Shane Watson

[Anonymous]

Maybe a bolter for the Sri Lanka tour :?

 

[weasel]

Watson's batting in the Pura Cup has been pretty good this season. 819 runs at 58.50 including three centuries, 103 against South Australia, 157 against NSW and then most recently 139 against WA in a match where he also made 92 in the second innings.

 

[Twizzle]

Andrew Symonds will make life hard for Watson in both formas of the game.

 

[aqua_duck]

Symonds is different to Watson I guess, Symonds isn't a genuine bowler he is a genuine batsman though, however Watson is a genuine all rounder in both forms, he's considered a bowling all rounder but he's averging in the 50's this season for Pura cup, he's not as good a batsman as Symonds but definately a better bowler and he's 6 years younger than Symonds. Already his 1st class stats are better than SYmonds with bat and ball.

 

[knights04]

Watson must be considered for the SL tour he's Australia's best all-rounder

 

[SirShire]

Meh, I reckon Symonds is better than him. But yes he is very good and quite young.

 

[Twizzle]

Symonds is different to Watson I guess, Symonds isn't a genuine bowler he is a genuine batsman though, however Watson is a genuine all rounder in both forms, he's considered a bowling all rounder but he's averging in the 50's this season for Pura cup, he's not as good a batsman as Symonds but definately a better bowler and he's 6 years younger than Symonds. Already his 1st class stats are better than SYmonds with bat and ball.

Sorry we have a disagreement here.

Symonds not only bowls, he is such an all rounder that he bowls both medium pace and offies. Not a world beater at either, but he is a true all rounder, to be so versatile.

I could see both of them in the team, with Watson replacing Harvey.

 

[aqua_duck]

I'm not suggesting Symonds can't bowl but let me put it this way, would he make any side if he relied on his bowling alone?
He bowls medium pace and off spin but both types of his deliveries are similar, nothing special, eg bounce, swing, spin,etc but just decent line and length, however the point I made about Watson is that he'd probably get into a few sides with his bowling alone, his 1st class bowling average is 25, he opened the bowling for tassie the other day, Ponting was using him as a genuine part of the bowling attack before his injury, note the england game where he dismissed both Stewart and Hussain towards the end in last year's VB series, and as evident on the weekend he seems to get good swing as well.

 

[aqua_duck]

Meh, I reckon Symonds is better than him. But yes he is very good and quite young.

He's better than him at the shorter version of the game but not the longer version, Symonds 1st class batting average is 41 and bowling average is 37, Watson's 1st class batting average is 45 and bowling average is 25.

 

[SirShire]

WATSON FIRST-CLASS
(2000/01 - 2003/04; last updated 14/02/2004)
M I NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 Ct St
Batting & Fielding 25 43 5 1738 157 45.73 47.78 5 10 12 0

O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
Bowling 367.4 75 1348 51 26.43 6-32 2 1 43.2 3.66

SYMONDS FIRST-CLASS
(1994/95 - 2003/04; last updated 14/02/2004)
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
Batting & Fielding 165 276 25 10407 254* 41.46 29 44 111 0

O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
Bowling 1876.1 445 5747 154 37.31 6-105 1 0 73.0 3.06

Watsons stats are great for a guy with so little first class games under his belt. Unreal, actually. But Symonds stats show he is capable of big innings, and his bowling is handy.

Would we pick Watson mainly as a bowler? Bearing in mind we are trying to fill a batsmen's place - and it has been said that Symonds is a more capable batsmen.

 

[Rustay]

Watson for Harvey. If not for Sri Lanka, then for the next squad.

 

[Doctor]

Andrew Symonds is merely a distraction in relation to the main focus of this discussion - Symonds is a genuine candidate as Australia's premier allrounder, but this is not the focus of the discussion (or at least wasn't intended). But if you insist on discussing others then:

Shane Watson's figures are impressive for his age - if you consider that other internationally recognised allrounders are still struggling to back up their alleged 'talent' with actual stats, Watson is doing really well.

Ajit Agarker: India regard him as the next Kapil Dev yet his batting and bowling stats in international cricket are nothing short of woeful - especially given his experience.

Andrew Flintoff - the joke of English cricket statistically. Only recently has he become a genuine allrounder for them, after a few years of being labelled a player who has the goods.

Even Symonds and Harvey have taken a long time to impress (Harvey is yet to impress). Not until the world cup did Symonds prove his batting abilities, so too now his bowling (which still isn't crash hot, despite variety). Ian Harvey's ODI batting, at just over 18 runs per innings, says a lot about his international career.

Anyway: Not since Shane Lee has Australia had a genuine fast bowler who could bat at 5 or 6 as well as pinch-hit. Lee's career was cut short because of injury, I hope Watson doesn't follow the same pattern.

Watson could easily bat anywhere from 4 to 7 in Test and One Day cricket - his bowling is good enough for the new ball or even as a third change bowler in both forms of cricket.

To let Symond's position in the ODI team affect the imminent selection of Watson for Tests and ODI would be a mistake - if Watson continues like this Australia could easily pick him as a bowler or as a batsman and just make full use of his abilities - much like Andy Symond's abilities in ODI cricket. You can't tell me they still consider Symonds an 'allrounder' when his batting is so darn good.....