Cricket IV

[Paxter]

Well, I was absolutely gutted when McKenzie dropped that catch. It has cost SA 77 runs now, so he will have to go on to make a big score himself to right that wrong. On current form, I don't have high hopes that he will be able to do that. Aus should consider themselves very fortunate that that catch was put down - they would have struggled to get 300 otherwise. Having said that, they may still struggle to get 300 if Symonds can't end his Harris hoodoo. SA's other problem today is that two of their best bowlers (Ntini and Morkel) have leaked a lot of runs. Morkel in particular has failed to adjust to the MCG - at the WACA you can afford to bowl fuller than usual, but you just can't afford to be overpitching consistently at the 'G.

[quote name='Horza' post='1630473' date='Dec 26 2008, 12.33']Also, looks like the Huss has ahit a little form drop - how far will his average fall - mid-fifties? ;)[/quote]

To be honest, I think you are being a overly kind to Hussey by saying "a little" form drop. 18 months ago, I would have said that he was easily the best batsman in the world. He has crashed back down to earth in 2008, averaging less than 40 with the bat, and his strike is about 10% lower than in previous seasons (demonstrating his loss in confidence). So he has pretty much gone from the best in 06 and 07 to a marginally above average top-order batsman in 08. That is quite a significant drop in form I feel. Still, he is more than deserving of his place in the team, and, as Rahul Dravid recently discovered, you never know when a big innings might be just around the corner.

BTW Horza, Ponting was caught, not lbw ;)

[Horza]

Pfft. That was a test to make sure you all were reading closely.

[Jeor]

Things swinging back in Australia's favour now. They've reached the 250 mark with Haddin and Clarke still in, although at the moment Clarke is batting like a tortured gravedigger. If South Africa had gotten Haddin early, they might have rolled Australia for less than 300, but I don't think that's likely now. I think the Aussies will be happy with anything 350+, although tye'll probably want 400 since they're going to be using an underdone bowling attack, but they stand a decent chance of getting there.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1630549' date='Dec 26 2008, 15.11']Things swinging back in Australia's favour now. They've reached the 250 mark with Haddin and Clarke still in, although at the moment Clarke is batting like a tortured gravedigger. If South Africa had gotten Haddin early, they might have rolled Australia for less than 300, but I don't think that's likely now. I think the Aussies will be happy with anything 350+, although tye'll probably want 400 since they're going to be using an underdone bowling attack, but they stand a decent chance of getting there.[/quote]

Yep, Haddin has caused SA plenty of problems so far this series. The Saffers must really hate Australian wicketkeepers ;)

Meanwhile, Gayle is smashing the Kiwis all over the place in NZ. 44 off 26 balls so far. This man must be truly frightening to bowl to in this form of the game. As for the Bangladesh game, well first blood to the 'Deshis. Poor start for SL - losing the in-form Warnapura and scoring hardly any runs in the abbreviated first session. SL having a few troubles with the minnows lately!

[Jeor]

Haddin's wicket has made the position a little better for South Africa at the end of the day, although I would suggest that the balance is still even, given Australia's lower-order batting. At 6/280, 350 is still well within sight given the fact Clarke is still at the crease, and Lee and Johnson can be handy hitters. For all their efficiency at snatching batsmen's wickets just when they need them most, South Africa's attack needs to figure out a way to clean up the tail quickly otherwise something between 350-400 could eventuate.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1630585' date='Dec 26 2008, 18.09']For all their efficiency at snatching batsmen's wickets just when they need them most, South Africa's attack needs to figure out a way to clean up the tail quickly otherwise something between 350-400 could eventuate.[/quote]

No doubt Smith will be tossing and turning all night as he thinks about how he is going to wrap up these last few wickets - memories of the WACA test match will be very fresh in his mind. BTW, what do we think of the way Clarke played today? A strike rate of 22 is very out of character. Is he maybe beating himself up about his WACA dismissals a little too much? And what about Symonds - how many times is he going to be able to throw away good starts before Watson comes back into the team?

