Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,176
That's not what you said.
You said Watson has been really good at No.6. He averages 28 in that position.
Australia Test squad - 2014
- Thread starter Ian Dargie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
You said Watson has been really good at No.6. He averages 28 in that position.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
He has been good in comparison to others. End of the day if you are replacing someone the alternative must be better
courtjester
Cancelled
He's only had 3 innings at #6 in the last five years. All three of those were more or less in the last 12 mths. Out of those 3 innings he's made a 60 and a 40.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,179
So he's been very good at No.6. With an average of 28.
So, overall, it's hard to support the claim he's been very good at No.6.
At best, there's not enough evidence yet. At worst, the evidence suggests mediocrity.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Yes, if you factor in his bowling and he is the best first slip fielder we have. Unless you want us to drop a trashload of catches. No-one else can field there, it is a specialised position.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,181
Sorry, but you offered an assessment of how he's performed as a No.6 batsman. You said he's been very good. He averages 28 in that position. So your assessment doesn't really square with reality. As usual.
Why are you now bringing in his bowling and his fielding? Is it because your initial assessment of his batting at No.6 is obviously suspect?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
He is picked as an all rounder, his ALL ROUND ability is what we judge him on. An average of 30 plus a wicket every 1 or 2 tests is a good job, plus he rarely drops a catch at first slip.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,183
Again, that's not what you said. Stop backpedalling while pretending to hold your ground.
Let's give you a fresh crack at it.
As a batsman, Watson averages 28 at No.6. Would you characterise that as "very good"?
On his batting alone, would you say his performance at No.6 is "very good"?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
For the last time as a number 6 you are not picking a specialist bat, we haven't done that for years. We are picking a batting all rounder. That means his all round ability comes into it. An average of 30 is fine, and it was more in the most recent series, he is doing a job. Stop whinging and realise what he brings to the table especially as the next series is in the UAE where reverse swing is critical, he is our best exponent of it. If he averages 30 plus 2 wickets a test he is contributing the equivalent of 70 runs (5 wickets=100 runs. 2 wickets equal 40).
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,185
Are we still talking about the Australian Test side?
George Bailey batted at No.6 through the last Ashes series. He's a specialist bat, no?
When you make a statement, do you ever pause for a second to consider whether it matches up with reality?
In the "recent series", he played one Test.
Based on one Test, Watson has been "very good" at No.6? Seriously?
Overall, he averages 28 at No.6. Do you consider that to be "very good"?
I'm not whinging. I'm just asking you for a straight answer.
Do you consider Watson's average of 28 while batting at No.6 to be "very good"?
With the number of players who are injured or have question marks over making the Pakistan series, is there a chance that we could look to pick a bit horses for courses with the batting lineup. I know this is risky especially given that it may mean picking a player with a sub par record but I do worry about carrying too many batsmen who are inadequate or known for struggling against spin bowling. I understand that although a guy like Phil Hughes (only using him as an example) should be considered on recent form, many would have to agree that is obvious struggle against spin bowling would make his selection risky.
I know this may not be a popular opinion here but is it worth maybe having a look at a guy like a George Bailey for this sort of tour, who although had a very mediocre series in the Ashes, his record in playing in similar conditions (I understand it's ODI but you don't lose talent or ability by swapping from colours to whites) could he be a more beneficial selection given we are going to face a stern examination against the spinning ball? Why not pick players who are capable of handling the conditions and situation?
I like the idea of O'Keefe being in the side for this sort of tour as well, two front line spinners should be strongly considered for these tests. We definitely need to at least take another front line spinner on the tour but could potentially be convinced to play one and Maxwell if required.
With the likes of Doolan & Watson unlikely as well as the plethora of injured fast bowlers at the moment coming up with an expected touring party is somewhat tricky.
Doolan & Watson if fit would be the most logical to fill 3 and 6 but if both miss, this leaves us in a real hole of what to do exactly, Hughes to 3 is an option if he is on tour but again I worry about him against spin bowling and until I see something to suggest otherwise I question if he could hold down that position in those conditions. Watson if fit could move to 3 instead and allow us another bat or all rounder at 6 or 7. So if both were to miss I would turn to Smith to go to 3, it is a tough ask but he has the game to play there IMO.
If Doolan & Watson are fit I would go with
1. Warner
2. Rogers
3. Doolan
4. Clarke *
5. Smith
6. Watson
7. Haddin +
8. O'Keefe
9. Johnson
10. Siddle
11. Lyon
12. Maxwell (spin all rounder)
13. Bailey/Hughes/??? (travelling batsmen)
14. Bird/Sayers/Starc (travelling seamer)
If those 2 guys don't get up (makes things a bit tougher to pick) i would consider maybe going like this.
