Bell's Ashes

WideWally wrote:

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:I didn't say the bowlers at the other end had always exploited the pressure!

So he bowled tightly to create pressure which through no fault of his the other bowlers didn't take advantage of. Bit meaningless I'd say.

Strange comment. Peter's post looks spot on to me.

They are tactics that have been used throughout the history of test cricket.

And didn't work in this test.

And we're used with the new ball in place of Siddle who is a proven wicket taker.

It was a strange move to give Watson the ball before Siddle but Peter's comments were not about whether he was the first or second change, just about the role he was performing by bowling tightly.

PeterCS wrote:@Bagser:

Well, you bowl accurately enough to concede less than 1 run an over (in fact, twice Watson has beaten that in this series and bowled a string of 5 or 6 maidens, I think). If the batsmen are of a nervous or headstrong type especially, but if they wish to keep the scoreboard ticking naturally, they will soon be more inclined to take a risk or two more, especially against the other bowler(s).

This presumes that the bowling from the other end is skilful enough to follow this up with either wicket-grade balls, or at least similar constraining bowling that before too long, the batsman tends to get rash and risks giving it away. If few runs have been added, it doesn't matter so much if that has taken 15-20 overs!

In sum: It's not Watson's responsibility - as fourth seamer with a mainly closing-up job - if the other bowlers (that is, the strike bowlers) release that pressure with bad balls, inaccurate and/or profligate spells! Or simply can't capitalise on the batter constriction.

But what pressure is there to begin with?

Those string of maidens, they came in 2-3 spells. Again, how can you call that pressure when all the batsman need to do is survive 18 balls tops, off mainly wide of off-stump tempters, before he's gone again?

"Oh no, that Watto fellow bowled tight to me 20 overs ago and now I have to face him again. Gosh, I think I'm going to risk a shot"

The "pressure" is not there, you're fitting it to Watson, not the other way round.

I'm not sure this is such a big issue - it's slid bizarrely sideways out of a thread on Ian Bell.

Also - as ever with points of debate as opposed to personal vendettas, pointless invective, etc. - I'm happy to acknowledge different people will have different views.

But in any case:

My reading of much cricket, even at (or particularly at?) Test level, is that such pressure IS a factor. Some players are nervous, for whatever reasons (in this series I'd cite Root, Bairstow, and even Cook, Trott, Prior), others tend to rash shots (notably Kev, you could again say of late even - oddly - Cook, Trott, Prior, e.g. down the leg side).

Logic and experience, I think, would suggest they are likely to get (tw)itchy when pinned down.

Are we in fact sure, as claimed above, that using Watson's bowling HASN'T worked?? Okay, I haven't done the analysis, and am not going to go fishing through the cricinfo commentaries or youtubes or whatever. But Bell (in some innings) apart, the England batting has not exactly looked assured this series, or lacking itchiness or twitchiness.

Yep, first Siddle and then Harris have done the main damage. But single-handedly?

Anyway, I guess we will agree to disagree on this perhaps marginal issue (if not marginal for Watto's career!)

In short, I think Wally said it.

There is and has been for a few years now a solid evidence base, known to all the coaches and captains, that the likelihood of a wicket falling in Test cricket increases significantly when pressure is so sustained that 3 successive maidens are bowled.

Watson's bowling, which I have always viewed as dangerously deleterious to his own career because it has always been so likely to cause him another career interruption and even a career end, has been consistently contributory in this regard over the series, and has also been surprisingly threatening throughout the series, even if not ultimately rewarded with wickets. That opinion of his bowling in this series comes from someone who has historically never been a fan of him bowling at all. I once told Red that I expect Watson's bowling to be a bit more effective in Test cricket that Damien Martyn's, but not as effective as Steve Waugh's, and I have to admit that he's been much closer to the latter than the former, against my earlier expectations.

Still, some haters are always going to hate and ultimately his lack of numbers in the wickets column gives them the ammunition to say that he should have bowled less, and Siddle more; though Siddle has tired noticeably through the series and was far less effective in this last match.

It's all a moot point now with the series well and truly gone (not thanks to our bowlers, but to our lamentable batting), Watto crocked as usual (and crocked because he has been bowling), and with his batting apparently down the shitter anyway (although this last innings was the first occasion that he's been dismissed in single figures, in contrast to some of his other colleagues). He's probably played his last Test. As some cynics have commented, perhaps Clarke has indeed been bowling him more in order to permanently crock his career and 'excise the cancer' etc etc. I actually doubt that, although I don't think much of Clarke's man management skills, as is probably abundantly clear from my posts on other threads. Another word on that ... Clarke has become a fine Test batsman; you don't average 50+ over a long period otherwise; and occasionally he makes a good intuitive captain's call, but he gets too many things wrong and most importantly from my viewpoint he is too personally insecure to inspire his men to fight tenaciously in the way that the tough Border and SRW did. In my opinion Hussey's criminally delayed selection and Katich's glandular fever and/or chicken pox about 15 years ago probably robbed us of the two inspiring, gritty leaders we should have had, and foisted this entitled 'pretty boy' upon us.