Side-note: Great 20/20 in NZ ending in a tie and then a thrilling one over per side "eliminator", which Gayle won on the back of a 25-run over! Bangladesh dominating the first day against SL - they nabbed Warnapura early and have just taken 3-16 - including the key wickets of Sanga and Jayawardene. Their young left-arm spinner Al-Hasan is showing genuine promise and is the only 'Deshi bowler with a test bowling average under 30 (currently has 26 wickets @ 28 in 11 tests). He just clean-bowled Jayawardene with an arm ball. Hopefully they can knock over the middle order quickly and make an exciting test out of this.

[Jeor]

Yeah, not sure what to make of Michael Clarke's innings. The South Africans didn't bowl [i]that well[/i] to restrict him; I'm pretty sure he could've scored at a faster clip if he wanted to. Perhaps he's suffering a hangover from Perth and doesn't want to get out to any loose shots. As for Symonds getting out again...that was just bad execution. They'd had three or four maidens in a row, I think, and then a juicy short wide ball was offered up and Symonds fluffed it. Mind you, he was in the late 20s so it wasn't as if he hadn't gotten his eye in.

I thought they would have played Watson in this Test for Symonds, just to strengthen their bowling a bit. As much as I don't rate Watson, his bowling is definitely better than Symonds', especially given that Simmo's carrying some sort of an injury.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1630590' date='Dec 26 2008, 19.24']I thought they would have played Watson in this Test for Symonds, just to strengthen their bowling a bit. As much as I don't rate Watson, his bowling is definitely better than Symonds', especially given that Simmo's carrying some sort of an injury.[/quote]

Yeah, I was also a bit surprised that they didn't play Watson after they couldn't bowl SA out at the WACA. Unless Symonds does something special in the second dig, you have to say that he really doesn't deserve to be in the team.

Side-note: Good to see Bangladesh win a day's play against a top test team. SL 6-172 at stumps. And not only have the 'Deshis taken wickets but they've kept the scoring below 3 runs per over. Now if they can just somehow scratch together 300 they might have a chance...but with Murali still going strong I have to concede that that is unlikely. Not to mention the fact that Vaas and Samaraweera are still not out...

[Jeor]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1630595' date='Dec 26 2008, 20.59']Yeah, I was also a bit surprised that they didn't play Watson after they couldn't bowl SA out at the WACA. Unless Symonds does something special in the second dig, you have to say that he really doesn't deserve to be in the team.[/quote]

Well, I don't think I'd be that harsh about Symonds - he was in bad form leading up to this series, but did score a quickfire 57 in the last match in Perth. That being said, I do think he should've been traded for Watson this time - not for any fault of Symonds, but rather because of the need to strengthen the bowling attack, as well as the fact that Symonds had some sort of niggle in Perth that meant he couldn't really bowl. My Australian team for this match would have been Watson in for Symonds, while keeping Krejza in (no Hauritz), with my only real doubt being whether to keep Siddle or trade him for Hilfenhaus.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1630601' date='Dec 26 2008, 20.28']Well, I don't think I'd be that harsh about Symonds - he was in bad form leading up to this series, but did score a quickfire 57 in the last match in Perth. That being said, I do think he should've been traded for Watson this time - not for any fault of Symonds, but rather because of the need to strengthen the bowling attack, as well as the fact that Symonds had some sort of niggle in Perth that meant he couldn't really bowl.[/quote]

Since his re-emergence in the test team, Symonds has averaged less than 30 (27.83 to be exact) with the bat, has often thrown his wicket away in a careless fashion (as evidenced by the fact that he has been out caught in every innings this summer) and has made an almost negligible contribution with the ball. That is not the kind of form that is expected from a top 6 player who is also apparently being picked as an all-rounder. So I don't think I'm being harsh about Symonds at all - he is just not pulling his weight at the moment. Unless you think that averaging 27 at no. 6 with hardly any bowling is acceptable.

