WATSON V SYMONDS all round good guys.

[mal]

I believe WATSON is the missing link from Keith Miller to now.
If WATSON stays fit he may emerge as the allrounder we need..........


There are ifs and buts, yes he must maintain fitness........


Stomach ache now, what next?
Imagine if he played cricket at TD

[RustyCage]

Never been one for all rounders. Usually just people who can bowl, but not as good as the main bowlers, and can bat, but not as good as the main batsmen.

[mal]

Never been one for all rounders. Usually just people who can bowl, but not as good as the main bowlers, and can bat, but not as good as the main batsmen.

Thats what the aussies have had for about nearly 50 years.
There was MILLER and DAVIDSON in the 40-50-60s's but in general
no true allrounder since.
Poms have had BOTHAM and FLINTOFF.
Ironically WI and AUST have dominated the last 30 years without
a genuine allrounder.
I cant think of great allrounders in my lifetime playing for Australia.
Steve WAUGH was a handy allrounder when younger and bowling.
SYMONDS is Ok but WATSON might be the man.

[blink]

I think a lot of what you said Mal has merit.

Symonds is a probably the best one-day allrounder we have seen for Australia for a long time, but his style is definately more suited to the one day game.

Watson needs to be left in the side, even when he is in average form. England persisted with Flintoff when he was out of form and overweight, and now look what they have got!

[Aerie]

If Watson is one of the best 6 batsman in Australia, then yes, pick him in the Test matches.

If Watson is one of the best 4 bowlers in Australia, then yes, pick him in the Test matches.

Unfortunately he is neither at this stage and I doubt he ever will be. Australia have been extremely lucky to have Gilchrist who has played the role as the all-rounder in the team, allowing us to play with 7 genuine batsman each game. England are extremely lucky to have Flintoff. A genuine Test cricket all-rounder is almost impossible to find and is so valuable so I'm sure the ACB will be giving Watson every opportunity and hopefully for Australia he can deliver. But first, he needs to be good enough at either batting or bowling to warrant a place.

[rod_rooster]

If Watson is one of the best 6 batsman in Australia, then yes, pick him in the Test matches.

If Watson is one of the best 4 bowlers in Australia, then yes, pick him in the Test matches.

Unfortunately he is neither at this stage and I doubt he ever will be. Australia have been extremely lucky to have Gilchrist who has played the role as the all-rounder in the team, allowing us to play with 7 genuine batsman each game. England are extremely lucky to have Flintoff. A genuine Test cricket all-rounder is almost impossible to find and is so valuable so I'm sure the ACB will be giving Watson every opportunity and hopefully for Australia he can deliver. But first, he needs to be good enough at either batting or bowling to warrant a place.

Exactly right. He needs to be able to hold his place in the side based on one of those skills alone. If he couldn't bowl he wouldn't be picked and if he couldn't bat he wouldn't be picked. If he can hold his place as a batsman then his bowling is a bonus and vice versa. England are lucky in that Flintoff would be picked purely as a bowler if he couldn't bat and purely as a batsman if he couldn't bowl. Not too many of those sort of players i can think of.

[Winger]

Watson shits me. He will get spanked for 3 bounadaries in a row.. then the batsmen plays and misses at one and so Watson gives him a mouthful. If i was him i'd turn around and go back to top of mark cos no doubt the next one is flying back over his head also. Hack!

[RoosterMarty]

Lately Australia have been desperate to find an allrounder which is why they keep picking Symonds and Watson even though they dont really deserve a spot in the test team.
Until someone pops up who is good enough, dont worry about it, just play your best 6 batsmen and best 4 bowlers.

[stan]

Never been one for all rounders. Usually just people who can bowl, but not as good as the main bowlers, and can bat, but not as good as the main batsmen.

Thats what the aussies have had for about nearly 50 years.
There was MILLER and DAVIDSON in the 40-50-60s's but in general
no true allrounder since.
Poms have had BOTHAM and FLINTOFF.
Ironically WI and AUST have dominated the last 30 years without
a genuine allrounder.
I cant think of great allrounders in my lifetime playing for Australia.
Steve WAUGH was a handy allrounder when younger and bowling.
SYMONDS is Ok but WATSON might be the man.

Steve waugh was handy like you said but what made him handy. Well he was a gun batsman that could bowl steady medium pace.

[mal]

Never been one for all rounders. Usually just people who can bowl, but not as good as the main bowlers, and can bat, but not as good as the main batsmen.

Thats what the aussies have had for about nearly 50 years.
There was MILLER and DAVIDSON in the 40-50-60s's but in general
no true allrounder since.
Poms have had BOTHAM and FLINTOFF.
Ironically WI and AUST have dominated the last 30 years without
a genuine allrounder.
I cant think of great allrounders in my lifetime playing for Australia.
Steve WAUGH was a handy allrounder when younger and bowling.
SYMONDS is Ok but WATSON might be the man.

Steve waugh was handy like you said but what made him handy. Well he was a gun batsman that could bowl steady medium pace.

