Australia V England 2nd test of the 2017/18 Ashes @Adelaide Oval

[TassieEagle]

Probably the top 5 allrounders and there batting everages
1 – Sobers (93 Tests) – 8032 runs at 57.78.
2 – Kallis (166) – 13289 at 55.37.
3 – Miller (55) – 2958 at 36.97.
4 – Ashwin (42) – 1749 at 34.96
5 – Botham (102) – 5200 at 34.03,
I may have missed someone, these are probably the top allrounders ever (Ashwin probably lucky)and batted in the top 6 only 2 had a better batting average than mid 30's...Just saying we were a bit harsh on Watson

7 – Flintoff (79) – 3845 at 31.77

One bloke that deserves to be on the list is Al Hasan. Mostly batted top 6 with an average of 40 and averages 32 with the ball. Basically the same bowling average as Lyon with a batting average of 40, which we would kill for at 6 right now.

 

[Muzzaraki]

Overton apparently had the pink ball swinging around corners in the warm-up game against the CA XI. But then he also made a pair, batting at 8.

So effectively, he'd offer the same as Ball with the bat, but offer more with the ball.

Then again, Stokes allegedly boarding a plane will change everything again. Interesting times.

Overton is a lot better batsman than Ball, which isn’t saying much but Overton does have a FC century, which points to some ability.

They should probably go with Curran as well, 2 debutants is a risk but Woakes is out of form and I don’t think he can bounce back in the short term

 

[to1994]

Probably the top 5 allrounders and there batting everages
1 – Sobers (93 Tests) – 8032 runs at 57.78.
2 – Kallis (166) – 13289 at 55.37.
3 – Miller (55) – 2958 at 36.97.
4 – Ashwin (42) – 1749 at 34.96
5 – Botham (102) – 5200 at 34.03,
I may have missed someone, these are probably the top allrounders ever (Ashwin probably lucky)and batted in the top 6 only 2 had a better batting average than mid 30's...Just saying we were a bit harsh on Watson

7 – Flintoff (79) – 3845 at 31.77

I wouldn't be including Ashwin. Great bowler but the majority of his runs have come against the Windies and while they might be improving I still wouldn't really rate runs against their bowling attack a few years ago where most of his runs have come from against them.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

Yep Watto copped way more s**t than he should of. No doubt he could be frustrating, falling in his 90s countless times and getting that front pad in the way more than he should have. But he was a bloody good player. There is always a whipping boy and he was it. His body let him down a fair bit and he would have probably had even better bowling figures had it not been the case. He was our best test bat there for a couple of years and won the AB medal for cricketer of the year. Those that throw s**t on him like to dismiss all he has done to blend in with the noisy crowd of haters.

I wasn't his biggest fan but I'll give him his dues.

Pretty much this, he was average for most of his career but absolutely elite for 3 years, which is more than most will ever manage. Kind of like Stuart Clark who was a nobody for so many years then suddenly became our best bowler for 2 years and was one of the best pacers in the game at that point.

 

[frankrizzo]

Overton is a lot better batsman than Ball, which isn’t saying much but Overton does have a FC century, which points to some ability.

They should probably go with Curran as well, 2 debutants is a risk but Woakes is out of form and I don’t think he can bounce back in the short term

I think they will back woakes at least for the day night test where he might get some help from the conditions.

 

[Badesumofu]

Watson at his best would be a great addition to our side. Watson from the last few years of his career would be about the 7th best batter in the squad and only 50/50 to be able to actually bowl more than a couple of overs.

It's one of those things that comes up with these sorts of hypotheticals about including past players - some posters are imagining peak Watson, others are recalling later-era Watson and wondering why on Earth anyone would want him anywhere near the Test side. Remember that time he captained the side and used Maxwell as an opening bowler and also an opening batter? Yeah.

 

[Big Bryza]

What would we give to have Watson in our team at the moment, he could bat at 5 or 6, and would probably be our 3rd best batsman, and bowl 10 - 15 very handy overs per innings..

That's what he used to do and people s**t canned him.

 

[The Passenger]

Watson at his best was an absolute gun. Over 2009 and 2010 he averaged about 50 with the bat and took 1.5 wickets a test at about 30 runs a wicket. That's absolutely elite in every sense of the word.

But as we know he wasn't at his best for long enough. His batting became very patchy, although he was always a pretty solid #5 bowler. Despite his ailing body he was still a genuine all rounder his whole career, regularly bowling 20+ overs in a test right until the end. He was only forced to play one series as a batsmen (in India 2012/13).

Even when he was at his best his big failing with the bat was an inability to convert starts into centuries.

Injuries did not help at all. Anyone is going to be happy with a 59 test career where you average more with the bat than you do with the ball, and I think it just reinforces how much talent he had that we often perceive his career as underwhelming.

