1ST TEST: Australia v West Indies Brisbane Nov 26 - Nov 30 2009

[TheParraboy]

Watson averaged 48 in 3 tests in the ashes with a straight ball problem

Hughes averaged 19 in 2 tests with no problem?

 

[beads6]

Why argue and compare Watson and Hughes when Hussey should be the bloke to go. As for the clown who thinks Watson isn't good enough to play test cricket GET YOUR HAND OFF IT!!!!!! Watson has his faults as does every other batsman in the country.

 

[yappy]

No Hughes averaged 52 in 5 tests with no problem.

Watson averages 27 in 11 tests with massive problems.

You're comparing Watson's best 3 tests ever, with Hughes' worst.

Even the Don sometimes went 2 or 3 tests without a big score, but a big score wasn't too far away. That's what good players do. Hughes is a good player and he would have made plenty if he'd been left alone.

Watson is mediocre that's why he can't crack anything more than 62. And even to get to 62 he had to have the poms bowling complete rubbish and still get a plumb lb turned down. You can rely on Watto though - the next morning he goes out with his 62 runs and dreams of a test hundred and yep plumb in front without adding. Go you ordinary thing Watto!

Watson is sh*t, will always be sh*t and has done nothing to earn all of the chances he has had or deserve the hard ons some people seem to have for him.

 

[yappy]

Why argue and compare Watson and Hughes when Hussey should be the bloke to go. As for the clown who thinks Watson isn't good enough to play test cricket GET YOUR HAND OFF IT!!!!!! Watson has his faults as does every other batsman in the country.

Watson is not as good a batsman as Hughes, Jaques, Rogers, Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, or North. Brad Hodge is still a so much better batsman that Watson will ever be. Even David Hussey has more right to a test top 6 batting spot than Watson. That makes Watson about 11th in the pecking order level pegging with White. Seeing as we only need 6 top 6 batsmen - then no he isn't good enough to play test cricket. There have been a lot better batsman that Watson see their test careers vanish for failing a lot less often than he has.

 

[Twizzle]

Watson averaged 48 in 3 tests in the ashes with a straight ball problem

Hughes averaged 19 in 2 tests with no problem?

Hughes test average 52.4

Sunshine test average 27.6

and Hughes made his against Steyne, I'd still prefer Hughes

Sunshine will play not because he is our best opener, he will play so our dumbarse can select Hauritz and Sunshine will be our 4th seamer

 

[TheParraboy]

Watson best 3 tests are his recent digs, cant ignore that

You say he is a just passable ODI player, he has been a gun in that format of the game

 

[Twizzle]

I've got no problem with Sunshine in ODIs or test matches

he is just not a test match opener imo, and he is only there for cover

if our selectors had enough balls he would be batting in the middle order and Hughes would be opening

 

[TheParraboy]

Sunshine will play not because he is our best opener, he will play so our dumbarse can select Hauritz and Sunshine will be our 4th seamer

Is that such a bad option?

Look at a few of the tests we have lost in the last 18 months. Bowling sides out has been an issue not the batting.

 

[Hallatia]

if our selectors had enough balls he would be batting in the middle order and Hughes would be opening

if they had enough balls, Australia wouldn't have slipped to number 4 in the test rankings

 

[Twizzle]

Is that such a bad option?

Look at a few of the tests we have lost in the last 18 months. Bowling sides out has been an issue not the batting.

they dont have the balls to pick 4 seamers

they insist on picking a spinner who is not up to test cricket, so yes I think it is a bad thing

we won one game in the ashes and guess who didn't play in that game, yet they still haven't learnt from it

 

[yappy]

I'm not talking about dropping him from the ODI side, but I notice how those three little ducks all in a row are overlooked? Hughes can score a couple of low scores in a row and he's a liability against the short ball, but Watson can score exactly 0 out of three games and no one asks any questions? The dude's a koala. He's a funking protected species.

I'm happy for Watson to play ODI's, it suits his game. I have a massive problem with him constantly getting picked in tests in front of players who have proven test and first class records far superior to his.