1. Warner
2. Rogers
3. Smith
4. Clarke *
5. Bailey
6. Maxwell
7. Haddin +
8. Johnson
9. Siddle
10. Lyon
11. Bird/Sayers/Starc
12. O'Keefe (travelling spinner)
13. Faulkner/M.Marsh/Henriques (Spare All rounder)
14. Hughes/??? (back up batsmen)
I know this may not be a popular opinion here but is it worth maybe having a look at a guy like a George Bailey for this sort of tour, who although had a very mediocre series in the Ashes, his record in playing in similar conditions (I understand it's ODI but you don't lose talent or ability by swapping from colours to whites) could he be a more beneficial selection given we are going to face a stern examination against the spinning ball? Why not pick players who are capable of handling the conditions and situation?
I like the idea of O'Keefe being in the side for this sort of tour as well, two front line spinners should be strongly considered for these tests. We definitely need to at least take another front line spinner on the tour but could potentially be convinced to play one and Maxwell if required.
With the likes of Doolan & Watson unlikely as well as the plethora of injured fast bowlers at the moment coming up with an expected touring party is somewhat tricky.
Doolan & Watson if fit would be the most logical to fill 3 and 6 but if both miss, this leaves us in a real hole of what to do exactly, Hughes to 3 is an option if he is on tour but again I worry about him against spin bowling and until I see something to suggest otherwise I question if he could hold down that position in those conditions. Watson if fit could move to 3 instead and allow us another bat or all rounder at 6 or 7. So if both were to miss I would turn to Smith to go to 3, it is a tough ask but he has the game to play there IMO.
If Doolan & Watson are fit I would go with
1. Warner
2. Rogers
3. Doolan
4. Clarke *
5. Smith
6. Watson
7. Haddin +
8. O'Keefe
9. Johnson
10. Siddle
11. Lyon
12. Maxwell (spin all rounder)
13. Bailey/Hughes/??? (travelling batsmen)
14. Bird/Sayers/Starc (travelling seamer)
If those 2 guys don't get up (makes things a bit tougher to pick) i would consider maybe going like this.
1. Warner
2. Rogers
3. Smith
4. Clarke *
5. Bailey
6. Maxwell
7. Haddin +
8. Johnson
9. Siddle
10. Lyon
11. Bird/Sayers/Starc
12. O'Keefe (travelling spinner)
13. Faulkner/M.Marsh/Henriques (Spare All rounder)
14. Hughes/??? (back up batsmen)
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,187
Or just George Bailey, rather than his likeness?
Well yeah I was mainly using him as an example but was trying to think of who else around the domestic scene would handle the conditions better and having a tough time coming up with another player. The point was meant to be more is it in our best interests (in this situation) to pick slightly on a horses for courses player rather than simply next in line? (Would you consider him for a tour such as this or are his papers stamped after the Ashes?)
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,189
Someone like a George Bailey?
Super Hans
marcus proudson
10k Posts
Pokemon is Life
SuperCoach Club Board Championship League Member
- Apr 27, 2009
- 23,370
- 28,292
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- TrailBlazers, Juventus, Raiders
Agh, you can feel cricket season around the corner when people are arguing over Shane Watson. A yearly ritual.
Cut me some slack had a few tonight. I was trying to make the reference to him as a type of player to select rather than the individual himself (possibly could of been worded a bit better).
If you want to read it as for Bailey himself, then the question still stands, would you consider him for the tour? If not, are we comfortable with backing Phil Hughes in to do the job at 3 or who else will we be considering for the First test?
courtjester
Cancelled
Don't pander to his pathetic pedantic ways.
courtjester
Cancelled
Nah, I'd say that from his last 3 innings at #6 (which are the only relevant ones unless I go back 5 years) that scores of 60 and 40, plus a couple of wickets, are adequate for a batting all rounder.
I suspect that Watson will be replaced with MMarsh or Maxwell permanently sooner rather than later anyhow...
Last edited:
hayes
Brownlow Medallist
I don't know why anyone bothers replying to Ian Dargie. He's basically trolling and I really have no idea how he's been able to get away with it for so long.
So Glenn Maxwell?
I don't think he's in our best test team but everything points to him being in the test team most likely to win in the UAE
Time for a Priddis style Watson thread?
You mean this isn't that already? Could've fooled me.
Well I was counting on Maxwell almost being a guarantee to make the tour and will more than likely play unless selectors feel we need a second front line spinner (O'Keefe would be my pick but whoever they might take)
But yeah i guess he sort of meets up with the point I was trying to put across as in he has the capability to be more effective than a seaming all rounder in this instance.
I still stand by my initial point though, if Watson & or Doolan are both going to miss the tour, I would look at taking Bailey or another bat who plays spin bowling well and warrants selection (for reasons I outlined in previous posts) and shuffle Smith up the order for this series.
And Maxwell is that batsman
Oh righto then, what would your side then, I have a feeling we are agreeing but going around in circles a bit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