 

[krisholio14]

Probably the top 5 allrounders and there batting everages
1 – Sobers (93 Tests) – 8032 runs at 57.78.
2 – Kallis (166) – 13289 at 55.37.
3 – Miller (55) – 2958 at 36.97.
4 – Ashwin (42) – 1749 at 34.96
5 – Botham (102) – 5200 at 34.03,
I may have missed someone, these are probably the top allrounders ever (Ashwin probably lucky)and batted in the top 6 only 2 had a better batting average than mid 30's...Just saying we were a bit harsh on Watson

7 – Flintoff (79) – 3845 at 31.77

Imran Khan averaged close to 40 I believe

edit: 37.68

Over the last 10 years of his career, Imran averaged 51 with the bat, and 23 with the ball. you won't find better all round figures than that anywhere.

 

[krisholio14]

Watson at his best was an absolute gun. Over 2009 and 2010 he averaged about 50 with the bat and took 1.5 wickets a test at about 30 runs a wicket. That's absolutely elite in every sense of the word.

But as we know he wasn't at his best for long enough. His batting became very patchy, although he was always a pretty solid #5 bowler. Despite his ailing body he was still a genuine all rounder his whole career, regularly bowling 20+ overs in a test right until the end. He was only forced to play one series as a batsmen (in India 2012/13).

Even when he was at his best his big failing with the bat was an inability to convert starts into centuries.

Injuries did not help at all. Anyone is going to be happy with a 59 test career where you average more with the bat than you do with the ball, and I think it just reinforces how much talent he had that we often perceive his career as underwhelming.

I think the problem with Watson was ultimately that unlike Flintoff for example, he never could put the team on his shoulders and lift them to a win.

 

[The Passenger]

I think the problem with Watson was ultimately that unlike Flintoff for example, he never could put the team on his shoulders and lift them to a win.

Totally. Same when comparing Watson with Stokes. And that is basically represented by Watson's lack of tons and whilst Watson's bowling was solid he was never going to the type to win a match with the ball.

But you do need to have a couple of blokes who will consistently perform. Having too many "all-or-nothing" players can lead to a lot of frustrating.

For the sake of interesting I was comparing Watson to Stokes. There is no doubting Stokes match winning ability for exceeds Watson's. But Stokes has a lot more nothing games - Stokes has already had 11 tests out of 39 without scoring 20 runs across both innings. Watson only had 6 in his entire career and he played 59 tests. If you set the benchmark of 40 runs and 3 wickets at least being a contribution from all rounder than Stokes misses 13 tests out of 39 (33%) while Watson who misses out 17 out of 59 (28%).

But then you look at the top end and Stokes has already scored more centuries (including an epic double century) and taken more 5-for's in 20 less tests.

Ideally you want a bit of a spread of match winners and blokes who will consistently contribute. Or even better match winners who still consistently contribute when they aren't pushing for man of the match honours.

 

[krisholio14]

Totally. Same when comparing Watson with Stokes. And that is basically represented by Watson's lack of tons and whilst Watson's bowling was solid he was never going to the type to win a match with the ball.

But you do need to have a couple of blokes who will consistently perform. Having too many "all-or-nothing" players can lead to a lot of frustrating.

For the sake of interesting I was comparing Watson to Stokes. There is no doubting Stokes match winning ability for exceeds Watson's. But Stokes has a lot more nothing games - Stokes has already had 11 tests out of 39 without scoring 20 runs across both innings. Watson only had 6 in his entire career and he played 59 tests. If you set the benchmark of 40 runs and 3 wickets at least being a contribution from all rounder than Stokes misses 13 tests out of 39 (33%) while Watson who misses out 17 out of 59 (28%).

But then you look at the top end and Stokes has already scored more centuries (including an epic double century) and taken more 5-for's in 20 less tests.

Ideally you want a bit of a spread of match winners and blokes who will consistently contribute. Or even better match winners who still consistently contribute when they aren't pushing for man of the match honours.

But that's the thing here, and merely shines the spotlight on Watson's inadequacies as a test all rounder. He was picked to be the explosive matchwinner, and at test level, he never delivered. You could get a consistently higher scorer or wicket taker at test level than Watson.
He never had what I would class as a dominant all round performance in his test career, so what was the point? Pick a specialist in one or the other discipline, and get a higher return overall.

As an all rounder, he's there to win games in both or either discipline. He did it on many many occasions in the short formats, but never once delivered the goods when the chips were down at test level. While the pure numbers stack up reasonably well against some more highly regarded players of his ilk, in Watson's case, the numbers do not tell the whole story.