Great bowler in the 2nd digs unlike his batting[dont start fellas please!]

[GWW]

Never been one for all rounders. Usually just people who can bowl, but not as good as the main bowlers, and can bat, but not as good as the main batsmen.

Thats what the aussies have had for about nearly 50 years.
There was MILLER and DAVIDSON in the 40-50-60s's but in general
no true allrounder since.
Poms have had BOTHAM and FLINTOFF.
Ironically WI and AUST have dominated the last 30 years without
a genuine allrounder.
I cant think of great allrounders in my lifetime playing for Australia.
Steve WAUGH was a handy allrounder when younger and bowling.
SYMONDS is Ok but WATSON might be the man.

Steve waugh was handy like you said but what made him handy. Well he was a gun batsman that could bowl steady medium pace.

Great bowler in the 2nd digs unlike his batting[dont start fellas please!]

How would he go bowling at Telstra Dome?

[mal]

I believe WATSON is the missing link from Keith Miller to now.
If WATSON stays fit he may emerge as the allrounder we need
at test match level, he may well never reciprocate the great Millers
deeds, but he may be the next fast bowling allrounder.

There are ifs and buts, yes he must maintain fitness and must bat
in the top order until he improves against quality spinners at test level.

He batted with limited success for Tasmania until he got promoted to
number3 and then peeled off a few centurys.
He should be given the opportunity to prosper at the highest level.
HODGE and MARTYN must not be played in front of him.
CLARKE must bat 6 and below WATSON.

He must be selected at test level in the ashes, and for the future
when the senior players all retire soon.

SYMONDS is a star one day allrounder and is the answer in that game.
Tests are different, he does balance the side to a fair degree but I
reckon WATSON is the man.

WATSON 3/16 v ENGLAND 21/10/06

50 of 46 balls v INDIA 29/10/O6 his 4th half century as an opener
once again suited to batting higher up, out to a spinner [his achilles heel]
He was in hospital 3 days ago, tonight batted with a runner[injured again]
What a player, will be better in test matches !

[sydney-dog]

for so many years the Aussies have dominated world cricket without a specialist all rounder, for some reason it is now back on the Agenda and Watson seems to be given an arm chair ride while their are other cricketers around Australia who have been performing more consistently and over a longer period of time

if he is to play for Australia

1. Test Matches, he should not bat before Pup, technically and statistically Watson is not in our best 6 batsmen in the country, both Gilly and Pup must bat in front of Watson, then if Watson gets selected this would mean Roy will miss out, personally I rather bank on the three quick’s and Warne to do their job and have Roy in my side as the 5th bowler, he brings flexibility to the side with his bowling, he is the best fielder in world cricket and is explosive with the bat

2. One Day Cricket, I have less of an issue with selection in the one day side, other then he is not an opener, with player such as Jaques scoring runs at will I think it is not showing respect to this position in the side and it will be too much risk going in to the world cup with Watson as an opener, if he is to be picked, play him as an all rounder and bat him down the order

Roy, for me is the best all rounder in Australia and Watson second, but with Cosgrove working on his bowling and a sensational young talent in Moises Constantino Henriques coming through for NSW, time may no longer be on Watson's side

Sometimes I fear that this need to find an all rounder has been a knee jerk reaction to the Ashes loss and Flintoff's success

[rod_rooster]

I have to agree that Moises Henriques is very impressive.

[mal]

SD world cricket has changed in the last 10 years.
Its played a lot more these days and bowlers are being over worked.
Australia has gotten away with 4 bowlers only because they have been exceptional
Mcgrath, Warne, Gillespie, Lee have been terrific, but they are older and
need to be nursed along, Gillespie suffering in recent times.
A 5th bowler is now a prerequisite of late.
Australia must budget for life after Warne, he does a massive workload by
taking wickets, bowling heeps of overs and also keeping the quicks fresher.
When Warne retires the 5th bowler will be a neccessity.
The 70-80-90's were dominated by fast bowlers.
Now spinners take the most wickets, why?


Also in the last few years something else has crept in as well.
Remember the 3 + 4 day test matches Australia played in , well I have
noticed that tests go into the 5th day more often now.
Thats because of REVENUE, yes curators might be producing flatter
wickets to ensure 5 days of cricket and more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Hence why 5th bowlers are being selected.

Also some time ago teams were made to bowl 90 overs a day[more workload]
In the 80's when West Indies dominated they ambled through about 75 a day.

Hence the need for players like Simmo and Watson at the highest level.

[sydney-dog]

I am not against the concept of an all rounder, what I am against is selecting an all rounder just for the sake of it,

if we do go with an all rounder, he must earn selection and keep his spot in the side based on his performance, not based on the need as their are other ways of managing the demands of the amount of cricket being played

[mal]

Sorry Syd.
Bits and Pieces cricketers, the way of the world.
Longevity not ability.

[sydney-dog]

Mal, agree in the one day format, not convinced at test level

[mal]

[quote="sydney-dog"]Mal, agree

What the.....

[sydney-dog]

c'mon Mal, don't partially quote me

I think I only half agreed