SCG 4th Test: Australia v India on Jan 6-10, 2015

[Twizzle]

This would be my plan......

Ball 25 overs old..

Start with Starc, then Harris, 4 overs each.

Then Lyon, Hazelwood 4 overs each..

Then Lyon, Watson, 4 over each

Then Smith 1 over.

Lyon changes end, Harris next over different end.

Lyon, Harris 2 more each.

Warner the last before lunch. (hopefully gets Kholi st. Haddin) would be sweet.

Aggressive fields too. Have runs.

Thats a bit robotic and may be OK if we dont get a wicket.

If we do, they will execute the plan they have for Kholi or whom ever is at the crease at the time.

They will have a different plan for each batsman.

Generally Smithy will only bowl himself or Warner as a partnership breaker if his regulars aren't getting wickets, or need a rest.

 

[TheParraboy]

Little harsh on Rogers, he's not a numpty in my book

Rogers averages 38.92 as opener (inc his 95)

Watson as opener is 40.98

 

[Twizzle]

but Watson is a numpty now

averages mean jack shit if he is past it and out of form

lets bring Slats back, he had a good average

 

[JJ]

Rogers averages 38.92 as opener (inc his 95)

Watson as opener is 40.98

Which coincided with his only two years as a good test cricketer, so wondering what your point is?

Rogers is just ok, obviously his first class record is excellent, he probably got picked too late, and is a bit past his best - nonetheless, effective, and had a good series - but there is a caveat there, the Indian bowling has been very poor, everyone bar Watson and Haddin, has had a good series with the bat - even S Marsh who surely nobody will argue is world class...

 

[JJ]

but Watson is a numpty now

averages mean jack shit if he is past it and out of form

lets bring Slats back, he had a good average

Yeah, and Hayden has a big average and big levers!

Is Katich still about? Remains ridiculous that he was cast aside...

 

[vvvrulz]

Rogers averages 38.92 as opener (inc his 95)

Put it into some context, Rogers came on board with the team in total disarray with the high-pressure back to back Ashes as his first assignment. No he hasn't set the world on fire, but he's filled the gap and paired nicely with Warner. 4 centuries and 9 fifties is a good solid return.

 

[Twizzle]

Yeah, and Hayden has a big average and big levers!

Is Katich still about? Remains ridiculous that he was cast aside...

so you agree, stats can be misleading ?

 

[JJ]

so you agree, stats can be misleading ?

You have to look at them carefully - but in Watson's case, there is so much evidence there that there is no doubt.

And Slater and Hayden are in their mid- 40s, so while I am sure they'd do as well as Watson, clearly they won't be the players they were

 

[Twizzle]

glad you picked up on my sarcasm

 

[madunit]

but Watson is a numpty now

averages mean jack shit if he is past it and out of form

lets bring Slats back, he had a good average

the stats will show that Slats was also a flat track bully and had no idea against swing bowling.

And was a mental midget in the 90's

 

[JJ]

the stats will show that Slats was also a flat track bully and had no idea against swing bowling.

And was a mental midget in the 90's

He was, that was hilarious - mind you, so was Steve Waugh for a long time...

Ridiculous really, Slater's string of 90-somethings are just as valuable as if he's score an extra 5 runs

 

[vvvrulz]

Ridiculous really, Slater's string of 90-somethings are just as valuable as if he's score an extra 5 runs

Watson has had his fair share of 90 somethings.

 

[rickywalford1]

I think the stats show that an extraordinary golden age in Australia cricket has passed, and we have returned to numpty normality.

 

[vvvrulz]

the stats will show that Slats was also a flat track bully and had no idea against swing bowling.

And was a mental midget in the 90's

:lol: Reminds me of his epic meltdown when claiming a catch against Dravid, just went and blasted the batsman for no reason.

 

[rickywalford1]

Watson has had his fair share of 90 somethings.

Ha ha. This will be interesting.

 

[JJ]

Watson has had his fair share of 90 somethings.

3 or 4 I think, largely scored during the two years that he was opening with Katich, and looked like a good player - those days are well gone

Ha ha. This will be interesting.

Not really - big difference... Are you suggesting Watson is as good as Slater? :crazy: Seriously, in a tougher era he played 20 more tests, score 10 more centuries (despite his nightmares in the 90s) and averaged 43...

 

[rickywalford1]

3 or 4 I think, largely scored during the two years that he was opening with Katich, and looked like a good player - those days are well gone



Not really - big difference... Are you suggesting Watson is as good as Slater? :crazy: Seriously, in a tougher era he played 20 more tests, score 10 more centuries (despite his nightmares in the 90s) and averaged 43...

No. As a hater, I'm suggesting you have double standards.

 

[JJ]

No. As a hater, I'm suggesting you have double standards.

Slater (74 tests) had 14 centuries and 9 scores between 90 and 100. Watson has, I think, 4 centuries and 4 scores in the 90s... not sure how that is double standards - that's a very good test bat who if he didn't have psychological issues in the 90s might have scored 20 test centuries, versus someone who remains pretty shit even if he converted most of them to 100s

 

[rickywalford1]

Relax. I'm happy. Watson has effectively scored 10 centuries. (I'm including the 88 and 89) Next time the conversion rate comes up, we can fight the good fight together.

 

[JJ]

Relax. I'm happy. Watson has effectively scored 10 centuries. (I'm including the 88 and 89) Next time the conversion rate comes up, we can fight the good fight together.

You are dead set stupid - there's also the issue of the importance of runs... while runs are runs, go through Watson's career - for the most part he has scored them either in a two year period when he was actually good, or in flat conditions when everyone else scores or the series is already won...

Against a poor Indian attack when even Marsh could score runs, Watson has been demonstrably shit - while you might be right that there's no obvious replacement in Australia domestic cricket, surely pretty much anyone batting in the top order in domestic would do no worse (actually I think that's been proven with the two Marshes and Burns).

You can defend him all you like, but any serious look at Watson leaves a lot to be desired, but good that he has fan-boys like you - even locky has changed his tune