We would be a rabble without Watson

[gbatman]

We would be a rabble without Watson

With all the criticism Watson gets, truth is we would be a joke of a side without Watson. He's the only bowler we have who bowls stump to stump, varies his deliveries, bowls full and straight and moves the ball. In a sence he is the new Glenn McGrath. The way he bowls bares a lot of similarities to McGrath's with his strigh and full bowling, not all that quick, good bounce and a tendancy to tie batsmen down and get wickets.

Doug Bollinger has been dissapointing. Doesn't bowl stump to stump, bowls too short, doesn't have accuracy, doesn't swing the ball enough. He has the talent, he has the pace and bounce, he has been poor and needs to lift.

Johnson has been accurte but can't move the ball.

Harris we miss badly, his skill, variation and ability to swing it and bowl accuratly at pace we miss badly.

Hilfenhaus is very talented but has no bowling smarts or variation at all. Doesn't even have/use a straight ball. Is no where near his best and is missing his accuracy.

Watson has been our best Bowler by far and if he goes down we are in serious trouble. Well done Shane.

 

[Boris]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

I'm not sure this English series is one to really judge by. I'm going to be paying a lot more attention to the India series to see if things are still the same, because only a few months ago the bowlers you are saying are bad, were the best in the side.

Johnson had a very good summer, but doesn't seem able to bowl in England. Bollinger had a brilliant summer and this is the only series really he hasn't done enough. Hilfenhaus is just back from surgery and he doesn't seem to be bowling that badly, touch short at times and was lacking the penetration of before, but still seems good enough. Harris has played all of two Tests so I'm not sure it's best to be judging him there.

Whereas Watson was the bowl occasionally for a bit of economy while the other bowlers rest sort of guy.

I'm hoping it's just the English conditions.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

What about Katich? He's hardly been poor. Quite the opposite. At times, I think he is the only one capable of extended periods of concentration without getting bored or impatient.

 

[Roy00]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

With all the criticism Watson gets, truth is we would be a joke of a side without Watson. He's the only bowler we have who bowls stump to stump, varies his deliveries, bowls full and straight and moves the ball. In a sence he is the new Glenn McGrath. The way he bowls bares a lot of similarities to McGrath's with his strigh and full bowling, not all that quick, good bounce and a tendancy to tie batsmen down and get wickets.

Doug Bollinger has been dissapointing. Doesn't bowl stump to stump, bowls too short, doesn't have accuracy, doesn't swing the ball enough. He has the talent, he has the pace and bounce, he has been poor and needs to lift.

Johnson has been accurte but can't move the ball.

Harris we miss badly, his skill, variation and ability to swing it and bowl accuratly at pace we miss badly.

Hilfenhaus is very talented but has no bowling smarts or variation at all. Doesn't even have/use a straight ball. Is no where near his best and is missing his accuracy.

Watson has been our best Bowler by far and if he goes down we are in serious trouble. Well done Shane.

I wouldnt be so harsh on Hilfenhaus...he's come off very little cricket after coming back from injury. He showed his class against England last year although I think he could improve his consistency of line and length. Other than that, he has the tools to be a fine test bowler.

Johnson however is useless and is bad for team morale with his complete lack of ability to have any control over his own performances.

Peter George may come into calculations down the track as he can at least hit a length, McGrath style.

Harris is probably better than Bolly but is always an injury concern.

 

[Boris]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

Johnson however is useless and is bad for team morale with his complete lack of ability to have any control over his own performances.

You do have to remember though that Johnson is the only bowler who has been able to get good returns consistently for the past few years now.

Over the summer he had the most wickets and came back with good figures in almost every innings. He quite often gets big wickets too.

He's the sort of bowler that you only notice if he is doing something bad. There are lots of Australian bowlers who haven't succeeded in bowling in England, so you can slag him off for not bowling there, but it's a bit over the top to say he's useless altogether despite his past performances.

 

[Roy00]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

You do have to remember though that Johnson is the only bowler who has been able to get good returns consistently for the past few years now.

Over the summer he had the most wickets and came back with good figures in almost every innings. He quite often gets big wickets too.

He's the sort of bowler that you only notice if he is doing something bad. There are lots of Australian bowlers who haven't succeeded in bowling in England, so you can slag him off for not bowling there, but it's a bit over the top to say he's useless altogether despite his past performances.

the problem I have with Mitch Johnson is that there appears to be no thought whatsoever that goes into his bowling. he cant set a batsman up because he cant place a delivery anywhere near where he wants to if he tries. I think he gets most of his wickets as a result of his inconsistency more than anything else..much like a part time partnership breaker bowler.

his main asset is that he can bowl 150kph...thats it

he's more an athlete who plays cricket rather than a cricketer

 

[Beeswax]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

the problem I have with Mitch Johnson is that there appears to be no thought whatsoever that goes into his bowling. he cant set a batsman up because he cant place a delivery anywhere near where he wants to if he tries. I think he gets most of his wickets as a result of his inconsistency more than anything else..much like a part time partnership breaker bowler.

his main asset is that he can bowl 150kph...thats it

he's more an athlete who plays cricket rather than a cricketer

My problem with him is that because he bowls at least 2 boundary balls an over (whether they are picked off or not), he is a real pressure valve and that doesn't help the guy at the other end.

 

[Roy00]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

My problem with him is that because he bowls at least 2 boundary balls an over (whether they are picked off or not), he is a real pressure valve and that doesn't help the guy at the other end.

yes i agree with this..as i said somewhere else...he has an unsettling effect on his team-mates..particularly the bowling group and more particularly the bowler from the other end

 

[Beeswax]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

yes i agree with this..as i said somewhere else...he has an unsettling effect on his team-mates..particularly the bowling group and more particularly the bowler from the other end

Yes, the team visibly deflates when it is clear that he is bowling poorly.

 

[lewissaffin]

Re: We would be a rabble without Watson

As it is the Ashes in this coming winter (or summer, if you live there) that is most important, I'll base my debate on them.

In Australia, Bollinger, Harris, and Johnson have proven themselves to be fantastic bowlers and, however badly they might do in England, they will be England's biggest obstacle this winter. I don't yet regard Smith as that big a threat, though that might change.

As for Watson's form, sure he has been impressive but you must take in to account the fact that Australia have been playing an inexperienced Pakistan batting line-up who, sometimes, played some silly shots to get out.