Australia vs England

[1eyedog]

Re: Australia vs England

Lets ignore the stats then because I'd like to hear yours and others views to the a few questions:
Why will a move to number 6 benefit Watson and the side for a player that you refer to as a 'see the ball hit player'?

The shine will potentially be off the ball and he may also potentially be in a better position to do what he does well, score runs quickly rather than be in two minds at the top of the order about whether to play his natural game or hang around and dig in. Digging in is a foreign concept to him because he's not a number 3 he's an all-rounder who hits and consequently for mine he should be played in the traditional all-rounder spot. He may also see more spin at 6 and I think he is the exact type of player who can take advantage of that.

To me the very fact that people are suggesting a move to six is an acknowledgement that he isn't performing. I'm questioning why we should be looking at way to accommodate him rather than make the tough call. It's all confused by his bowling potential rather but I don't believe that should be a huge consideration.

He isn't performing at the top of the order because he's not a top order batsman. How he is performing at 3 aside do you think he is performing satisfactorily as an all-rounder and if not who do you think could replace him and do a better job with bat, ball and advice to the skipper?

Why can't he tighten up and bat through when we need him to complete the session with his wicket intact? Does he not have the ability to change gears?

No, he's been asked to play a role he's not suited to. He really just has one gear and that is strike the ball.

Why does his wicket fall so often to less than great bowling?

Not sure about this one. Maybe he tries to go after ordinary bowling and holes out??? Could be a product of picking the wrong ball which again is an indication he is not a top order batsman.

Watson has been a vice captain to this side and is regarded as an experienced player. I don't believe we can continue to accept soft dismissals from him. 7 years ago his potential with the ball allowed him some latitude with selection but I'm challenging why we should be making allowances for his potential now. At some point he has to deliver on it.

I'm still not sure why you're expecting greater output from a guy who is playing at the top of the order simply because he is required to. I think it's pretty obvious that he is never going to excel at 3 because he doesn't have the technique and does not as you rightly say generate 1s and 2s. The pressure would be off at 6, he potentially has the old ball to to play with as well as a licence to play his natural game. It just seems like the right place for him to bat and given that others are under performing there I don't see the harm in moving him to 6 for the series in South Africa

[boydogs]

Re: Australia vs England

Why will a move to number 6 benefit Watson and the side for a player that you refer to as a 'see the ball hit player'?

I'm not advocating a move to #6 for him myself but I can see why it's being suggested. Watson plays each ball on its merits and isn't good at adjusting his style based on the stage of the game. The point you have made about him not being able to defend his way to the lunch break is valid. It's probably better for that style of player to come in later so that others can set the game up and he can come in and play freely, but I think he is good enough against the newer ball to come in at 3.

Why can't he tighten up and bat through when we need him to complete the session with his wicket intact? Does he not have the ability to change gears?

I don't believe he does, but not from lack of trying.

Why does his wicket fall so often to less than great bowling?

Because he finds himself in two minds between his natural game and what the game situation demands of him. As soon as the game situation and his natural game aligned, everything clicked.

[GVGjr]

Re: Australia vs England

The shine will potentially be off the ball and he may also potentially be in a better position to do what he does well, score runs quickly rather than be in two minds at the top of the order about whether to play his natural game or hang around and dig in. Digging in is a foreign concept to him because he's not a number 3 he's an all-rounder who hits and consequently for mine he should be played in the traditional all-rounder spot.

That all sounds like a plausible argument for justifying any batsman being moved down the order but it's way off if we are talking about Watson.
Watson's best years were in 2009/10 when he batted as an opener. He moved down from the number 6 and 7 batting position where his form was patchy at best and largely due to his performances at the top of the order in limited over cricket he was moved to the openers position and it worked with immediate effect.
He clearly preferred the harder ball and the more attaching fielding settings that worked for his attacking stroke play. He could take advantage of any loose deliveries. When he has batted down the order he has consistently struggled to cope with spin bowling early on in the innings.

As I said, it's all sounds plausible for a move down the order but it's a huge gamble unless it's at number 7.

He isn't performing at the top of the order because he's not a top order batsman. How he is performing at 3 aside do you think he is performing satisfactorily as an all-rounder and if not who do you think could replace him and do a better job with bat, ball and advice to the skipper?

