View Full Version : 8-0-36-2
Take that Shane Watson baggers!
lamby29
11 Jan 2003, 16:05
He just cemented his spot in the team.
Originally posted by lamby29
He just cemented his spot in the team.
He knew it too.
yeah and bowled the last over of the game in a pressure situation?
lamby29
11 Jan 2003, 18:49
and is a very good batsman.
tiger of old
11 Jan 2003, 18:52
ahhhhhhhhh yes 2 wickets when the poms were having a go at "everything"how many wickets did he get in his 1st spell?
still bowls cream puffs.
atm there is no international class allrounder in oz.
cheers!
GoEagles
11 Jan 2003, 19:06
Ok credit was due today. I'll praise Watto if he backs it up in the next game.
And how about Brad Hogg - good to see him claim a few wickets!
Originally posted by DaveW
Take that Shane Watson baggers!
Are they supposed to be impressive figures or something?
Took two late wickets when England were on the ropes and needing quick runs. His economy rate was tidy but nothing special, he is still a hack who is well out of his depth at international level, even against the lacklustre poms.
Originally posted by GoEagles
And how about Brad Hogg - good to see him claim a few wickets!
He still shouldn't be in the side.
Shane Watson is a batting all-rounder.
GhostofJimJess
11 Jan 2003, 21:06
I reckon he's worth persevering with. He's no Cairns, Razzaq, Pollock or Kallis, but our need for a genuine long-term allrounder might need to take preference over short-term gain by playing an Adam Dale or Brad Williams type.
Richmondfan#1
11 Jan 2003, 23:36
He deserves credit for sure. Good display and very promising. Although I wouldn't go too far.
As you said Ghost, I believe we do need to preserve him. Could produce many the goods in the future.
Unwritten_Law
12 Jan 2003, 10:36
Originally posted by tiger of old
ahhhhhhhhh yes 2 wickets when the poms were having a go at "everything"how many wickets did he get in his 1st spell?
Well if Bevan wasn't completely inept as a fielder he would have had one. Much like the game against Sri Lanka, if the fielders could back his bowling up his figures would have looked much better.
At the moment his bowling is going for too many runs but the selectors made the right decision. Harvey can't bat, Symonds can't do anything (except field) and Blewett is a batsman who has decided to roll his arm over again as the world cup approaches ala Steve Waugh. Watson wins out because he is the only one with potential to improve.
Groucho
12 Jan 2003, 11:42
I've certainly bagged him but must admit I was reasonably impressed with his bowling "at the death". I still think his future is as a #5 or 6 batsman who can bowl a few overs to make up the numbers when someone's getting hammered. He'll be targeted unmercifully at the World Cup if he's asked to bowl 10 overs regularly. He's very "hittable".
bunsen burner
12 Jan 2003, 13:54
I get the feeling that his last over (#50) was his turning point. England really should have been able to win that match and to Watson's credit, he stopped them. When he bowled out Hussain and then dot-balled the next one, he probably realised that he is up to international cricket. He must have had shadows of doubt up until then. Confidence is an amazing thing. I think he will go on from here.
Originally posted by Unwritten_Law
Well if Bevan wasn't completely inept as a fielder he would have had one.
Has he got bad eye sight ?
He's dropped a few catches,misfielded a few times & when batting got whacked in the head while ducking a waist high ball.
GoEagles
12 Jan 2003, 17:52
Originally posted by JUBJUB
He still shouldn't be in the side.
He's getting better with each game. Gotta keep the Warthog in the team until Warney gets back.
OldSchool
12 Jan 2003, 18:48
Originally posted by Squeak
Shane Watson is a batting all-rounder.
The problem with the previous game when he got carted was that he was played as the first change bowler with the field still up. If they play him as the fifth bowler he will have a better chance of getting it right.
Those criticising Watson for taking late wickets.. well you can only take wickets when the captain throws you the ball, and he did that in his second spell.
McGrath, Bichel and Lee didn't take early wickets either - remember the Poms got to 160-odd without loss.
Very consistent bowler is Watson, can bowl every ball of 10 overs in the same spot and at the same speed, but again this could be his weakness... a lack of variety.
grayham
12 Jan 2003, 19:23
Originally posted by nicko18
credit where credit is due. after 19 ODI's he has secured his 4th best figures. a miserly 36 runs off 8 overs, and 2 late wickets when the batsman were going hell for leather. on only one occasion has he got more than 2- so i guess a permanent spot is now assured.
