What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Demosthenes]

Nahhh

Yeah. Gilchrist's keeping is massively overrated. His footwork was actually very poor - although he did a lot to make up for it with his incredible athleticism.

If you were picking purely based on glovework, there'd be a bunch of recent keepers ahead of him (Healy and Mark Boucher to name just two). I'd even argue that Brad Haddin at his peak was a better keeper than Gilchrist.

 

[Bradesmaen]

It's always nice when someone outs themselves as knowing nothing about cricket.

Cool story bro, so when was your last grade cricket game?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Cool story bro, so when was your last grade cricket game?

Hey you're the one crapping on about chop on wickets like a know nothing.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Hey you're the one crapping on about chop on wickets like a know nothing.

Cool story bro, when was your last grade cricket game?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Cool story bro, when was your last grade cricket game?

Irrelevant. Of the two of us I'm the only one who doesn't regularly make a fool of myself.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Irrelevant. Of the two of us I'm the only one who doesn't regularly make a fool of myself.

Cool story bro, when was your last grade cricket match?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Cool story bro, when was your last grade cricket match?

Exhibit A in the idiot file...

 

[Bradesmaen]

Exhibit A in the idiot file...

I don't see why having a different opinion and having played the game at a decent level recently makes me less qualified than you or any of the other couch potatoes on here. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion you know, something you and the rest of this forum should learn.

 

[Blue1980]

Cool story bro, when was your last grade cricket match?

That's why Ian Healy is a Bette commentator than Mark Nicholas, hang on.

 

[the_interloper]

Cool story bro, when was your last grade cricket match?

Having played grade cricket doesn't validate your opinions about Test cricket believe it or not.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Healy was a better keeper than Gilchrist.

No he wasn't.

 

[ROOTA#6]

No he wasn't.

Um yeah he was. Healy was a brilliant gloveman and easily has Gilly covered in that aspect of their games

 

[The Swans Blog]

Um yeah he was. Healy was a brilliant gloveman and easily has Gilly covered in that aspect of their games

You mean the higher rate of dismissal per test and more catches per test? Because Healy played 23 more tests and had less dismissals? More stumpings right?
What a load of shit. Gilchrist improved the team in front and behind the stumps as soon as he debuted, won games off his bat and on his gloves.

A good article comparing 5 top keepers:
http://www.cricketcountry.com/artic...boucher-are-the-best-keepers-of-all-time-4233

edit: just want to throw in there that Healy had 628 dismissals in international cricket to Gilchrist's 888

 

[krisholio14]

Let's not remind him we only bowled 37 in the 2nd innings. **** me how can ANYONE be arguing about Watson being out. He's always been shit.

Just had to do a little editing.

 

[the_interloper]

You mean the higher rate of dismissal per test and more catches per test? Because Healy played 23 more tests and had less dismissals? More stumpings right?
What a load of shit. Gilchrist improved the team in front and behind the stumps as soon as he debuted, won games off his bat and on his gloves.

A good article comparing 5 top keepers:
http://www.cricketcountry.com/artic...boucher-are-the-best-keepers-of-all-time-4233

edit: just want to throw in there that Healy had 628 dismissals in international cricket to Gilchrist's 888

Wow you're stupid. The amount of dismissals doesn't really have anything to do with the keeper, it's the bowlers who get the edges or the stumpings. Of course he was a better bat and you'd pick him in a side before Healy, but as a pure gloveman, Healy >>> Gilchrist, can't believe anyone would question this.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Wow you're stupid. The amount of dismissals doesn't really have anything to do with the keeper, it's the bowlers who get the edges or the stumpings. Of course he was a better bat and you'd pick him in a side before Healy, but as a pure gloveman, Healy >>> Gilchrist, can't believe anyone would question this.

Some people look at Haddin as being a top, top keeper with his dismissals since 2008/2009, but drops or misses more catches or stumpings than I've seen from either Gilchrist or Healy.

Healy certainly doesn't think that Gilchrist is better, he still regards himself as the best Australian keeper of all time, and has done so on air, and even claimed, on air that he thinks that Haddin is the 2nd best gloveman behind himself in Australian test history. Both players were excellent keepers and played in top teams. There's always arguments that Healy was the better keeper because of Warne, or Gilchrist was because of the players he kept too or because of his batting ability. Both players went through purple patches and form drops.

Healy's an arrogant old fart with too much makeup blowing steam out of his ass.