I know gogriff won't be happy but that's an assumption without fact. The stats just don't support it and his best performances have been as an opener. As for the highlighted, I think he isn't performing as a test cricket batsman.

As for the questions you have posed:
- His batting is a worry because he is getting himself out all too frequently.
- His bowling is good but I'm not sure it's good enough to hold his batting position in the top 6.
- I don't think we need a 5th bowler unless we have a very strong batting line-up. I don't think we have a strong enough top 6 that we can afford to carry a 32yo who can't change gears when required. We have Warner and don't need another shock jock batsman with a license to whack them around. We need an innings builder and someone who we can lock in for the next few years.

No, he's been asked to play a role he's not suited to. He really just has one gear and that is strike the ball.

Has he really been asked to play a role he isn't suited to? His role is to make runs and build innings. This isn't like a midfielder being asked to play as a key defender. To me he is either in our top 6 batsman or he isn't and I'm suggesting that while he has all the skill and potential to do so his 4 centuries in 50 plus tests are heavily leaning towards the latter.

I'm still not sure why you're expecting greater output from a guy who is playing at the top of the order simply because he is required to. I think it's pretty obvious that he is never going to excel at 3 because he doesn't have the technique and does not as you rightly say generate 1s and 2s. The pressure would be off at 6, he potentially has the old ball to to play with as well as a licence to play his natural game. It just seems like the right place for him to bat and given that others are under performing there I don't see the harm in moving him to 6 for the series in South Africa

It's pretty simple to me. I don't accept that he isn't a top order batsman because it's where he has played his best cricket. I don't believe that dropping him down the order is good for him or the side because the facts don't support it. I also don't understand why we are making allowances for a 32yo player with 50 tests behind him.

He bats with flair and he has a presence about him. His bowling is quite good but when an bowling attack is performing as well as ours is at the moment he doesn't get a lot of overs anyway so I understand why he has a lot of supporters. I just don't understand why we are making so many allowances for him and given his bets performances have been at the top of the order all of a sudden people are saying he isn't suited to the top of the order.

[Topdog]

Re: Australia vs England

Is it really that hard?

They've won the Ashes 4 out of the last 6 series going back to 2005, where as previously they hadn't won them for 16 years. As mediocre as it has been, 2005-2013 is the golden era of English Ashes cricket. Every commentator in England is referring to this series as the end of the golden era.

And absolutely none of them would include the 5-0 smashing they copped in that. So no it really isnt that hard.

[Topdog]

Re: Australia vs England

9 again for Watson

[Bornadog]

Re: Australia vs England

9 again for Watson

There are others that should be singled out as well. The captain has made two centuries out of 10 innings and failed in the other 8. Warner failed in last two tests.

I think the top order has not been consistent at all and gas out the pressure on the middle order.

[Topdog]

Re: Australia vs England

There are others that should be singled out as well. The captain has made two centuries out of 10 innings and failed in the other 8. Warner failed in last two tests.

I think the top order has not been consistent at all and gas out the pressure on the middle order.

Warner possibly but I've never really thought of him as being able to do it consistently as a test batsmen. He is learning all the time though and 27. Also scored the most runs in this series so probably harsh to judge him.

Clarke has been our best bat for the past 3-4 years. I'll cut him some slack.

Watson has made 2 test centuries in his last 59 innings. He doesn't bowl so isn't keeping his place as an all rounder.

[boydogs]

Re: Australia vs England

Clarke has been our best bat for the past 3-4 years. I'll cut him some slack.

He's been very vulnerable early this series. Not at risk of losing his spot but I expected more from last year's leading run scorer.

[1eyedog]

Re: Australia vs England

That all sounds like a plausible argument for justifying any batsman being moved down the order but it's way off if we are talking about Watson.
Watson's best years were in 2009/10 when he batted as an opener. He moved down from the number 6 and 7 batting position where his form was patchy at best and largely due to his performances at the top of the order in limited over cricket he was moved to the openers position and it worked with immediate effect.
He clearly preferred the harder ball and the more attaching fielding settings that worked for his attacking stroke play. He could take advantage of any loose deliveries. When he has batted down the order he has consistently struggled to cope with spin bowling early on in the innings.

