Sport The Hangar Cricket Thread IV

[Stopher]

I think a few are underestimating India's batting in this series. How many touring teams come over to Australia, a country renowned for good batting conditions, and post three consecutive scores of 400+ in the first innings? When you also consider how foreign these conditions are to what the Indians are used to, plus the fact they've replaced most of their batting 6 from last time out, I'd say their batting has been excellent.

The bowling is what has killed them. Actually, Ashwin has bowled quite well so I should specify and say their seam bowling has killed them. Waaaaay too many boundary balls giving regular releases of pressure to the batsmen. Just poor Test bowling.

 

[eth-dog]

Watson has one thing working in his favour. He is a seriously good bowler.

The farce at 3 should be ended though.

Marsh is a better bowler.

Smith should be batting at 3 however.

 

[Despair]

Yet has outperformed Watson in both tests they've played. Have you watched him at all or are you just going on stats? Mitch Marsh is better than Watson now and in the future. Watson averages 38 batting at 3, a whopping 1 more run than Hughes did while he was there.

Shane Watson is the king of the dead rubber. There's a reason his average in the 5th test of a series is 16 runs more than his career average.

I have watched Mitch Marsh, not just in the test series but in domestic games. He isn't as good a batsman as Watson and that is reflected in his dismal batting average of <30

I find it strange that you infer that Watson is a "love child" who doesn't have any actual relatives of particular note in the cricketing world, then you offer up Mitch Marsh who will be provided just as much opportunity off the back of his last name.

 

[Kong]

I still think we should have persisted with Moises for a lot longer.

Only got 3 tests, over on the 4-0 series in India, and made two half centuries (including 80-odd not out).

He didn't take many wickets but he bowled economically, and his first class stats are just about the definition of an all-rounder.

Whoever the selectors end up going with (M Marsh, Faulkner, Henriques or other) they need to show some patience with them. Watson's had 6 years of consistent selection despite underwhelming performances. These guys have all shown enough to suggest that they can fill a spot at #6 and they need to be given a good 5-10 test run to settle in.

 

[BrunoV]

Marsh is a better bowler.

Smith should be batting at 3 however.

Marsh's bowling is what Watson's was when he first came onto the scene. Raw, fast and quite heavy without much guile or movement.

He's not looked like troubling anyone in international cricket from what I've seen.

I don't doubt that he will develop the skills with age but he's not currently a better bowler than Watson.

 

[Phone]

truly i dont mind if watson tons up here and plays another test. i mean, i like it when he fails, but mmarsh is hardly any better in a couple of respects anyway. it's mmarsh and watson playing in the same test team that i'm 100% against and get angry at the mere thought of

So these respects are covered basically here:

When fit M Marsh is better. We don't know because he's the only one who gets a chance there.

Watson is a mediocre player who only gets selected because he's channel 9 and the selectors love child.

Shane Watson averages 30 over the past 4 years. Two centuries only. Both in dead rubbers. That's bad. So bad. Disgraceful. Particularly from a top 3 batsman. Mitch Marsh averages 29 in his FC career, two centuries only. One against India A which you know. Mitch Marsh will at some point become a better player than Watson because Watson will get older and so will Marsh. But there's not much to say he's a better player yet, other than Watson's failures are more infuriating because he's not 24. And as for the selectors love child thing. I mean. It's Mitch Marsh. By virtue of being a Aus U19 captain, he's a selectors love child. And he's a Marsh, the son of the Great* Swampy Marsh, and he's a batting all-rounder. So. His selection for the UAE tour was lucky, but reflective of injures. Watson was injured. I think Henriques had an off-season injury too. So Marsh was really the only batting all-rounder option. And so he got a game. Because Lehmann truly believes that role is essential. He wasn't bad, but Australia lost so wide spread changes were made. These included the effective abolishment of the all-rounder role as Starc, Siddle and MJ were all picked - Marsh's bowling wasn't needed for the next test. He should have been dropped for the test. He played ahead of both Phil Hughes and Alex Doolan as a specialist batsman. That was disgraceful selection. Love child selecting even. Mitch Marsh is no better than Watson in some respects, but he's younger.


*not that great. maybe even the shane watson of his time

 

[eth-dog]

I have watched Mitch Marsh, not just in the test series but in domestic games. He isn't as good a batsman as Watson and that is reflected in his dismal batting average of <30

I find it strange that you infer that Watson is a "love child" who doesn't have any actual relatives of particular note in the cricketing world, then you offer up Mitch Marsh who will be provided just as much opportunity off the back of his last name.