Edit: I don't have the soundbite from Healy, but anyone who watches The Cricket Show during the lunch break would have heard him talk about it during the last Ashes series during the 4th test.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think it's great that there's now an all rounder seemingly capable of replacing Watson in the side.

What I don't get is the Watson hate.

There's a middle order batsman there who has scored 2 centuries (no 50s) in the last 2 calendar years. 6 centuries and 3 50s in the last 3 calendar years.

Now until Smith came along, who, like Ponting before him, had an opportunity to establish himself in the side at 6 before being promoted to 3, Watson was the only option capable of doing a job, albeit mediocre, at 3. Before that, he was the only option capable of doing a job, quite a good one, as opener. As a bowler, he was never a strike bowler and shouldn't be judged as such. He was a bowler who dried up runs. And he did it very well.

Watson's last Ashes series in England was a horror series. Made worse by his use of reviews. But his use of DRS in the 1st Test was not unreasonable in either circumstance. The 1st innings dismissal was so close as to be doubtful as to whether he really should have been given out. The 2nd innings was entirely circumstantial. He was the last batsman when we were trying to hang on. So it was worth the punt.

Clarke has yet to make a score above 40 this series. He made one score above 40 against the West Indies. One score above 40 against India. One score above 40 against Pakistan. One score above 40 against South Africa, two scores above 40 (in 10 innings) against England in Australia and two scores above 40 against England (in 10 innings) against England in England. Batting at 4 and 5.

How the **** is Clarke still in the side and where are the 68 pages of discussion about that? Especially when you consider how he went out in the 2nd innings of the first Test.

 

[gbatman]

Healy was an outstanding keeper. Gilchrist was good but not as good as Healy. Gilchrist with his height and athleticism was great to the quicks, took a lot of catches others would have never got a hand on. Keeping to Warne would have been the hardest thing in Cricket and both did fairly well at it. Haddin has had his patches where he has kept well but he's an ordinary keeper. Well below both. The amount of balls he drops/fumbles and catches he's dropped would be higher than both Gilchrist and Healy by a fair way. Footwork has a tendency to be average and his athleticism is poor, some of those wide byes you see would be stoppable for other keepers. Haddin's keeping for the last few months has waned a little. He kept really well against England out here when he was really at the peak of his game. He was rubbish when he came into the side and did improve but he doesn't rate up with any of our great keepers as a gloveman.

Haddin is an ok Batsman but hasn't made runs in a long time. Only runs he has made was at Melbourne on a flat track against poor short tactics and lifeless bowling. He's a dumb batsman/cricketer with no sense of situation whatsoever. Best example of this is the Tasmanian test where we were beaten by New Zealand on a green top. Warner was over 100 and set to get us home, the ball was zipping around and everyone else had failed. The match was close, Warner was looking good, Haddin, the last recognised batsman comes in. All he has to do is hold up an end and bat with Warner. Instead he comes out swinging and goes out trying to be a bloody hero. Nathan Lyon comes in and trys to do what Haddin should have and lasted a long time, but eventually goes out and we lose a close one with warner stranded. We lose by 7 runs. I don't rate the guy for his cricket smarts at all. I've seen him do this countless times.

I don't see the value he offers our side anymore apart from getting in the way of a good inform young cricketer.

 

[The Swans Blog]

good post stuff

Because Watson is basically incapable of grinding out innings and has a fundamentally flawed batting technique. If Warner didn't establish himself as a test cricketer then Watson would still be opening.

Clarke is going through a long form dip, most people acknowledge it and accept that retirement is coming in short order. It isn't inconceivable to see Haddin, Rogers and Clarke retire at the end of the series and Watson reestablish himself at 4th drop. There's no way that he'll open again at test level, and to be honest, he isn't good enough to bat in test cricket, let alone bowl. His saving grace was his fielding, which went to absolute shit in the last 18 months. Should he be in the test team? No.

Should Clarke be in the team? Yes. He's a good, aggressive captain and an excellent fielder. His batting isn't going real good right now and is tailing off in the same way that Ponting's did before he retired. There's still runs there but certainly not in the volume that there was 2 to 3 years ago. Thankfully Smith has stepped up to the plate. Same happened with Waugh and Ponting and players before that. Damien Martyn's form fell off the edge of a cliff before he was replaced.

 

[the_interloper]

Some people look at Haddin as being a top, top keeper with his dismissals since 2008/2009, but drops or misses more catches or stumpings than I've seen from either Gilchrist or Healy.