Apart from these rather short-term considerations, you also have to look at the long-term viability of Symonds. Watson has excellent first class averages with both bat and ball (both better than Symonds anyway) and he is also younger and therefore likely to be around for a while longer (assuming his injury concerns are now behind him). So, apart from the short-term factors (such as Symonds' lacklustre form with bat and ball, and Watson's solid contribution in India), there are long-term factors that need to be taken into account. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Watson is the next Ian Botham or Andy Flintoff, but it is worth giving him a go in front of a barely contributing Symonds.

[Jeor]

Symonds hasn't made a meaningful contribution since he came back, true, but he's only been back for six innings so far. If you look to the last few matches he played before that, he had 162*, 61, 66, 12, 30, 70*, 79, 18, 43*, 52 and 2, which adds up to a batting average of 74. He was definitely contributing back then, and so on merit I think he should have a couple more matches grace, although the need for more bowling should have had him out of the equation.

And as regards Watson - if you want to look at recent contributions, Watson's have been far worse than Symonds. If you pick the last six innings for Watson, he has 2, 36, 2, 9, 1 and 5, an average of 9 runs (compared to Symonds 27.83 in the same stretch). Now of course Watson brings much more bowling to the table, but his overall Test batting record is still mediocre, in 8 matches he averages under 20. A guy averaging 27 at No.6 with hardly any bowling is bad enough, but a guy averaging 9 at No.6 is just as bad as far as what the position dictates.

Anyway, I'm making a rather strange argument because I do believe Watson should have played in place of Symonds this match, just to strengthen the bowling. But I guess I'm just suggesting that the change would have been based more on the needs of the team (ie more bowling) rather than being forced by the individual performances of Symonds or Watson.

[Jeor]

Once again the Australian tail wagged - the last 4 wickets added over 100 runs, although Steyn got a five-for. Smith scores a half century but the South Africn batting crumbles to 5/132, and Siddle is the surprise package with three wickets.

Siddle has been on fire. His average speed has been 146kph, hitting highs of 151 kph. Both Siddle and Johnson have been consistently over 145 kph (90mph for Hereward). Lee has actually been the slowest of all the pace bowlers! The surprising thing is that it has been so consistent. None of Siddle or Johnson have slipped below 140 and each ball is around 145, yet Melbourne isn't known for being a particularly quick pitch. Maybe there's time yet to get a pace bowling attack ready for England. ;)

With Morkel, Ntini and Steyn all also consistently attaining 140 kph, this has got to be one of the few Test matches where there have been six bowlers all over that range. The funny thing is that if Tait were fit, Australia could claim to having a four-man pace attack where Brett Lee is the slowest bowler and all regularly clock 90mph or more. ;) Mind you pace isn't everything and I'd pick a healthy Stuart Clark over most any of those guys.

Lee's form is a bit of a worry, though. He was tonked all over the place by Smith early on in the innings and his pace has been down. He did at least score some quick runs with the bat, but they'll be wanting him to get wickets soon.

[Paxter]

Jeor, to me this argument can be quite simply settled:

Arguments in favour of Symonds:
- Better form than Watson with the bat in recent tests (although if you were to stretch the historical analysis back to 7 innings, the batting stats are much closer, because Watson made 70 odd 7 innings ago)

Arguments against Symonds:
- Age
- First-class averages (Watson dominates both batting and bowling, demonstrating his greater potential in both areas)
- Recent bowling form (Watson average less than 30 with the ball, with a decent strike rate in his last three test series against WI, India and NZ) compared to Symonds hardly bowling at all in recent games, let alone taking regular wickets.

So, unless you believe that the marginally better form that Symonds brings with the bat outweighs Watson's far superior contribution with ball in hand, coupled with factors such as his age and first class statistics, I just don't see any obstacle to the conclusion that Symonds should be forced out of the team on merit (or, should I say, lack thereof).