I'm honestly fed up with reading the tired, repetitive, drivelling bollocks counter 'arguments' regarding Katich as they go too far beyond a wind up ... they might be justified in the case of a Tait or a Hughes or a Bruce Francis (!)  or (if things continue) a Khawaja ... but Katich's treatment by the selectors, at the behest of Clarke, has damaged Australian cricket, and I can't forgive Clarke for that.

I couldn't agree with all of that more.


Apart from the sledging of poor Bruce Francis, that is. He was muscled out before he had a proper chance.

IIRC he didn't even manage to make the NSW team in 1972-3, on his return from the 1972 tour, supplanted by such luminaries as Ron Crippen, Allan Anderson, and Marshall Rosen. He was out of that side too, faster than you could say 'Les Joslin'.

Pure, blatant prejudice against the talentfully challenged.

BF: antimatter, when the talent universe is discussed

Who should be sucked into one of Boof's black holes?

I suspect Cowan, Khawaja, Hughes, and Watson may have played their last Tests and that either Siddle or Harris will be rested in order to have a look at two spinners (or as close as we've got) on the Oval wicket. Wade will probably be in the XII.

I agree that Watson's bowling has been good (apart from his first spell at Durham) and he has deserved greater reward.

Also lardy, I'm afraid it won't be his last Test. He might even come under consideration as a batsman alone for The Oval?

But the question I asked myself is this: Would Shane Watson make the England team? Every fibre, atom and feeling in my body wants to say no, but I'm afraid the answer would be yes. He would be very effective as a powerful bat and nagging fourth seamer in a better team.

The only three players from Oz who would get a game are Clarke, Harris & Watson.

lardbucket wrote:I suspect Cowan, Khawaja, Hughes, and Watson may have played their last Tests and that either Siddle or Harris will be rested in order to have a look at two spinners (or as close as we've got) on the Oval wicket. Wade will probably be in the XII.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid. Aside from Cowan they will all play more Tests for Aus.

Gary 111 wrote:I agree that Watson's bowling has been good (apart from his first spell at Durham) and he has deserved greater reward.

Also lardy, I'm afraid it won't be his last Test. He might even come under consideration as a batsman alone for The Oval?

But the question I asked myself is this: Would Shane Watson make the England team? Every fibre, atom and feeling in my body wants to say no, but I'm afraid the answer would be yes. He would be very effective as a powerful bat and nagging fourth seamer in a better team.

The only three players from Oz who would get a game are Clarke, Harris & Watson.

Can't agree with that. Siddle has been far more effective than Bresnan and Haddin has been arguably better behind the stumps than Prior.

taipan wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:I agree that Watson's bowling has been good (apart from his first spell at Durham) and he has deserved greater reward.

Also lardy, I'm afraid it won't be his last Test. He might even come under consideration as a batsman alone for The Oval?

But the question I asked myself is this: Would Shane Watson make the England team? Every fibre, atom and feeling in my body wants to say no, but I'm afraid the answer would be yes. He would be very effective as a powerful bat and nagging fourth seamer in a better team.

The only three players from Oz who would get a game are Clarke, Harris & Watson.

Can't agree with that. Siddle has been far more effective than Bresnan and Haddin has been arguably better behind the stumps than Prior.

Haddin is having a better series than Prior - period. If Watson was English he'd be in the mix for the number six spot, but the apparent lack of a brain coupled with his injury record would have made him a marginal pick along with the likes of Bopara and Taylor.

Basil wrote:

taipan wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:I agree that Watson's bowling has been good (apart from his first spell at Durham) and he has deserved greater reward.

Also lardy, I'm afraid it won't be his last Test. He might even come under consideration as a batsman alone for The Oval?

But the question I asked myself is this: Would Shane Watson make the England team? Every fibre, atom and feeling in my body wants to say no, but I'm afraid the answer would be yes. He would be very effective as a powerful bat and nagging fourth seamer in a better team.

The only three players from Oz who would get a game are Clarke, Harris & Watson.

Can't agree with that. Siddle has been far more effective than Bresnan and Haddin has been arguably better behind the stumps than Prior.

Haddin is having a better series than Prior - period. If Watson was English he'd be in the mix for the number six spot, but the apparent lack of a brain coupled with his injury record would have made him a marginal pick along with the likes of Bopara and Taylor.

To clarify, I meant a combined best XI long term, not just for this series. It's hard to say if England would get more out of Watson, but I'm sure the selectors would give it a try. Something along the lines of:

Cook
Root/Trott
Bell
Pietersen
Clarke
Watson
Prior
Broad
Harris
Swann
Anderson