I'm sure Steve Waugh could have done better.........not. :rolleyes:
Bomber Spirit
12 Jan 2003, 19:29
Originally posted by GoEagles
And how about Brad Hogg - good to see him claim a few wickets! It's the same story - bag a bloke and he puts in a blinder the next game. Unless you do it deliberately to make it happen, when it doesn't.:eek:
I was watching the game with a couple of friends, and gave him a huge bagging. Which they were very quick to remind me of when he took those wickets.:o :eek:
Originally posted by Squeak
Shane Watson is a batting all-rounder.
Who can't bat or bowl.
Originally posted by GoEagles
He's getting better with each game. Gotta keep the Warthog in the team until Warney gets back.
Well he couldn't have gone any worse than he did against Sri Lanka.
Originally posted by Catman
Who can't bat or bowl.
Bit unfair that I reckon
Career ODI averages:
Gilchrist - 34.00
Watson - 38.71
His strike is however 20 points lower than Gilchrists.
Originally posted by Squeak
Bit unfair that I reckon
Career ODI averages:
Gilchrist - 34.00
Watson - 38.71
His strike is however 20 points lower than Gilchrists.
I don't think you can compare those two.Gilchrist has played over 100 ODI's,where as Watson has played about 20. Lets see what Watsons average is after 100 ODI's [if he plays that many]
Langer's_Babe
13 Jan 2003, 13:10
wasnt it a scary game to watch i was at killara oval watching my freinds play with bomber spirit i was watching it on tele as well as watching my mates they couldent belive how bad the aussies were going and then brad hogg started to bowl and we got the wckets and won thank god
McAlmanac
13 Jan 2003, 14:43
Originally posted by bunsen burner
I get the feeling that his last over (#50) was his turning point. England really should have been able to win that match and to Watson's credit, he stopped them. When he bowled out Hussain and then dot-balled the next one, he probably realised that he is up to international cricket. He must have had shadows of doubt up until then. Confidence is an amazing thing. I think he will go on from here.
His turning point will be a few consistent performances in succession. Worth persevering with, but one good over doesn't turn him into Botham.
bunsen burner
13 Jan 2003, 16:55
Originally posted by McAlmanac
His turning point will be a few consistent performances in succession. Worth persevering with, but one good over doesn't turn him into Botham. No, but one good over may make him think to himself that he can perform at this level. He hasn't really done anything up until now, so he had no reason to think he could cut it until he bowled that over.
Sometimes it's the smallest things that catalyse your confidence. The way he acted gave me the impression that he felt he had finally done something worthy of playing in this team. I think he might just make a name for himself now. I don't know where you got Botham from - no one has used his name and Watson's in the same sentence.
Simon_Nesbit
14 Jan 2003, 09:25
That people are saying he's 'made it' after one bowling performance. Yes his figures were good, and he has been the 2nd/3rd best bowler the last two games, but he is, (or rather should be) selected as a BATSMAN, who can get through 5+ overs (ala Lehmann, Blewett), rather than a BOWLER who can bat at 7.
IF he makes it to his 'best' position, he will probably bat at 3 or 4 (maybe open!), and bowl as the 4th seamer (unless two spinners played, then 3rd).
With McGrath, Gillespie, Hauritz, Warne, he'd be first change, but if Noffke comes in for Hauritz, then he'd be the 4th. Either way he's the guy who would share 10 overs with the likes of Lehmann, (unless frontline gets carted).
...Sorry, don't rate Lee in ODI's. And Bichel isn't adding 'much' that Noffke couldn't.
McAlmanac
14 Jan 2003, 12:13
Originally posted by bunsen burner
I don't know where you got Botham from - no one has used his name and Watson's in the same sentence.
No, but Watson is being touted as the all rounder Australia has been searching for - in the mould of Botham, Imran, Kapil Dev, Derek Pringle ;) etc.
bunsen burner
14 Jan 2003, 12:29
Originally posted by McAlmanac
No, but Watson is being touted as the all rounder Australia has been searching for - in the mould of Botham, Imran, Kapil Dev, Derek Pringle ;) etc.
I've never heard that before. I just assumed that because everyone else had blown their chances, we may as well develop someone young.
Are you serious about putting Pringle in the same sentence as those others? I can't tell if you're joking or not?
McAlmanac
14 Jan 2003, 14:19
Originally posted by bunsen burner
I've never heard that before. I just assumed that because everyone else had blown their chances, we may as well develop someone young.
Are you serious about putting Pringle in the same sentence as those others? I can't tell if you're joking or not?
There has been much talk of Australia's lack of all rounder since, say, Simon O'Donnell and Watson has been suggested as the man to finally fill that role.
There was a wink after Derek Pringle.....