Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Sir Donald Bradman, basically any batsman you care to mention have gone through 3 tests in a row where they have only got one half centuries and the rest under 20.

Not a good enough reason to cast aside a talented young cricketer.

That would have fucken hurt... Watson's a beast of a man so if he goes down then it fucken hurt!

Must be a pretty good bat Clarke has for him to be persisting with it despite the massive crack its got in the face of it

You can't claim that giving someone 3 tests is giving them a chance. Give him 12 months and build some confidence. No one will score runs if you tell them they have to perform immediately or they will be dropped. Dropping him would only make sense if their was a batsmen pressing to come in.

exactly, even the best batsman rarely average a century every 3 tests. Sending the message to young players coming into the team that they've got 3 tests to score a century or they're out, which is effectively what they've done with both Hughes and Khawaja, is going to create an environment where young players are terrified whenever they walk out to bat. No one can perform in that environment.

Edited by RJL25: 21/8/2013 11:28:34 PM

No. The message is that they've got 3 matches to average a score higher than fucking 18 or they're going to give another player an opportunity to perform in a dead rubber instead of persisting with the same players over and over like they've done for the last 10 years, developing no new talent and ending up with a team of lame ducks again.

again, so we give a bowling all rounder an opportunity to play in the top 6?

If he was replaced by another batsman, fine. My problem is that he was replaced with an all rounder, thats just stupid

Is now a good time to point out that Watson is supposed to be a "bowling all-rounder"?

Watson has always been considered a batting all rounder.

A Batting all rounder means their primary skill is batting, but they are also a decent bowler

A Bowling all rounder means their primary skill is bowling, but they are also a decent batsman

Yeah...so that's why he's opened the bowling on many occasions.

He's never opened the bowling in a test match

He was brought into the team as a bowler. That's why he came in at #7 on debut.

I am pretty sure he has in the second innings of a test match.

Great innings by Watson, he has secured his place in the side for the home Ashes. If he can bat like he did in 2009-2010 summer and bowl some handy overs then he is an asset to the team. However his batting has be woeful of late, good for him that it has changed in this innings.

He was brought in as an all rounder, all rounders usually play number 7. He was never brought in as a dedicated bowler

Also, when he first came on the scene he could bowl 140km/h+. He now bowls low 130's to high 120's and frequently only bowls 10 or so overs in an in innings.

He is a batting all rounder, this just can't be denied

I'd just like to say, Darren Lehmann is a real funny fucker :lol:

He's a batting all-rounder now but he wasn't when he first came into the team.

Well whatever he was, he certainly wasn't a bowler as you suggested.

I suggested he was a bowling all-rounder. Much like Faulkner. :-S

He did start out that way when he played for Tassie and Qld but don't forget all his injuries really restricted his bowling. Now he's on top of all his back issues he's back bowling again. Personally I'd like to see him bat at around 5.

Point is, if Watson can go from being a bowling all-rounder to being there predominantly on the merit of his batting then why can't Faulkner?

Of course he can. I'll admit I know next to nothing about the bloke though and haven't seen him play. I was just making a point about Watson.

Wow Watto, what an innings. Shame I missed it.

I love him, think he is an excellent bat. Lets get him as permanent no.3

But he wasn't.

Watson FC Record when he was picked:
2657 runs @ 45, 8 100's, 12 50's
72 wickets @ 28, 2 5wi, 1 10wm.

Faulkner:
1334 runs @ 30, 0 100's, 8 50's
132 wickets @ 22, 4 5wi, 0 10wm

They are, and were two completely different players.

Watson was also a year older than Faulkner when he was called up.

You think Faulkner would have added 15 runs to his average in a year? They've both played 4-5 years of FC cricket before their call ups.

I don't know about 15 runs to his average, but I think he could develop more as a batsman.

They've both also played nearly the exact same number of games before their call ups.

Where are you getting your stats from?

http://cricketarchive.com/

Has much more in depth statiscal coverage for domestic cricket.

Another Kallis? I'd like to see that.