Watson won't be dropped until Faulkner returns.
What do you do with Shane Watson?
- Thread starter Slax
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #477
The next two or three matches will play a part but at the moment you'd opt for Marsh
- Banned
- #479
Comparing their records since the start of 2014 isn't pretty for Watson.
Watson: 222 runs at 22 and two wickets at 135.5.
Marsh: 404 runs at 44 and nine wickets at 31.
Last edited:
If Watson scored a century against New Zealand would you drop him?
- Banned
- #481
Probably not.
But perhaps the more interesting and more relevant question given Watson's history is: what if he scores a century against Bangladesh?
Can't you just imagine him 'silencing the critics' against the mighty Tigers?
That will be interesting. It would really depend on how Marsh goes as well. Mitch should be in front though.
Just because Faulkner has rescued us with the bat a lot - and is considered an all-rounder - doesn't mean he's not a front-line bowler. When he plays for Tasmania he's an integral part of their attack.
I think Marsh would give way when Faulks comes back but that's because I just can't see them dropping Watson regardless of how poor his form has been recently.
- Banned
- #484
OK - I'm just checking what constitutes a 'frontline bowler'.
Marsh probably has a better bowling record in limited-overs but I'm not going to argue that point.
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
It's not about who's a 'frontline bowler' and how many of these we need. That's just a little shell game of categories and definitions.
The question is who gets the nod out of Watson and Marsh when Faulkner comes back.
Who has been better performed since the start of 2014?
Last edited:
- Banned
- #485
You drop bailey. It's pretty straight forward.
If Watson is in the best 12, if everone is fit. It's a joke
Last edited:
I thought the whole point of keeping Watson in ALL SUMMER was the fact that Mitch Marsh was injured. Now he's back and delivering both runs and wickets.
So why are we still having this discussion? Those photos Watson has of the selectors must involve more than one Cricket Australia selector and half the CA Board.
So why are we still having this discussion? Those photos Watson has of the selectors must involve more than one Cricket Australia selector and half the CA Board.
I'm still not convinced Clarke's back can survive a dig and a stint in the field. Not sure why we'd be bowling him.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,426
- 81,974
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
& marsh has more upside!
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,426
- 81,974
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Faulkner > marsh > Watson
But play all 3 against bangers if Faulkner is fit & rest someone else.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,426
- 81,974
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Next game against Bangladesh I would rest some players & have a playoff amongst the fringe players.
1. Warner
2. Watson
3. Smith
4. Clarke
5. Bailey
6. marsh
7. Faulkner
8. haddin
9. Cummins
10. Johnson/Starc
11. Hazelwood
Cummins v Hazelwood
Watson v marsh
Bailey v Clarke, Smith, etc
Rest finch & Maxwell as had a good hitout & bring back for remaining games.
- Banned
- #491
Yuck
AJ Finch 18 18 0 790 121 43.88 940 84.04 4 3 2 78 13
SPD Smith 12 12 1 541 104 49.18 612 88.39 2 3 0 44 4
GJ Bailey 17 17 1 406 70 25.37 544 74.63 0 3 1 21 8
DA Warner 11 11 0 406 71 36.90 437 92.90 0 4 1 40 10
GJ Maxwell 17 16 1 380 93 25.33 352 107.95 0 3 2 38 7
MR Marsh 8 8 1 321 89 45.85 346 92.77 0 3 0 20 14
JP Faulkner 14 12 6 262 69* 43.66 264 99.24 0 1 1 22 6
BJ Haddin 11 10 3 224 49 32.00 288 77.77 0 0 0 16 8
MJ Clarke 6 6 1 181 68* 36.20 238 76.05 0 1 0 15 0
SE Marsh 4 4 1 177 71* 59.00 227 77.97 0 2 0 19 0
MS Wade 7 7 1 171 52 28.50 228 75.00 0 1 0 11 1
PJ Hughes 5 5 0 166 85 33.20 215 77.20 0 2 0 17 1