Averaged 35 with the bat in the shield last season and averages above 30 when you take away his seasons as a teenager. So how much of him have you really seen? Not as much as you claim I suspect.

You don't understand what I'm saying? I also like how you completely ignore my points about M Marsh outperforming Watson in the test matches and how Watson's the dead rubber king... And how Marsh scored more runs in less tests for the year. Watson's been mediocre for 3 years yet gets a consistent run at it despite that. It's like how many accuse Kommer or Melksham being love childs at Eseendon.

 

[Phone]

So these respects are covered basically here:



blah blah bla

the funny thing is, Shane Watson probably would have been at number 6 to start the summer if not for Mitch Mash. He only batted 3 to start the summer because that was the only spot for him. Similar to the Oval in the 2013 Ashes.

 

[Despair]

Averaged 35 with the bat in the shield last season and averages above 30 when you take away his seasons as a teenager. So how much of him have you really seen? Not as much as you claim I suspect.

You don't understand what I'm saying? I also like how you completely ignore my points about M Marsh outperforming Watson in the test matches and how Watson's the dead rubber king... And how Marsh scored more runs in less tests for the year. Watson's been mediocre for 3 years yet gets a consistent run at it despite that. It's like how many accuse Kommer or Melksham being love childs at Eseendon.

You reeled off a couple of stats and somehow deduced (from that) that I haven't seen much of him.. that's uh..... interesting

He outperformed Watson in two matches, hold the press.

As pointed out by Phone, Mitch Marsh is the love child, not Watson.

What I don't get is why don't they just open with Watson? Averages over 40 (read: More than Rogers) as an opener and will be around for a few more years than Rogers.

 

[BrunoV]

Can't exactly move Rogers on at the moment.

 

[Kong]

What I don't get is why don't they just open with Watson? Averages over 40 (read: More than Rogers) as an opener and will be around for a few more years than Rogers.

They tried that (again).

He had his opportunity over in England in 2013 and failed.

But boy, that century in the 5th test was awesome.

You da man, Watto.

 

[Despair]

They tried that (again).

He had his opportunity over in England in 2013 and failed.

But boy, that century in the 5th test was awesome.

You da man, Watto.

Such a bad test player he is.

The only Australian Test Player of the Year currently in the side (with Clarke and Johnson out injured)

 

[eth-dog]

You reeled off a couple of stats and somehow deduced (from that) that I haven't seen much of him.. that's uh..... interesting

He outperformed Watson in two matches, hold the press.

As pointed out by Phone, Mitch Marsh is the love child, not Watson.

What I don't get is why don't they just open with Watson? Averages over 40 (read: More than Rogers) as an opener and will be around for a few more years than Rogers.

You claim to have watched him yet say that he's not a good bat in domestic games, using a sub 30 average as an excuse, yet can't acknowledge that in the past 3 shield season's he's averaged above 30 in each of them, which clearly indicates that you're pretending to be more knowledgeable than you are.

He also has more runs in less test matches for 2014, with a hamstring injury in 2 of his innings'. Marsh outperformed Watson last year.

Marsh can be construed as a love child with his initial selection but Watson has been continually selected despite being mediocre for 4 years and Marsh performed when he was called up. The years 2011-2014 Watson made 1679 runs at 30, never averaging over 35 in that period and twice averaging under 30 over a year. If that's not love child treatment, nothing is.

Rogers has nearly 1500 runs at 41 since his return (read: more than Watson) and Rogers is arguably the best 4th innings batsman in the country. Averges nearly 50 in the 4th innings, which is as good as Matthew Hayden's record, and 8th on Australia's openers list in terms of average for players who've played more than 5 innings' batting last, and also the most centuries in the 4th innings as an opener, equal with Mark Taylor.

 

[BrunoV]

What does best 4th innings batsman mean? Best player on a flat deck with no juice left in the pitch?

One of the biggest myths in what feels like 90% of tests played in this day an age is the difficulty of batting late in a game because of the pitch. Whenever the magical 300 marker is set to win the statisticians run out the highest fourth innings totals to win a test (rather than the number of times a side made 300+ chasing 450+ but threw the game away because of a lack of discipline).

The last 5th day minefields I remember in Australia were successfully negotiated by South Africa.

The obsession with it's almost totally irrelevant past is one of the reasons Cricket is still basically an amateur sport in everything but the amount of money that is involved.

 

[eth-dog]

What does best 4th innings batsman mean? Best player on a flat deck with no juice left in the pitch?

Best batsman when chasing a target, where the pitch usually deteriorated with uneven bounce and turn.