Anyway, back to the cricket. Australia are dominating the Boxing Day test match thanks to Haurtiz's ability to stop the run-rate and Siddle's two strikes. The omission of Krejza is starting to look like quite a shrewd move. I've got my predictions wrong twice in a row now (predicting that firstly England and then Australia would win the last two tests), but surely it is now safe to say that there is no way out of this one for the Saffers. McKenzie's dropped catch is still the turning point in this game for me.

Bangladesh found Vaas difficult to dislodge, but they still ended up dismissing SL for 293. It's up to the batsman now. Ashraful has a good record against SL (averaging over 40 with 3 centuries): hopefully he can fire.

Edit: yep, things looking very bleak for SA now that Boucher is gone. Third time lucky for my predictions ;)

[Jeor]

Watson may have better potential than Symonds, but I don't think there's much doubt that Symonds is the better international batsman. As most people know through the last couple of years on this board, trashing Shane Watson has been one of my favourite past times, so I'll indulge myself one more time. ;) Of course, I'm rather biased, but I should also add that I'm not a particularly big fan of Symonds himself as I think his off-field problems have displayed a rather childish and petulant character. Anyway, sorry if this sounds rather soapboxy, but I have this vendetta against Shane Watson, just like Perry Cox from Scrubs has it in for Hugh Jackman. ;)

These last few years I've been annoyed at how the selectors have always looked to rush Watson back into the team. Ever since Ashes 2005 they've been dying to have an all-rounder, something that I think is entirely due to trying to "keep up with the Joneses". Watson has had bad injury problems and every time the selectors have put him back into international consideration despite him not playing a bunch of first-class matches first to prove that he's fit, scoring runs and taking wickets, and I think that's wrong.

While there's no doubt he brings more to the bowling table than Andrew Symonds, I also think that his batting is nowhere near Symonds' at this point in time. In his 8 Test matches he has one solitary half-century, and a batting average of 19.76. For this reason I don't think age should really come into it against Symonds; Symonds still arguably has a couple of good years' batting in front of him, while Watson's has yet to fully develop.

It's also a mischaracterisation to say that Watson's first-class batting 'dominates' Symonds' first-class record; there's less than two runs in it. Over 68 matches, Watson averages 44.74. Over 221 matches, Symonds averages 42.91. And while we're on first-class records, I think I should also point out that even in first-class cricket, Watson is not a frontline bowler. He has 132 wickets in 68 first-class matches; that's less than 2 wickets per match. Any frontline bowler should be getting closer to 3.5 wickets per match. While his averages and strike rate are excellent (and of course better than Symonds'), he does not bowl often enough to be considered a front-line bowler even in first-class cricket.

I guess when it comes down to it, I still don't believe that either of Watson's disciplines (batting or bowling) are of international standard, whereas Symonds has at least proven over his career (Test average 42.20, Test strike rate 65.34) that his batting is worth its place in the side, as well as his fielding, which is far superior to Watson's (and most anyone's). Watson's bowling, after a good series in India, is looking reasonable, but he still isn't ready to be a third seamer in a bowling attack. I don't see any way that Watson merits a place in the side for either his batting or his bowling, and I don't like the idea of including bits and pieces players in a side (eg when both Watson and Cameron White played in India, that meant there were two all-rounders playing, neither of whose batting or bowling was international class). It just so happens that due to team composition and the failure of the bowling attack, Watson is being talked about as an option.

Yes, I think Watson should have played in place of Symonds at this Test match, especially as it looks like Symonds' injury is causing him some concern (he's fielding in some odd positions that he normally doesn't go near and that negates one of his contributions to the side). But I think Watson's place in the side would have been due to team composition, rather than merit itself. I'm just not convinced that Watson is an international Test all-rounder. In ODIs and Twenty20s, perhaps, but a Test all-rounder has to be made of sterner stuff, and neither his batting or bowling is up to it.