 

[yappy]

they dont have the balls to pick 4 seamers

they insist on picking a spinner who is not up to test cricket, so yes I think it is a bad thing

we won one game in the ashes and guess who didn't play in that game, yet they still haven't learnt from it

I don't mind Hauri, but yes if your four best wicket taking chances are four quicks then pick four quicks. Clive Lloyd never had a problem with it. If you need some slow overs bowled then North, Pup and Kat, and even Huss can cover that.

I noticed we didn't win the 5th Ashes test and that Mr Watson's miraculous bowling didn't help us get those 20 wickets. We did win the 4th test, but he didn't bowl a ball, so maybe there is something in that. We didn't win the 3rd test and our heros contribution with the ball was 3 overs 0/23.

In fact this wicket taking machine that is going to help the Aussie get those 20 wickets needed to win has failed to take a single wicket in 5 of his 11 tests, 1 wicket in another 2 tests, and 2 wickets in 2 tests. Yep only twice has this demon managed a match haul of more than 2 wickets, and wouldn't you just know it - we lost one and drew one of those. We should probably look elsewhere if we want a match winner with the ball.

 

[eddiesmith]

Ronnie McDonald would be the man if they want an all rounder, 3 wins and 1 loss from 4 tests and a very respectable bowling average

 

[yappy]

eddie, I don't have a lot of time for Ronnie either, but he's certainly done a lot more with his chances than Watson ever has.

Why not just pick the best 6 batsmen (which is a list that doesn't include Watson), a keeper, and the best 4 bowlers (another list that doesn't include Watson) and go from there? In our best 6 batsmen we have 3 or 4 reasonably handy slow bowlers who can keep it tight when there's nothing in the pitch and the balls old so if the best four bowlers happen to all be quicks then so be it. It's worked for great cricket teams for 140 odd years.

 

[Jobdog]

Watson instead of Hughes? :lol:.

 

[hineyrulz]

Yappy speaks the truth, in the 2 test's that Hughes played in England he had to deal with Flintoff at the top of his game. The 3rd test the Poms bowled horsepoo with out him. Who's to say Hughes wouldn't have spanked a ton against them???? Flintoff was a spent force after that 2nd test. I have no problem with Sunshine in the side at 6, Hughes to open and Hussey off to the WACA Boggers.

 

[lockyno1]

I've got no problem with Sunshine in ODIs or test matches

he is just not a test match opener imo, and he is only there for cover

if our selectors had enough balls he would be batting in the middle order and Hughes would be opening

Watson should bat at 3. I would dump Katich and Hussey as well as Clark and Haddin. Go for youth, with a view for the 2011 and more importantly 2013 Ashes.

1. Hughes
2. Jaques
3. Watson
4. Clarke
5. Ponting (yes down the order a bit)
6. North
7. Paine
8. Johnson
9. Hauritz
10. Siddle or McKay
11. Hilfenhaus
12th Bollinger

 

[lockyno1]

Yappy speaks the truth, in the 2 test's that Hughes played in England he had to deal with Flintoff at the top of his game. The 3rd test the Poms bowled horsepoo with out him. Who's to say Hughes wouldn't have spanked a ton against them???? Flintoff was a spent force after that 2nd test. I have no problem with Sunshine in the side at 6, Hughes to open and Hussey off to the WACA Boggers.

Who is to say harmison would not have killed Hughes like he did in the tour match...

 

[eddiesmith]

eddie, I don't have a lot of time for Ronnie either, but he's certainly done a lot more with his chances than Watson ever has.

Why not just pick the best 6 batsmen (which is a list that doesn't include Watson), a keeper, and the best 4 bowlers (another list that doesn't include Watson) and go from there? In our best 6 batsmen we have 3 or 4 reasonably handy slow bowlers who can keep it tight when there's nothing in the pitch and the balls old so if the best four bowlers happen to all be quicks then so be it. It's worked for great cricket teams for 140 odd years.

The biggest trouble with 4 quicks is poor Ricky is scared of being suspended even though he has never copped a real punishment for any previous indiscretions, there is no reason to think any Match referee has the balls to suspend the Australian captain

 

[beads6]

I don't think Hughes should have been dropped but I do think Watson needs to be in the side. He is good enough and has been proving that over the last 6 months. Hughes in for Hussey is the way it should have been. Also 4 quicks is not the answer and Nor is Hauritz but oh well obviously the selectors are desperate.