tom 1972]

For the record. 39 scores of 50+ runs this series.

England averaged 129 when they passed 50. (20 times, four not outs)
Australia averaged 89 when we passed 50. (19 times, three not outs)

Making a start and persistently not going on with it is unforgiveable if you claim to be world class.



Another aspect of the game where we were totally smashed...highlights the difference of the two sides.

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyway, I really can't judge at all. Way too many factors and no way of measuring them empirically. If Cribb ever makes a computer program that can mine scorecards for data I'll be able to give you a definitive answer.

I've pretty much already done that; what I lack is a copy of every scorecard ever on my computer.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I've pretty much already done that; what I lack is a copy of every scorecard ever on my computer.

I'd have thought that's the easy part. Wouldn't site-grabber software do the job?

 

[Burgey]

Andrew Hilditch, imo.