[Jeor]

Just for fun I decided to do a Google search for "Jeor" and "Shane Watson" to see exactly what I have said about him in recent times and to take some of the mickey. I think Hereward, Cyrano and others will nod knowingly, having thought in their heads, "Here we go again" after reading the first sentence of my last post. ;) Unfortunately it seems that the board has deleted most of hte posts from 2005-early 2007 so there are only some recent ones here. Let's see, here are the Jeor "Shane Watson" gems over the years, edited to be a bit more concise than the usual long diatribes...

September 20, 2007: "I was just about to castigate Shane Watson's performance...he shouldn't always be an automatic selection, which he seems to be, despite not having many first-class matches under his belt and always being injured. Well, today he made a couple of misfields and bowled a no-ball above waist-height....anyway, it's all a moot point. Watson has come down with an injury. Again. Something happened to his hamstring and he couldn't bowl out his over. The Australian selectors have to stop being so starry-eyed about Shane Watson. It's an insult to more deserving players when they pick a guy who has always been injured, never had any prolonged run of cricket, doesn't have a strong international record, has barely played two first-class matches in a row and then is straight-up bolted into the Australian team at the first opportunity."

May 31, 2008: Ugh! Shane Watson!...It's all well and good for him to be bowling four overs and to be slogging a few quick runs, but to be a Test match regular is something entirely different...The Australian selectors went completely silly fawning over an all-rounder after we were beaten in the 2005 Ashes. In their desperation to find themselves their own Flintoff they picked Watson time and again, despite him being injured, and brought him straight back into the international side after he'd been injured despite him getting no first-class time...He is not a Test-class all-rounder. Neither of his batting or bowling is worth its place alone. In time his batting might be (and he does have a good first-class record) but I think his bowling is overrated and will be shown up in Test matches (he's only played 3 so far but has an economy rate of 3.96 and an average of 61.5). He doesn't have the capacity to bowl long spells and he bowls by effort rather than talent.

October 17, 2008: Watson doesn't qualify as a full bowler...I really don't see the benefits of pursuing this Watson/White combination...their all-round skills might be good in first-class cricket - both batting averages over 40, for example - and they might cut it in the smaller format of Twenty20s and ODIs, but they don't have any Test-level skills.

October 21, 2008: Well, to be fair, Shane Watson was given not out when Sharma hit him absolutely plumb when he was in single figures, so I think it kind of evens out there. Hawkeye said the ball was hitting bang on middle stump about halfway up, and the commentators were bemused it wasn't given out; I think it was Rudi who missed that one.

November 6, 2008: Shane Watson is not a first-change bowler, even if he did happen to get a wicket this time, and he should not be the fourth bowler overall in a Test attack.

And then today's post as well. I hope Shane Watson isn't a closet ASOIAF fan and reads these boards...then I'd actually feel quite bad. ;)

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1631174' date='Dec 27 2008, 15.44']It's also a mischaracterisation to say that Watson's first-class batting 'dominates' Symonds' first-class record; there's less than two runs in it. Over 68 matches, Watson averages 44.74. Over 221 matches, Symonds averages 42.91. And while we're on first-class records, I think I should also point out that even in first-class cricket, Watson is not a frontline bowler. He has 132 wickets in 68 first-class matches; that's less than 2 wickets per match. Any frontline bowler should be getting closer to 3.5 wickets per match. While his averages and strike rate are excellent (and of course better than Symonds'), he does not bowl often enough to be considered a front-line bowler even in first-class cricket.

I guess when it comes down to it, I still don't believe that either of Watson's disciplines (batting or bowling) are of international standard, whereas Symonds has at least proven over his career (Test average 42.20, Test strike rate 65.34) that his batting is worth its place in the side, as well as his fielding, which is far superior to Watson's (and most anyone's).[/quote]

I think these paragraphs highlight the underlying flaw in your argument. You admit that Watson is a far better bowler than Symonds. You also say that Watson is marginally better in terms of first-class batting averages, demonstrating his great potential as a test batsman. So on this basis, you have to conclude that Watson should be in the team. However, you then offer two arguments in Symonds' defence:
- Proven international batting record at test level
- Fielding

But you completely ignore the fact that Watson has never really had a chance to prove himself with the bat at test level, as he has never had an extended run in the team (unlike Symonds). You also seem to cast aside the fact that Watson has the chance to establish himself as a genuine all-rounder who will be around for a long time, whereas Symonds' usefulness will be far more limited due to his age.

