Cricket

[Tygrys]

Indeed, it is the man who is scoring runs who is at fault, not the men who aren't scoring runs, not the men who aren't taking wickets. It is all Watson's fault for doing the job he has been given.

1. I said we should go through the team with a knife (you know the non-performers) 2. No one has said it's all Watson's fault 3. No-one is saying Watson should be dropped 4. He is 'not doing his job', simply getting starts and then not going on with it (that is not the job that he has been given as an opener, or I pray to God it isn't, if it is we're bigger trouble than I thought!) 5. He is not playing like an opener removing the shine off the ball as you have argued, he is playing like an attacking middle-order player (where he should be playing, especially also taking into account his bowling duties). 6. None of this is anti-Watson, it's about getting the balance right for the team - like when Boon was moved from opener to number three. Watson does 'ok' as an opener but he is not doing great, maybe someone else might, and maybe he would do great in the late middle order. If we were winning, you could argue if it aint broke don't fix it, but we're not. I can only think you are related to Watson if you think people are lashing out at him, because no one is. It's simply about the team.

 

[mld]

(name a top state opener)

Indeed, and this is the weakness in all the arguments against Watson as opener, simply replace him with name a top state opener.

 

[Tigerbob]

Indeed, and this is the weakness in all the arguments against Watson as opener, simply replace him with name a top state opener.

What arguments against Watson? Gee whizz your going off track here mate.

I rate Watson. I think he would be better served in our team in the middle order as that is where our major weakness is. It's because of his strengths that makes this decision more sensible.

Take your pick of any state opener, there is plenty of quality around. Put the best one in the most form in the opening position with Kat and the team looks much more difficult to bowl out in my opinion.

This isn't about Watson. It's about what is best for our team that is currently in a whole world of trouble.

 

[mld]

4. He is 'not doing his job', simply getting starts and then not going on with it (that is not the job that he has been given as an opener, or I pray to God it isn't, if it is we're bigger trouble than I thought!)

Look, no offence, but you don't seem to know much about the role of the openers. You can have a crack at me as much as you like over this, but openers will always be selected on their ability to take the shine off the ball for the middle order. Indeed, it is why technically correct batsmen like Watson and Langer before him are chosen even though they didn't open for their states.

5. He is not playing like an opener removing the shine off the ball as you have argued, he is playing like an attacking middle-order player (where he should be playing, especially also taking into account his bowling duties)

Nonsense. His defence is water-tight. There certainly isn't a tighter batsmen opening in the shield. It is when he starts getting adventurous that he gets out.

6. None of this is anti-Watson

Of course not, it is natural that he is the centre of discussion after a half centruy when so many other batsmen failed.

I can only think you are related to Watson if you think people are lashing out at him, because no one is. It's simply about the team.

If Watson opening is the most discussion-worthy problem our team has, the ashes are in the bag.

 

[mld]

What arguments against Watson? Gee whizz your going off track here mate.

I rate Watson. I think he would be better served in our team in the middle order as that is where our major weakness is. It's because of his strengths that makes this decision more sensible.

Take your pick of any state opener, there is plenty of quality around. Put the best one in the most form in the opening position with Kat and the team looks much more difficult to bowl out in my opinion.

This isn't about Watson. It's about what is best for our team that is currently in a whole world of trouble.

Apologies. If you re-read my post, I did state 'arguments against Watson as opener'. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I don't share your faith in [insert state opener here]. I'd rather stick with the players that are doing what is asked of them and replace the players that aren't.

 

[Tygrys]

Is it Hughes people want Watson replaced with? Pretty average eyes for talent if so. Sure, the man murders first class attacks on roads, but he has been found out with the high balls at international level before. He has a lot to prove before he can be considered a safe bet before Watson.

He was found out? When did this happen? During his last test innings when he scored 86 not out? He averages over fifty in both tests and first class cricket. In 7 test matches he has scored two centuries and two fifties (all of which compares more than favourably to Watson). At 22 years of age he is closing in on 5000 first class runs, he has proven a lot already. I take it all back, you're not related to Watson, you're related to Andrew Hilditch!!!

 

[mld]

He was found out? When did this happen? During his last test innings when he scored 86 not out? He averages over fifty in both tests and first class cricket. In 7 test matches he has scored two centuries and two fifties (all of which compares more than favourably to Watson). At 22 years of age he is closing in on 5000 first class runs, he has proven a lot already. I take it all back, you're not related to Watson, you're related to Andrew Hilditch!!!

My apologies, you obviously didn't watch the last Ashes. You know, the Ashes when he was dropped for poor technique, in favour of Watson. Carry on.

