PDA

View Full Version : What son?



Bruce
10th March 2006, 04:47 PM
Shane Watson wants an explanation for his exclusion from the test side (http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18412221-23212,00.html)

Pretty easy actually. Sorry Shane - you're just not a test bowler.

Fishman Dan
10th March 2006, 04:52 PM
You've used plenty more syllables than I would have

I like this bit..

"Watson has been described this week by former Test tearaway Jeff Thomson as "not an all rounder's ****hole".

connico
10th March 2006, 04:53 PM
sorry mate your wifes a **** dancer...so your out lol...

Grunt
10th March 2006, 04:53 PM
Liked Jeff Thomson's reason too.

Jarro
10th March 2006, 05:14 PM
Thommo was always a class act ;)

cazandpaul
11th March 2006, 08:50 AM
He does none of the three disciplines really well - good allrounders do something really well and are adequate at something else ie Gilly, Flintoff, Kallis.

Jarro
11th March 2006, 09:10 AM
I can't really see the selectors point in continuing with Watson if he isn't performing. The reason he's there is because they're after an all-rounder, and in my opinion we already have one in Brett Lee.

goughy
11th March 2006, 09:16 AM
and symonds

cazandpaul
11th March 2006, 09:20 AM
Yet to be proven in test matches!

goughy
11th March 2006, 09:29 AM
are we talking about test matches? I thought this was the nrl thread. Doh!

cazandpaul
11th March 2006, 01:08 PM
:-d

Fishman Dan
11th March 2006, 03:14 PM
I think a precedent has been set - first Hodge, now Watson. Get dropped, have a whinge.

terryand
11th March 2006, 03:30 PM
I think a precedent has been set - first Hodge, now Watson. Get dropped, have a whinge.

I think you forgot Wonderboy started the precedent.

Terry.

Fishman Dan
11th March 2006, 08:30 PM
I don't recall headlines saying he was running Ponting down for a reason/excuse for being dropped. He drew the attention of Waugh and co in the press saying he needed to settle himself down, and then went out and made a match winning 200 for NSW.

His form in the ING Cup and ODI's since have been pretty good too.

Jarro
12th March 2006, 06:45 AM
His form in the ING Cup since have been pretty good too.

.. so has Dizzy's and Kaspa's :smt002

Moe Norman
12th March 2006, 08:23 AM
interesting you guys don't rate Watson's batting. Have you ever bothered to watch any Pura Cup cricket?

I think you'll find his pura cup average is superior to Hodge, Hussey, Clarke & Symonds. Don't confuse inflated first class averages with Pura Cup averages. Hussey and Symonds have been bloating their first class averages in England for 10 years.

It's tough to score runs when you bat number 7 or 8 for Australia and 3 or 4 for your state. Hussey has proven he can adapt and good on him. Watson is not a hitter and never will be, he should bat Top 4 or not at all. It seems they're sticking with not at all for the moment.

Fishman Dan
12th March 2006, 09:05 AM
Moe - Watson will be an elite Pura Cup player, but he hasn't (in my own humble opinion... and plenty of others) got the metal for test cricket.

But track record or not, no one needs to come out and question why they are dropped. Take it, deal with it. Just in this case i think the answer was more obvious than others.

PRC
12th March 2006, 09:03 PM
Watson needs time, it did take Hayden, Ponting, Warne, McGrath etc etc a few tests to get their act together. Andrew Flintoff is another good example. Hard to write a guy off after 3 tests, took S Waugh about 30 to score a century.
Watson can bat, could easily hold down 6. He seems to have the back sorted and DK Lillee says his bowling is good enough. I've little confidence in Symonds to score runs against Flintoff, Harmison and Jones when he couldn't against Ntini, Nell and the ghost of Shaun Pollock. Watson is our best bet for the future and the time to play him is now.

Moe Norman
12th March 2006, 09:21 PM
Moe - Watson will be an elite Pura Cup player, but he hasn't (in my own humble opinion... and plenty of others) got the metal for test cricket.

But track record or not, no one needs to come out and question why they are dropped. Take it, deal with it. Just in this case i think the answer was more obvious than others. On what basis though? How do you rate his metal for test cricket? The guy is 24 and has had more back injuries than Christopher Reeve. He has played 3 tests where they batted him at 7 for some ludicrous reason and he scored 20 odd in each innings and only one of them was a chance to really bat, the other two he came in at 5-500!

As for questioning the decision, I think it's been blown out of proportion. He wasn't even the incumbent so he was hardly dropped, the media just get hold of stories and run with them.

I can understand why people don't rate his bowling, as the stuff he has ditched up in his very limited appearances for Australia is pretty ordinary. But players like Langer and Lehmann say he's one of the elite bowlers in the pura cup and second only to Lee in pace, back that up with an endorsement from DK himself and thatsd enough for me.

The Thommo thing has history, alot of QLD'ers (Thommo one of the main offenders) bagged the **** out of Watson when he went to Tassie to play shield cricket after all the money QLD cricket spent developing him. Stuart Law was particularly vicious with some of his comments. Watson had the last laugh with match figures of 11-55 and 68* in his first appearance agains the Bulls...I think they fired him up a tad!

I never really knew what the problem was, if you're 19 and your home state isn't going to pick you, and another first class side offers you the #4 slot in the batting order and 3rd use of the pill I wouldn't have thought there was much of a decision to make....

BrisWesty
12th March 2006, 10:14 PM
Seem to remember Thommo was the $633,000 man in the mid 70s to leave NSW and play for Queensland.
The only people swearing about that would've been the NSW players who now had to face him out in the middle.

Moe Norman
12th March 2006, 10:19 PM
Not to mention Stuart Law is now a Pom and actually considered answering the call for a test match before they realised he was washed up.

PRC
13th March 2006, 09:14 PM
Watson may have caught a lucky break not playing in the record losing ODI. Think the selectors will be keen to have Symonds first change in a Test after his 9 overs for 75?

terryand
13th March 2006, 09:24 PM
Watson may have caught a lucky break not playing in the record losing ODI. Think the selectors will be keen to have Symonds first change in a Test after his 9 overs for 75?

Well we're in trouble then,cause the guy that is going to lead our attack in the test series went for 9 an over :-?

9 overs for 75= 8.33 / over
7.5 overs for 68= 9.06 / over

Terry.

PRC
16th March 2006, 09:33 PM
I see your point but you can't honestly believe Symonds is a first change medium pacer at test level.
A bit OT but what's the point of Tait being in SA if they're not going to play him? Tait's performance in the one day final was probably the quickest bowling by an Aussie since Thommo, he was practically unplayable for a pretty solid batting line up.
So he's young, lightning fast and full of confidence. Yet they're scared to actually play him. I like Kasper "the friendly paceman" but I don't think Kasper taking 2-30 is as good for Australian cricket as Tait doing the same. There isn't a side in international cricket that opens up with 2 legit fast bowlers. Let them loose and play S Clark as the steadier.

Fishman Dan
16th March 2006, 10:21 PM
S Clarke - 4 for 34 at lunch.

6/120. Licking our lips, or waiting for our own middle order collapse?