Healy certainly doesn't think that Gilchrist is better, he still regards himself as the best Australian keeper of all time, and has done so on air, and even claimed, on air that he thinks that Haddin is the 2nd best gloveman behind himself in Australian test history. Both players were excellent keepers and played in top teams. There's always arguments that Healy was the better keeper because of Warne, or Gilchrist was because of the players he kept too or because of his batting ability. Both players went through purple patches and form drops.

Healy's an arrogant old fart with too much makeup blowing steam out of his ass.

I think as a gloveman most good judges would rate Healy at least the best keeper of the modern era, probably even better than Rod Marsh. As for before that I have no idea but Healy is the best pure gloveman I've seen, if I'd seen more of Darren Berry it might have been him. Gilchrist got better as his career went on but purely with the gloves he was just a good keeper.

I don't like Healy either but you can't argue with how good he was, I think he had a streak of 2 or 3 years where he didn't drop a catch that he got a glove to in any form of cricket. Plus he was a brilliant sledger too apparently, and he did often get runs when needed.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Because Watson is basically incapable of grinding out innings and has a fundamentally flawed batting technique. If Warner didn't establish himself as a test cricketer then Watson would still be opening.

Clarke is going through a long form dip, most people acknowledge it and accept that retirement is coming in short order. It isn't inconceivable to see Haddin, Rogers and Clarke retire at the end of the series and Watson reestablish himself at 4th drop. There's no way that he'll open again at test level, and to be honest, he isn't good enough to bat in test cricket, let alone bowl. His saving grace was his fielding, which went to absolute shit in the last 18 months. Should he be in the test team? No.

Should Clarke be in the team? Yes. He's a good, aggressive captain and an excellent fielder. His batting isn't going real good right now and is tailing off in the same way that Ponting's did before he retired. There's still runs there but certainly not in the volume that there was 2 to 3 years ago. Thankfully Smith has stepped up to the plate. Same happened with Waugh and Ponting and players before that. Damien Martyn's form fell off the edge of a cliff before he was replaced.

But if you look at the stats I gave you, and remember that throughout Watson was mainly batting in the more difficult position of 3, Watson has 0 scores above 40 against West Indies, 2 against India, 1 against South Africa, 4 against England in Australia and 3 against England in England. In terms of making a contribution with the bat, and I would argue that 40 is a reasonable par for that measurement, Watson has contributed significantly more often than Clarke.

And the point in going back to the last Ashes series in England is to illustrate the Clarke's form drop off is not a recent phenomenon. It goes back years.

And it is an interesting perspective when discussing Watson, who everybody seems to hate.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Healy was an outstanding keeper. Gilchrist was good but not as good as Healy. Gilchrist with his height and athleticism was great to the quicks, took a lot of catches others would have never got a hand on. Keeping to Warne would have been the hardest thing in Cricket and both did fairly well at it. Haddin has had his patches where he has kept well but he's an ordinary keeper. Well below both. The amount of balls he drops/fumbles and catches he's dropped would be higher than both Gilchrist and Healy by a fair way. Footwork has a tendency to be average and his athleticism is poor, some of those wide byes you see would be stoppable for other keepers. Haddin's keeping for the last few months has waned a little. He kept really well against England out here when he was really at the peak of his game. He was rubbish when he came into the side and did improve but he doesn't rate up with any of our great keepers as a gloveman.

Haddin is an ok Batsman but hasn't made runs in a long time. Only runs he has made was at Melbourne on a flat track against poor short tactics and lifeless bowling. He's a dumb batsman/cricketer with no sense of situation whatsoever. Best example of this is the Tasmanian test where we were beaten by New Zealand on a green top. Warner was over 100 and set to get us home, the ball was zipping around and everyone else had failed. The match was close, Warner was looking good, Haddin, the last recognised batsman comes in. All he has to do is hold up an end and bat with Warner. Instead he comes out swinging and goes out trying to be a bloody hero. Nathan Lyon comes in and trys to do what Haddin should have and lasted a long time, but eventually goes out and we lose a close one with warner stranded. We lose by 7 runs. I don't rate the guy for his cricket smarts at all. I've seen him do this countless times.

I don't see the value he offers our side anymore apart from getting in the way of a good inform young cricketer.

When we got rolled for 47 in Capetown, Haddin danced down the wicket and had a wild waft at one and got out straight away. It was the most putrid dismissal you will see given the situation of the game. Haddin thinks the only way out of trouble is to hit his way out.