As I said, it's all sounds plausible for a move down the order but it's a huge gamble unless it's at number 7.

Excellent response. Firstly, I'm not sure how many innings he has played down the order vs how many he has played as an opener / at the top of the order to gauge what his best position is. The improvement in his numbers may be attributed to his promotion up the order but it could just as easily be attributed to his management of injuries and experience at the top level. He's played 50 tests and I'll wager the majority of those now have been as an opener or in the top 4. He was injury prone and inexperienced early on in his career so maybe he didn't get the results in the middle order for other reasons other than not being suited to the older ball or the actual position. Fore mine, he is a player who generates his own power off the bat and I'm not sure how much he relies on the hardness of the newish ball. To me he struggles more with new ball movement than the benefits from it. Conversely how would we know how he will play at 6 - he hasn't played there for so long. You may be right re. spin but I've seen him whack them around the park in ODIs.

I know gogriff won't be happy but that's an assumption without fact. The stats just don't support it and his best performances have been as an opener. As for the highlighted, I think he isn't performing as a test cricket batsman.

Again he has played so many innings at the top now that the stats would be skewed in favour of this.

As for the questions you have posed:
- His batting is a worry because he is getting himself out all too frequently.
- His bowling is good but I'm not sure it's good enough to hold his batting position in the top 6.
- I don't think we need a 5th bowler unless we have a very strong batting line-up. I don't think we have a strong enough top 6 that we can afford to carry a 32yo who can't change gears when required. We have Warner and don't need another shock jock batsman with a license to whack them around. We need an innings builder and someone who we can lock in for the next few years.

You make good points.

Has he really been asked to play a role he isn't suited to? His role is to make runs and build innings. This isn't like a midfielder being asked to play as a key defender. To me he is either in our top 6 batsman or he isn't and I'm suggesting that while he has all the skill and potential to do so his 4 centuries in 50 plus tests are heavily leaning towards the latter.

Yes, ultimately I don't think he is the right person to build an innings around.

It's pretty simple to me. I don't accept that he isn't a top order batsman because it's where he has played his best cricket. I don't believe that dropping him down the order is good for him or the side because the facts don't support it. I also don't understand why we are making allowances for a 32yo player with 50 tests behind him.

He's played his best cricket at the top because he's played most of his cricket there now as an experience player. I'm not making allowances for him. To be perfectly honest I'm happy to leave him where he is for the time being as he is making runs. I would however prefer to see him play at 6 rather than tossed out of the team.

He bats with flair and he has a presence about him. His bowling is quite good but when an bowling attack is performing as well as ours is at the moment he doesn't get a lot of overs anyway so I understand why he has a lot of supporters. I just don't understand why we are making so many allowances for him and given his bets performances have been at the top of the order all of a sudden people are saying he isn't suited to the top of the order.

As I said I'm happy to have him batting where he is for now but I don't think its a long term fix for our top order. If we had a decent replacement at 3 I would be playing them and dropping Watson to 6 but we don't. I think we will end up seeing him at 6 because I don't think he has what it takes to build an innings and also because as soon as a younger player comes into the team it will be Watson who makes way and the selectors seem hell bent on keeping him in the team so I think we will eventually see him at 6.

[lemmon]

Re: Australia vs England

All the arguments against Watson: boundary hitter, doesn't rotate the strike, gets bogged down, fails when the pressure is on could quite as easily be made against Bailey too...that is except that Watson has made runs for the series

[GVGjr]

Re: Australia vs England

All the arguments against Watson: boundary hitter, doesn't rotate the strike, gets bogged down, fails when the pressure is on could quite as easily be made against Bailey too...that is except that Watson has made runs for the series

No question that Bailey has too many limitations for test cricket. It was worth a run but it's now time to look elsewhere.

Re Watson, it's not that he hasn't made runs it's more around the way he is going out and that he doesn't complete sessions. Compared to 2009/10 he is a long way off his best and this is an English side that isn't as strong with the ball as we all thought they would be.

[Topdog]

Re: Australia vs England

I think everyone knows Bailey is going so there is no point bringing it up. Should never have been called up and proved it.