 

[The Passenger]

Agree with all that krisholio14 and he certainly didn't dominate the way his talent suggested he could. I know it's a subjective award but 3 man of the match awards from 59 tests is a paltry return for a guy who had more than enough talent to lay down a marker as Australia's #2 all rounder of all time behind Keith Miller.

But I still think people go a bit too hard on him. He wasn't a rubbish test match cricketer, but he fell a fair way short of being a good test cricketer. Above average at best.

Also when a bloke gets (nearly) 60 tests you probably expect a bit more return than above average. If he had the same sort of numbers over 20 tests people probably just look at it and go well he was OK but just couldn't quite take the step required. But you play 60 tests and people's expectations do raise, which is fair enough.

But he was always going to play quite a lot of test cricket given how weak our batting was through this period. After his zenith in 2009 and 2010 he built up enough credits for the next little bit when he struggled. Then he just started putting in middle of the range batting performances that plagued our top six for about half a decade and still does to an extent, although we are starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel. At least Watson could be a genuine #5 bowler whilst plodding away as a batsmen throughout that period. His last 18 months he was a shot duck no doubt that.

 

[Greenstar5]

This test should start today.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

This test should start today.

I like the Saturday start.

 

[Borisdog]

Going back to vital question posed by someone else before,

What’s on tap at AO.

I’m in East Stand level 1 for day 2, riverbank stand L5 day 3. Probably just do walk ups for last days if it’s still going

 

[Jimthegreat]

Probably the top 5 allrounders and there batting everages
1 – Sobers (93 Tests) – 8032 runs at 57.78.
2 – Kallis (166) – 13289 at 55.37.
3 – Miller (55) – 2958 at 36.97.
4 – Ashwin (42) – 1749 at 34.96
5 – Botham (102) – 5200 at 34.03,
I may have missed someone, these are probably the top allrounders ever (Ashwin probably lucky)and batted in the top 6 only 2 had a better batting average than mid 30's...Just saying we were a bit harsh on Watson

7 – Flintoff (79) – 3845 at 31.77

I have Imran up with Sobers as the best all rounder i've seen but he did it with the ball. 37.69 with the bat, so he ranks 3 here in your list, but 362 wickets @ 22.81 with the ball.

 

[Woody15]

Agree with all that krisholio14 and he certainly didn't dominate the way his talent suggested he could. I know it's a subjective award but 3 man of the match awards from 59 tests is a paltry return for a guy who had more than enough talent to lay down a marker as Australia's #2 all rounder of all time behind Keith Miller.

But I still think people go a bit too hard on him. He wasn't a rubbish test match cricketer, but he fell a fair way short of being a good test cricketer. Above average at best.

Also when a bloke gets (nearly) 60 tests you probably expect a bit more return than above average. If he had the same sort of numbers over 20 tests people probably just look at it and go well he was OK but just couldn't quite take the step required. But you play 60 tests and people's expectations do raise, which is fair enough.

But he was always going to play quite a lot of test cricket given how weak our batting was through this period. After his zenith in 2009 and 2010 he built up enough credits for the next little bit when he struggled. Then he just started putting in middle of the range batting performances that plagued our top six for about half a decade and still does to an extent, although we are starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel. At least Watson could be a genuine #5 bowler whilst plodding away as a batsmen throughout that period. His last 18 months he was a shot duck no doubt that.

I definitely think people were too hard on Watson. We weren't exactly crawling with talent and relied on him a bit. I wonder how his career would have carried out if left down at 5 or 6 and stayed fit. But I certainly don't think he was elite or anywhere near the top 10 allrounders ever. 4 centuries and 75 test wickets isn't exactly an elite return.

I guess the stupid reviews and his inability to convert so many good starts was enough ammo for people to get stuck into him.

 

[eddiesmith]

This test should start today.

Plus Friday night would surely have been perfect for crowd atmosphere as well, a great end to a working week

 

[Doss]

What's this about England being annoyed at Smith laughing in the post-Brisbane presser?

He was laughing about the Bairstow/Bancroft incident, which let's face it, sounded pretty bizarre.

If that annoys them, then they must have pretty thin skins.

 

[Woody15]

The sook level from the English is extreme at the moment.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Plus Friday night would surely have been perfect for crowd atmosphere as well, a great end to a working week

At least we are more likely to get some play tomorrow

 

[funk44]

Anderson in full sook mode

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-01/anderson-unhappy-at-australian-bullying/9214724

 

[Doss]

Again with the sooking about Smith laughing.

I suppose it didn't matter when Broad gave Starc that send off though?

Of course the Australian team aren't saints; far from it. But a few people in that English side certainly aren't either, Anderson included, so England probably should quit the salt mining and get back to playing cricket.

 

[Gough]

Should be knocking the froth off my first beer about this time tomorrow.