 

[Tigerbob]

Apologies. If you re-read my post, I did state 'arguments against Watson as opener'. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I don't share your faith in [insert sate opener here]. I'd rather stick with the players that are doing what is asked of them and replace the players that aren't.

Reading it again mate, my mistake, you clearly had it written.

Still mate, it's not an argument against Watson opening, it's about the benefit of Watson improving our biggest weakness, on my part anyway.

It is a team game, not an individual one. Watson may be doing fine as an opener but it's about what is better for us. My opinion, and that's all it is, just my opinion, is that for the teams sake, it makes more sense to have him down the order. I am a firm believer on having a great core in the middle order as they will either be exposed and your side crumbles or they frustrate and your side gets the upper hand. I also believe in a test match you have to have the ability yes, to bowl a team out, but you also have to have a side that isn't easily to bowl out itself.

Right now we are as soft as butter left in the sun. We are badly exposed and it is embarrassing right now. Hussey, Watson, White, Smith and Haddin in my eyes gives us some guts in the core.

 

[mld]

Reading it again mate, my mistake, you clearly had it written.

Still mate, it's not an argument against Watson opening, it's about the benefit of Watson improving our biggest weakness, on my part anyway.

It is a team game, not an individual one. Watson may be doing fine as an opener but it's about what is better for us. My opinion, and that's all it is, just my opinion, is that for the teams sake, it makes more sense to have him down the order. I am a firm believer on having a great core in the middle order as they will either be exposed and your side crumbles or they frustrate and your side gets the upper hand. I also believe in a test match you have to have the ability yes, to bowl a team out, but you also have to have a side that isn't easily to bowl out itself.

Right now we are as soft as butter left in the sun. We are badly exposed and it is embarrassing right now. Hussey, Watson, White, Smith and Haddin in my eyes gives us some guts in the core.

I'm of the opinion that we don't weaken the spots that we are strong in. Our openers are stronger than our middle order, so we fix the middle order before looking at the openers. I like Watson as an opener because:

*He is techically correct.
*He doesn't offer early chances by wafting at stuff without footwork.
*He is very good at leaving balls go.
*He has no problems with the short stuff.

His run of not converting 50s to 100s is the least of our problems. Let us concentrate on getting the rest of the batsmen to make 50s first.

 

[Streak]

It is a team game, not an individual one. Watson may be doing fine as an opener but it's about what is better for us. My opinion, and that's all it is, just my opinion, is that for the teams sake, it makes more sense to have him down the order. I am a firm believer on having a great core in the middle order as they will either be exposed and your side crumbles or they frustrate and your side gets the upper hand. I also believe in a test match you have to have the ability yes, to bowl a team out, but you also have to have a side that isn't easily to bowl out itself.

Right now we are as soft as butter left in the sun. We are badly exposed and it is embarrassing right now. Hussey, Watson, White, Smith and Haddin in my eyes gives us some guts in the core.

Yep

 

[Tygrys]

Look, no offence, but you don't seem to know much about the role of the openers. You can have a crack at me as much as you like over this, but openers will always be selected on their ability to take the shine off the ball for the middle order. Indeed, it is why technically correct batsmen like Watson and Langer before him are chosen even though they didn't open for their states.

Nonsense. His defence is water-tight. There certainly isn't a tighter batsmen opening in the shield. It is when he starts getting adventurous that he gets out.

Of course not, it is natural that he is the centre of discussion after a half centruy when so many other batsmen failed.

If Watson opening is the most discussion-worthy problem our team has, the ashes are in the bag.

But do you understand, he is not doing what he is being selected for, he gets starts hitting the ball about and then goes out. Maybe it's about temperament and not technique, maybe you can play with a straight bat defensively and still have the instincts of a middle order player. Have you thought of that? Ever? And is there some rule we can't discuss Watson and team balance etc? Maybe we are not talking about the likes of North because they are so crap they are beyond redemption? Watson we like, we just want to make the most of him? You're weird, I'm going to bed, I'll revisit again tomorrow if I could be bothered. Goodnight.

PS Devastating comeback about Hughes btw, yep of all the players that deserved to be dropped during that Ashes tour, many of whom have bought Australia to the state that we are now in, a 20-21 year old Hughes with an average over 50 runs was the one that needed to go. Typically vision by our selection panel, and as we sll know they're never wrong (as for Hughes' record, I can understand why you don't want to go there). And needless to say obviously you didn't watch the last test innings when Hughes scored 86 not out. But you carry on too...

 

[Tigerbob]

I'm of the opinion that we don't weaken the spots that we are strong in. Our openers are stronger than our middle order, so we fix the middle order before looking at the openers. I like Watson as an opener because:

*He is techically correct.
*He doesn't offer early chances by wafting at stuff without footwork.
*He is very good at leaving balls go.
*He has no problems with the short stuff.

