8-0-36-2

[DaveW]

Take that Shane Watson baggers!

 

[lamby29]

He just cemented his spot in the team.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by lamby29
He just cemented his spot in the team.

He knew it too.

 

[Jaymin]

yeah and bowled the last over of the game in a pressure situation?

 

[lamby29]

and is a very good batsman.

 

[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?
still bowls cream puffs.
atm there is no international class allrounder in oz.

cheers!

 

[GoEagles]

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!

 

[Zombie]

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.

 

[JUBJUB]

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.

 

[Squeak]

Shane Watson is a batting all-rounder.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JUBJUB]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Darky]

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]

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.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

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.
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.

 

[Catman]

Originally posted by Squeak
Shane Watson is a batting all-rounder.

Who can't bat or bowl.

 

[JUBJUB]

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.

 

[Squeak]

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.

 

[JUBJUB]

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]