Watson's layoff & consequences

[acker]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Australia's batting has not been a problem but there is nothing wrong with there bowling, its no worse than it has been in the past.

Key
Games won
Games lost from poor bowling
Games lost from poor batting


CB Series.
Vs England 8/242 - McGrath (2), Bracken (3), Clark (1), Johnson (2), Clarke (0) & White (0) - Aus won by 8 wickets
Vs New Zealand 10/184 - Bracken (1), Hilfenhaus (1), Johnson (2), Clark (2), Symonds (2) & White (1) - Aus won by 105 runs
Vs England 10/155 - Lee (2), Bracken (3), McGrath (3), Johnson (0), Symonds (0), Whtie (1) - Aus won by 4 wickets
Vs New Zealand 10/218 - Lee (2), Bracken (1), McGrath (3), Clark (4), Symonds (0) & White (0) - Aus won by 2 wickets
Vs England 10/110 - Lee (2), Johnson (4), Clark (1), Symonds (1) & Hogg (2) - Aus won by 9 wickets
Vs New Zealand 5/335 - Lee (0), Bracken (0), McGrath (1), Johnson (1), Clarke (2) & Symonds (0) - Aus won by 8 runs
Vs England 7/292 - Tait (2), Bracken (1), Clark (0), McGrath (2), Clarke (0), Symonds (0) & White (1) - Eng won by 92 runs
Vs New Zealand 7/290 - Lee (2), Tait (1), Clark (2), Johnson (0), Clarke (2) & White (0) - Aus won by 5 wickets
Vs England 6/253 - Lee (3), Bracken (1), McGrath (0), Watson (1), Hogg (0) & Clarke (0) - Eng won by 4 wickets
Vs England 8/246 - Lee (1), Bracken (2), McGrath (2), Watson (0), Hussey (0) & Hogg (0) - Eng won by 34 runs

Chappell-Hadlee series
Game 1 - 0/149 - McGrath, Bracken, Johnson, Watson, Hogg
Game 2 - 5/340 - Bracken (2), McGrath (0), Tait (0), Watson (3), Hogg (0) & White (0)
Game 3 - 9/350 - Bracken (1), Tait (2), Johnson (3), Watson (2), Hogg (0) & Voges (0)

What ?????
You consider 7/292(minus a holidaying Ponting), 6/253, 8/246 and 0/149(Pontingless,Gilchristless and Rudderless) to be adequate bowling performances the 5/335 from NZ just prior to that (even though we won) was pretty ordinary as well. Not to mention the earlier 430 run South African safari.

The Australian team has never been as bad as this in the past. And opponents scoring over 250 was never accepted so meekly as it is now.
As for Shane Watson like Jeff Thomson recently said he is not allrounders "armpit" (I wont use the part of the body Thommo described or I'll get banned)

[Younis Khan #1]

Well considering that Australia have been fine thus far in the WC with 4 specialist bowlers, why change that? Besides, what makes you think having an extra bowler would offer an improvement? Every player in the squad has been tried and tested, with the conclusion being that the 4 playing now are currently the most effective.

[acker]

Originally Posted by Younis Khan #1

Well considering that Australia have been fine thus far in the WC with 4 specialist bowlers, why change that? Besides, what makes you think having an extra bowler would offer an improvement? Every player in the squad has been tried and tested, with the conclusion being that the 4 playing now are currently the most effective.

They have only had one testing game so far this World Cup and one of the openers Hayden scored a record and the bowlers got savaged for 290 +
Their is a game coming sooner or later that these batters are not going to get over 250 and currently you could'nt back this fragile bowling attack to hold the opponents to a reasonable total.
Australia still has to play New Zealand, England and Sri Malinga before the finals yet.

[Nostromo]

Buchanan & Ponting seem to be discussing the same problem. With no true all rounder immediatly available, whom to replace Watson with - a batsman or a bowler. Hopes might be on standby, but he has to arrive and get used to the local conditions and so not an option for the next 2 matches. So this leaves them with choosing Hodge to strengthen the batting or Johnson for the bowling.

I think that the latter option is the more risky one; it will have Hogg coming into bat at No:7 to be followed by 4 bowlers none of whom can be relied on to even stick around in support, let alone score some runs. Moreover, Johnson has not yet bowled in anger in this World Cup and his performance with the ball for the pass few months has been unimpressive, to say the least.

On the other hand, bringing Hodge as an additional batsman has possibilities. For a start, it will further strengthen the already strong batting - never a bad thing. As for bowling, McGrath, Bracken, Hogg and Clarke/Tait will easily cover 4 out of 5 bowling positions; Symonds should be able to do most, if not all, of the fifth bowler's work and if he needs help there is Michael Clarke's left arm spin or even Ponting himself with those medium pacers.

Hodge has played well in the Caribbean in the few chances given to him and feel that Oz should go in that direction. Going with an elongated tail against England could turn out to be mistake that Oz regret later. England's 'weakness' as currently perceived is in their batting and not bowling and so that is another reason to face them with a strong batting side.

[acker]

I actually think Stuart Clark will come in ahead of Mitchell Johnson, the West Indies seem to favor bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Stuart Clark is of the same ilk.

[Younis Khan #1]

Don't you think having an extra bowler is encouraging the order to fail?


Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Symonds
Hussey
Hodge


I mean, you'd back one of those to make a big score every game, wouldn't you?

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Younis Khan #1

Don't you think having an extra bowler is encouraging the order to fail?


Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Symonds
Hussey
Hodge


I mean, you'd back one of those to make a big score every game, wouldn't you?

YK, you are talking with a foot in each camp here. To answer your original question, YES, I always believed that taking an extra pure bowler in an alrounder's place will definitely increase the risk......more so than talking an extra batsman. But looking at the batting lineup that you have announced, that is exactly the same as mine with Hodge in Watson's place....which is what I believe that Oz should do. Your lineup has 7 batsmen including Gilchrist and Symonds, leaving room for 4 more....all bowlers: Hogg, Bracken, Clark (or Tait) & McGrath in batting order. As you can see, there is no place for Johnson in this team. That lineup would be ideal against England.

[Younis Khan #1]

What i'm saying is, batting is clearly where the aussie's strength lies so why would they want to weaken their most reliable component in favour of an extra bowler which may make little difference to the collective bowling effectiveness, anyway?

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Younis Khan #1

What i'm saying is, batting is clearly where the aussie's strength lies so why would they want to weaken their most reliable component in favour of an extra bowler which may make little difference to the collective bowling effectiveness, anyway?

Exactly my thoughts. Watson himself has been little more than the "other bowler" so far and Johnson is very unlikely to do any better with the ball.....more likely worse and he has no batting to offer. The Aussies are not going to miss Watson's bowling much, but they might miss his batting, which can be effectively replaced by Hodge. The recovered Symonds, with a bit of help from Michael Clarke if necessary, can adequately fill the 5th bowling option. Choosing Johnson is an unnecessary risk.

As for the choice between Stuart Clark & Tait, I would go for the former against England, though not necessarily against other teams.....Sri Lanka for example. In other words, Oz should choose Clark in place of Tait for Sunday's match and vice versa when they play Sri Lanka.

[Younis Khan #1]

Hmm, i'm not so convinced Tait should be replaced at all. He offers that pace all teams require: Sri Lanka have Malinga; New Zealand have Bond; South Africa have Ntini and so forth. They already have control in Mcgrath and Bracken, so why add to that when you can pick a young, eager, yet impressive pace man.