SR Watson 7 7 0 165 82 23.57 215 76.74 0 1 2 15 3
AJ Finch 18 18 0 790 121 43.88 940 84.04 4 3 2 78 13
SPD Smith 12 12 1 541 104 49.18 612 88.39 2 3 0 44 4
GJ Bailey 17 17 1 406 70 25.37 544 74.63 0 3 1 21 8
DA Warner 11 11 0 406 71 36.90 437 92.90 0 4 1 40 10
GJ Maxwell 17 16 1 380 93 25.33 352 107.95 0 3 2 38 7
MR Marsh 8 8 1 321 89 45.85 346 92.77 0 3 0 20 14
JP Faulkner 14 12 6 262 69* 43.66 264 99.24 0 1 1 22 6
BJ Haddin 11 10 3 224 49 32.00 288 77.77 0 0 0 16 8
MJ Clarke 6 6 1 181 68* 36.20 238 76.05 0 1 0 15 0
SE Marsh 4 4 1 177 71* 59.00 227 77.97 0 2 0 19 0
MS Wade 7 7 1 171 52 28.50 228 75.00 0 1 0 11 1
PJ Hughes 5 5 0 166 85 33.20 215 77.20 0 2 0 17 1
SR Watson 7 7 0 165 82 23.57 215 76.74 0 1 2 15 3
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
The problem with Faulkner coming in for Watson is who that whoever bats at 3 (Smith, Clarke, Bailey) is someone not entirely familiar with the position at the top level. I think Bailey might have batted a bit of 3 with Tasmania, but even then he is the one who will be squeezed out for Clarke.
But I think it's a risk the selectors will have to take because on form, Watson is the weak link of the 4 all rounders.
But I think it's a risk the selectors will have to take because on form, Watson is the weak link of the 4 all rounders.
Carbine Chaos
The Gaff-er
- Apr 1, 2009
- 63,945
- 94,273
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
Aaron Finch
David Warner
Steve Smith
Michael Clarke (c)
Glenn Maxwell
Mitchell Marsh
Brad Haddin (+)
James Faulkner
Mitchell Johnson
Mitchell Starc
Josh Hazlewood
Reckon this is the team we finish the tournament with. That lower order can easily be reshuffled depending on circumstance. Bailey in for Clarke if he isn't fit.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 104,529
- 142,445
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
Swap Faulkner and Haddin and I couldn't be happier.
Personal preference though.
Personal preference though.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Yeah I think that's the team they will go with, and also the team I'd go with. Pretty good team. Slightly unbalanced, but you can get away with that more in ODI's then you can test matches.
Watson has between now and whenever Faulkner returns to pull something out of his ass.
I wouldn't be overly surprised if they kept Watson at 3 and Mitch Marsh got squeezed out, despite his 5-for last night. But I think the patience will wear to thin for Watson. One more good performance from Marsh (either with bat or ball) between now and Faulkner's return will seal Watson's fate.
The real dilllema will be what if Watson and Marsh both do something between now and then? Might just become a matter of bad timing for Faulkner.
- Banned
- #496
Smith has made two centuries at No.3.
Agreed.
Watson was the preferred option at the start of the tournament and they might just stick with it rather than chop and change.
I think what we can say, though, is that after the World Cup, Watson could and probably should be moved on, allowing Maxwell, Marsh and Faulkner to bat 5-7.
Don't think so. I reckon Faulkner is an automatic selection.
Last edited:
TennisPlayerAndy
Game #6 Klay
- Apr 1, 2008
- 57,716
- 101,747
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Raiders, GSW, QPR, NYM
He really doesn't deserve to be in the side, at all.
That would just be frustrating.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Knew he tonned up in that recent series but didn't realise it was at 3. Easy move then. Makes Watson's spot even more vulnerable.
Still wouldn't shock me if they still dropped Marsh for Faulkner, even though I think it would be a wrong call. They have stuck by him in the test team for so long when his credits in the bank must be very close to 0. In the ODI arena where he has performed well for a long time, who knows how long they'll give him there.
- Banned
- #500
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