 

[krisholio14]

Yeah. Gilchrist's keeping is massively overrated. His footwork was actually very poor - although he did a lot to make up for it with his incredible athleticism.

If you were picking purely based on glovework, there'd be a bunch of recent keepers ahead of him (Healy and Mark Boucher to name just two). I'd even argue that Brad Haddin at his peak was a better keeper than Gilchrist.

But if you look at the stats I gave you, and remember that throughout Watson was mainly batting in the more difficult position of 3, Watson has 0 scores above 40 against West Indies, 2 against India, 1 against South Africa, 4 against England in Australia and 3 against England in England. In terms of making a contribution with the bat, and I would argue that 40 is a reasonable par for that measurement, Watson has contributed significantly more often than Clarke.

And the point in going back to the last Ashes series in England is to illustrate the Clarke's form drop off is not a recent phenomenon. It goes back years.

And it is an interesting perspective when discussing Watson, who everybody seems to hate.

Well I'd suggest that Clarke has at least some credits in the bank. His ordinary last couple of years came on the back or a couple of outstanding years. It's also a bit like when Mark Taylor when though a 2 year run of outs during the 90's. He was saved because he'd earned some credits, and also because he was an excellent captain.

Watson has never earned any credits for mine and he certainly has never been a captain or leader of any description. The reason I dislike Watson is not only does he have one of the most punchable heads in world sport, he's also never done anything at test level to warrant the armchair ride he's had throughout his career. He's pretty much always been treated as some kind of automatic selection, without ever doing anything to warrant it except being an all rounder who was viewed as being 'explosive'.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Well I'd suggest that Clarke has at least some credits in the bank. His ordinary last couple of years came on the back or a couple of outstanding years. It's also a bit like when Mark Taylor when though a 2 year run of outs during the 90's. He was saved because he'd earned some credits, and also because he was an excellent captain.

Watson has never earned any credits for mine and he certainly has never been a captain or leader of any description. The reason I dislike Watson is not only does he have one of the most punchable heads in world sport, he's also never done anything at test level to warrant the armchair ride he's had throughout his career. He's pretty much always been treated as some kind of automatic selection, without ever doing anything to warrant it except being an all rounder who was viewed as being 'explosive'.

He was the vice captain at one point and I'm glad that he never got the opportunity to become the full time captain, otherwise we'd be stuck with the overrated muppet permanently.

But if you look at the stats I gave you, and remember that throughout Watson was mainly batting in the more difficult position of 3, Watson has 0 scores above 40 against West Indies, 2 against India, 1 against South Africa, 4 against England in Australia and 3 against England in England. In terms of making a contribution with the bat, and I would argue that 40 is a reasonable par for that measurement, Watson has contributed significantly more often than Clarke.

And the point in going back to the last Ashes series in England is to illustrate the Clarke's form drop off is not a recent phenomenon. It goes back years.

And it is an interesting perspective when discussing Watson, who everybody seems to hate.

I'm not doing a Watson vs Clarke discussion because Clarke is the far superior cricketer and when we desperately need runs he's capable of doing it; the test after Phil Hughes's death comes to mind.

If you want to do a Clarke vs Watson discussion, then look at the cricketers head 2 head. In every single category Clarke is far superior to the point where labeling Watson as an all rounder is insulting to international cricket.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Well I'd suggest that Clarke has at least some credits in the bank. His ordinary last couple of years came on the back or a couple of outstanding years. It's also a bit like when Mark Taylor when though a 2 year run of outs during the 90's. He was saved because he'd earned some credits, and also because he was an excellent captain.

Watson has never earned any credits for mine and he certainly has never been a captain or leader of any description. The reason I dislike Watson is not only does he have one of the most punchable heads in world sport, he's also never done anything at test level to warrant the armchair ride he's had throughout his career. He's pretty much always been treated as some kind of automatic selection, without ever doing anything to warrant it except being an all rounder who was viewed as being 'explosive'.

Clarke scored 3 double hundreds and a triple hundred. Beyond that his record, particularly in the last 5 years, is a series of failures interspersed with the odd century, about once every 10 outings.

Watson has been the far more consistent contributor with the bat, a contributor with the ball, and has had the balls to bat at 3.

In the last 10 innings, Clarke has scored more than 40 twice. Same as Watson. The previous 10 innings it was Clarke twice, versus Watson 4 times. The previous to that it was Clarke twice, versus Watson 3 times.