 

[Stopher]

Number 3 might be the best position for Watson, but it's not his best spot for the team. Surely Joe Burns would be worth a go there, given he bats in the top order regularly for Queensland? And anyone saying it shouldn't happen so soon, look at young Rahul for India. Only 22 and playing his 2nd Test, following on from one of the worst starts to a Test career you are likely to see. Used to opening, so they promoted him for this Test and he looks the part straight away.

Another thing with Watson, his flat-tracking ability would be ideal at 6, as opposed to the higher level of responsibility required at 3. Personally, him still playing all 3 formats at his age and with his injury record is ridiculous. So the management of his workload as a result of all that has meant him bowling less than he should, which is a shame as his bowling displays a much higher level of intelligence than his batting.

 

[Phone]

Best batsman when chasing a target, where the pitch usually deteriorated with uneven bounce and turn.

As Burno says pitches don't particularly deteriorate anymore. The odd one does but mostly they're fine to bat on. One of those tons was at the MCG which obviously doesn't change at all.

 

[eth-dog]

As Burno says pitches don't particularly deteriorate anymore. The odd one does but mostly they're fine to bat on. One of those tons was at the MCG which obviously doesn't change at all.

Still excellent in the 4th innings in FC cricket as well, I don't have the stats, but he's been renowned as being excellent as a finisher in FC cricket for a long time.

 

[BrunoV]

Still excellent in the 4th innings in FC cricket as well, I don't have the stats, but he's been renowned as being excellent as a finisher in FC cricket for a long time.

I'm not trying to detract from the runs. Runs are runs.

When I made the comment a few pages ago about India making Rogers look good it was purely an aesthetic thing. He's a shocking batsman to watch (much like Border who is regarded as one of the all-time greats).

I suppose it is a test of mental strength to make runs late. I've just got no time for cricket's dogma.

 

[Doss]

Personally I'm just glad he played a solid hand with 81 at first drop in this Test.

I'm not Watson's biggest fan by any stretch, but some of the criticism of him is just hysterical.

 

[The Speaker]

Number 3 might be the best position for Watson, but it's not his best spot for the team. Surely Joe Burns would be worth a go there, given he bats in the top order regularly for Queensland? And anyone saying it shouldn't happen so soon, look at young Rahul for India. Only 22 and playing his 2nd Test, following on from one of the worst starts to a Test career you are likely to see. Used to opening, so they promoted him for this Test and he looks the part straight away.

Another thing with Watson, his flat-tracking ability would be ideal at 6, as opposed to the higher level of responsibility required at 3. Personally, him still playing all 3 formats at his age and with his injury record is ridiculous. So the management of his workload as a result of all that has meant him bowling less than he should, which is a shame as his bowling displays a much higher level of intelligence than his batting.

Burns may be a number three in time, but it would be really nice if we let our young batsmen develop their Test career at six first, then move them up the order.

 

[eth-dog]

Burns may be a number three in time, but it would be really nice if we let our young batsmen develop their Test career at six first, then move them up the order.

Yep, and now's the perfect time for Smith to move up to 3.

 

[Yoda_]

Burns may be a number three in time, but it would be really nice if we let our young batsmen develop their Test career at six first, then move them up the order.

But it's Australian to look after the boys culture thats stained the dressing room since 2007

 

[Despair]

You claim to have watched him yet say that he's not a good bat in domestic games, using a sub 30 average as an excuse, yet can't acknowledge that in the past 3 shield season's he's averaged above 30 in each of them, which clearly indicates that you're pretending to be more knowledgeable than you are.

Because I don't use arguments that support your case I'm clearly pretending to be more knowledgeable than I am... Lol righto.

It's not just the fact that he averages less than 30 (which is terrible), his actual technique is not very compact and lends itself more towards slogging than actual strokeplay.

Right on cue, Watto goes bang bang 8)

 

[eth-dog]

Because I don't use arguments that support your case I'm clearly pretending to be more knowledgeable than I am... Lol righto.

It's not just the fact that he averages less than 30 (which is terrible), his actual technique is not very compact and lends itself more towards slogging than actual strokeplay.

Right on cue, Watto goes bang bang 8)

Take away his seasons as a teenager and he averages over 30 in FC cricket, and under 30 with the ball. You make excuses about his batting when he was a teenager to have him out of the test side.

His technique is fine, it's far far better than Watson's plonking onto the front foot and playing around the pad. Yes he can slog but his strokeplay is still very good, which suggests even more to me you're far less informed than you think you are again.

Also funny thing about averages, Watson averaged 30 between 2011 and 2014. The sooner he's out of the side, the better for Australian cricket.