Don't get me wrong, I have never liked Watson as a cricketer - I don't enjoy watching him bat nor do I enjoy watching his slightly awkward bowling action. But compared to Symonds, who is essentially an out-of-form specialist batsman (averaging below 30 recently), regularly letting the team down at No. 6 and not bowling at all, I'd rather have Watson in the team.

Having said all of this, it is unlikely that I will be able to persuade you on this matter, so I won't bring up Watson in any future posts. God knows why I waste my time arguing over and defending players that I don't even like anyway.

Edit: Bangladesh still 140 runs behind and too many batsmen have not capitalised on decent starts. Murali and Vaas doing the damage, as expected in the absence of Mendis. I shudder to think how impotent the SL bowling attack will be when these two champions retire. They will just have to stick Mendis up at one end and hope he takes all 10 wickets, while mediocre/poor seam bowlers rotate from the other end.

[Sir Thursday]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1631214' date='Dec 27 2008, 09.25']Edit: Bangladesh still 140 runs behind and too many batsmen have not capitalised on decent starts. Murali and Vaas doing the damage, as expected in the absence of Mendis. I shudder to think how impotent the SL bowling attack will be when these two champions retire. They will just have to stick Mendis up at one end and hope he takes all 10 wickets, while mediocre/poor seam bowlers rotate from the other end.[/quote]

What about Malinga? I haven't heard much about him for a while, but he was pretty dangerous when he was hot...


Sir Thursday

[Stubby]

The argument against Symonds: He's an all rounder that dare not bowl at the moment for fear of aggravating an injury - better to pick a batsman instead.

The argument against Watson: He's a bowling all rounder - better to pick a batsman for no 6.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Sir Thursday' post='1631247' date='Dec 27 2008, 20.32']What about Malinga? I haven't heard much about him for a while, but he was pretty dangerous when he was hot...


Sir Thursday[/quote]

As you would expect with his bowling action, he's very injury prone. I agree that he is a good bowler when fit though, and could solve some of the bowling headaches for SL. But unfortunately, I just don't see that he will have a particularly long career. Apparently he had a career-threatening knee injury not so long ago - but it was healed by some sort of witchdoctor (or should I say: an Ayurvedic specialist and healer)!! (see [url="http://www.hilalscricket.com/2008/09/supernatural-doctor-heals-lasith.html"]here[/url] for more info...). I assume he is on the road to recovery now and is not quite match fit otherwise he would surely be in the test team.

Ser Stubby, I have to disagree that he is a bowling allrounder. His talents with bat and ball are pretty well even IMO. In fact, I rate his batting slightly ahead of his bowling (e.g. in 72 ODIs he averages over 35 with the bat, with a strike rate over 80. This record is comparable to truly excellent specialist ODI batsmen like Marcus Trescothick and better than other specialist batsmen of the modern era to play ODIs like Nasser Hussain or Steve Waugh). His first-class record also bears this out: nearly 5000 runs @ 44 with the bat (as you would expect from a specialist batsman), but (as Jeor has pointed out) only 132 wickets from 68 matches - not at all what you would expect from a front-line bowler.

[Stubby]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1631356' date='Dec 27 2008, 23.33']Ser Stubby, I have to disagree .....[/quote]

Yeah but they are both still all-rounders. I'm just not convinvced that either Watson or Symonds is as good as a Botham or a Khan (that type of player the Aussie selectors always seem to think has to be in the side to win). Pick another batsman, trust the frontline bowlers is the way I think the team should be picked. I don't beleive either of them is the 6th best batsman in Australia.