His run of not converting 50s to 100s is the least of our problems. Let us concentrate on getting the rest of the batsmen to make 50s first.

I reckon we are gonna go around in circles here mate but let me just say, I respect what you are saying.

The points on what makes Watson a good opening batsman is true and correct. They could also apply to why he is desperately needed in the guts.

I do disagree with your leave our opening partnership alone line though. It would be easier to find an opener to play a role in our current side, then trying to achieve our middle order getting fifties lol.

We are in a world of trouble here as a cricketing nation. We are currently ranked fifth in the world and playing worse. There is very little light getting shown here, drastic changes need to be made. If nothing changes, nothing changes.

 

[mld]

But do you understand, he is not doing what he is being selected for, he gets starts hitting the ball about and then goes out. Maybe it's about temperament and not technique, maybe you can play with a straight bat defensively and still have the instincts of a middle order player. Have you thought of that? Ever? And is there some rule we can't discuss Watson and team balance etc? Maybe we are not talking about the likes of North because they are so crap they are beyond redemption? Watson we like, we just want to make the most of him? You're weird, I'm going to bed, I'll revisit again tomorrow if I could be bothered. Goodnight.

PS Devastating comeback about Hughes btw, yep of all the players that deserved to be dropped during that Ashes tour, many of whom have bought Australia to the state that we are now in, a 20-21 year old Hughes with an average over 50 runs was the one that needed to go. Typically vision by our selection panel, and as we sll know they're never wrong (as for Hughes' record, I can understand why you don't want to go there). And needless to say obviously you didn't watch the last test innings when Hughes scored 86 not out. But you carry on too...

Well, I agree that you should go to bed.

 

[mld]

I reckon we are gonna go around in circles here mate but let me just say, I respect what you are saying.

The points on what makes Watson a good opening batsman is true and correct. They could also apply to why he is desperately needed in the guts.

I do disagree with your leave our opening partnership alone line though. It would be easier to find an opener to play a role in our current side, then trying to achieve our middle order getting fifties lol.

We are in a world of trouble here as a cricketing nation. We are currently ranked fifth in the world and playing worse. There is very little light getting shown here, drastic changes need to be made. If nothing changes, nothing changes.

I'm not convinced that it is that easy to find an opener as good as Watson. No-one has put their hand up, and it seems craziness to me to move one of the only players who has actually done what has been asked of him.

I reckon he is a natural opener who has missed his calling before now by playing as an all-rounder. If he had played his Shield cricket as an opener, no-one would be questioning him.

 

[Streak]

I'm not convinced that it is that easy to find an opener as good as Watson. No-one has put their hand up, and it seems craziness to me to move one of the only players who has actually done what has been asked of him.

Fair enough, but personally I think the argument for moving Watson down the order is compelling. I actually think that both Hughes and Jaques are two of the few batsmen we currently have available at first class level who can step up to play test cricket.

 

[Tigerbob]

Fair enough, but personally I think the argument for moving Watson down the order is compelling. I actually think that both Hughes and Jaques are two of the few batsmen we currently have available at first class level who can step up to play test cricket.

Yep.

I personally like Hughes. The kid has the talent to make it as a test match opener. Just needs games. We are in full rebuilding mode, he should be one that comes in and is worked on. Get Tubby to personally coach him as we move forward. He has the ability to average 50 now, so in affect he brings what Watson does, then you think of his upside.

All of a sudden we have some freshness and vigour in our lineup. I'm going to boxing day, would like nothing more to see this type of risk taking selection take place.

 

[mld]

I hate to disagree, but we are in ashes-winning mode at the moment, not full rebuilding mode. Rebuilding time was either before now or is after now. We certainly didn't pick before now, so please be patient.

 

[mld]

I don't mind Hughes, having a shot to correct his weaknesses, but Watson is a better opener than he is, so Hughes can wait until Watson either stops doing what is asked of him, or gets injured. If waiting in line for many years was good enough for Hayden it is certainly good enough for Hughes.

 

[snaps truly]

The team to finally regain the Ashes in 2014/15 after years of despair;
M. Hill 26(years old in 2014)
N. Maddinson 23
U. Khawaja 27
S. Watson 33
C. Ferguson 30
A. Blizzard 30
T. Paine 29
S. O'Keefe 29
P. Siddle 30
M. Stark 24
T. Copeland 28

Hughes and Smith waiting for their chance.....

 

[IanG]

I hate to disagree, but we are in ashes-winning mode at the moment, not full rebuilding mode.

We aren't going to win the ashes primarily due to the short sightedness of the selectors and Ponting.