Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2010/11

Much as it pains me to say this, what England really need is a Shane Watson or a Jacques Kallis. TBH Australia's problem in the bowling department is quality, not quantity.

Kallis yes, but Watson? I'm not sure he'd get in the England side, his bowling is ok but never going to be any better and his batting the same. He's a one day player that ended up as an opener because there was no one else. I'd still rather have Collingwood, his batting his better and he's worth a wicket or two in the field.
 
I thought Watson was a walking wicket at first, but he's impressed me this series. He's a very improved batsman who doesn't play across his pads any more. He looked poor against Swann yesterday, though: going hard at the ball with the bat is not the way to survive on a turning wicket. And he gets wickets regularly, like Kallis: a couple a game at an average of 30, which is more than enough for a fifth bowler.

On balance I'd take Watson over Collingwood for his bowling.
 
I know where you're coming from, but its hard to think of any team in the modern era that has gone for this set up without having a world class all rounder.

You'd think the aussies who are having real trouble bowling England out, and have a w/k who is as good if not better then Prior, should be looking at this. I bet they don't though, its just not the done thing.

I just don't agree with the mentality that says 'no-one else does this, therefore we shouldn't'. Cricket is a simple game, disguised as a complicated one. If our top order are firing, then we need to make sure we have a bowling attack to square the circle. 7s, 8s and 9s should be able to block, partner a specialist batsmen or have the occassional cameo 50. Anything more than that is a bonus. I don't want the bowlers picked on batting ability. I want wicket-takers. The solution to a fragile top order is not a weakened bowling attack.
 
It's mentally good for the opposition to know that they're only two wickets away from the tail with just three down. In turn that puts pressure on the top six. I can see any captain being nervous of a tail starting at seven.
 
I thought Watson was a walking wicket at first, but he's impressed me this series. He's a very improved batsman who doesn't play across his pads any more. He looked poor against Swann yesterday, though: going hard at the ball with the bat is not the way to survive on a turning wicket. And he gets wickets regularly, like Kallis: a couple a game at an average of 30, which is more than enough for a fifth bowler.

On balance I'd take Watson over Collingwood for his bowling.

Two words:

Conversion rate.


50's do not win or save test matches.

Oh and his bowling is a bit shit, but then again he's not the only one in baggy green who can be accused of that at the moment. He's ok.
 
Would they select Watson as an opener if he didn't bowl?

Yes I think so, but mainly because there is no one else. Would Watson get in the team if they still had Langer and Hayden?

ETA: Actually thinking about it, he'd get the number 6 slot instead of North, where for me he is ideally suited.
 
Conversion rate.

Nah. If he scores a fifty every time he bats, that's job done.

Late-career Allan Border hardly scored any centuries but still averaged over fifty. Averages don't lie, particularly with opening batsmen who face the new ball every innings, and Watson's average as opener is very good indeed.
 
Nobody but nobody better touch one selection hair on Collingwood's head :mad:

I dunno. My other perennial favourite Bell starts to actually perform so well that people leave him alone for a change and so they pick on Collingwood instead.
 
So you drop him down to no. 6.

I've called for Collingwood's head in the past, but he looked in reasonable touch in his little cameo this match and he is a good man for a crisis, as he's proved as recently as last winter in SA. He's an ugly batsman, even when playing well but so what – another no.5, a certain S Waugh, was never easy on the eye either, but he scored a lot more runs than his more gifted twin.
I agree with all of this, and I'd add that when england are doing badly, he's the one player I'd bet on to roll up his sleeves, grit his teeth and dig in, which is why he's so often got us out of holes entirely of our own making
 
Nobody but nobody better touch one selection hair on Collingwood's head :mad:

I dunno. My other perennial favourite Bell starts to actually perform so well that people leave him alone for a change and so they pick on Collingwood instead.

:D

It is the lot of the sixth-best batsman in any team to prop up the bar at the last chance saloon. Collingwood has his own tankard. He'll be ok.
 
leave the brigadier alone! he's shit hot in a crisis, shit hot inthe field, and brings an interesting alternative as a 5th bowler.

and wasn't it just total quality when kp took that slimy little prick clarke's wicket last ball. class!
 
Why is Clarke a slimy little prick?

just cos. and he tried it on when cook caught him - no way did he not know he'd blatantly hit the ball with his bat, he started to walk then decided to be said slimy prick. you could see he knew it too by the body language when he moped off. and he's australian. that kind of behaviour - it's just not cricket, is it?
 
Batsmen don't walk any more. I can't think of a single walker now. The last one was probably Lara, who said he couldn't help it – he could never hide his disgust at having got out.
 
just cos. and he tried it on when cook caught him - no way did he not know he'd blatantly hit the ball with his bat, he started to walk then decided to be said slimy prick. you could see he knew it too by the body language when he moped off. and he's australian. that kind of behaviour - it's just not cricket, is it?

Personally I find all this needlessly venomous stuff to be not cricket. Cricket is about having respect within a competitive spirited game. I love the banter but frankly find it a bit embarrassing when people take the banter side of it that seriously.
 
I've never really got banter, whether in sports or anything else. I used to kind of play along with it as it seemed like the thing to do. Can't be bothered pretending any more.
 
I used to hate it when England got away with one through the weather (which is, obviously, more common in the UK). Very unsatisfactory. Highly unsatistactory. As good as a defeat, in fact. No good at all.
 
index.htm
 
Back
Top Bottom