Watson: Made of glass?

First Class Cricket Talk (International and State)

Watson: Made of glass?

Postby pipers » Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:05 pm

If he does get up for the 1st test, will he make it through 5 days without suffering another "injury"???
"loyalty is dead"
User avatar
pipers
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:35 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time
Grassroots Team: Adelaide Lutheran

Postby am Bays » Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:16 pm

Maybe he's got a heart of glass?? Debbie can you confirm???
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
User avatar
am Bays
Coach
 
 
Posts: 19763
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: The back bar at Lennies
Has liked: 184 times
Been liked: 2130 times

Postby rod_rooster » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:07 am

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Maybe he's got a heart of glass?? Debbie can you confirm???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOnBo13VZsU
rod_rooster
Coach
 
Posts: 6595
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 24 times

Postby Adelaide Hawk » Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:18 am

Just looking at Watson's physique, I wonder if he is spending too much time pumping iron? Maybe if he gave his body a little more rest time he wouldn't be experiencing the injuries he is.
User avatar
Adelaide Hawk
Coach
 
 
Posts: 7339
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:52 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:52 am

Good point Hawker. There's no way Watson should play in Brisbane now. I would pick Jaques at six. I watched Jaques, Haddin and Clarke bat against Tasmania and both Jaques and Haddin left Clarke behind in no uncertain terms, but guess who will get the gig. The Poms will be pissing themselves when Pup comes out to bat at number six.

regards,

REB
User avatar
Rik E Boy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28588
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: The Switch
Has liked: 1773 times
Been liked: 1887 times

Postby blink » Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:13 am

Jaques should be at 6, no questions. Clarke hasn't proved himself since the last Ashes series at all. I guess he will get a chance on Thursday to prove us wrong.
User avatar
blink
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:13 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby rod_rooster » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:18 am

blink wrote:Jaques should be at 6, no questions. Clarke hasn't proved himself since the last Ashes series at all. I guess he will get a chance on Thursday to prove us wrong.


Jaques should actually be opening. Clarke still shoudn't play though.
rod_rooster
Coach
 
Posts: 6595
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 24 times

Postby blink » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:19 pm

rod_rooster wrote:Jaques should actually be opening. Clarke still shoudn't play though.


Who would play at 6 then RR (assuming all are 100% fit)? I would say it would come from one of Watson or Symonds. I personally would like to see MacGill in the side, move Gilchrist up to 6 and play 5 bowlers. 2 Spinners, 3 Pace.
User avatar
blink
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:13 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby rod_rooster » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:33 pm

blink wrote:
rod_rooster wrote:Jaques should actually be opening. Clarke still shoudn't play though.


Who would play at 6 then RR (assuming all are 100% fit)? I would say it would come from one of Watson or Symonds. I personally would like to see MacGill in the side, move Gilchrist up to 6 and play 5 bowlers. 2 Spinners, 3 Pace.


I agree with that line up.
rod_rooster
Coach
 
Posts: 6595
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 24 times

Postby Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:11 pm

2 spinners at the Gabba? LMAO.

regards,

REB
User avatar
Rik E Boy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28588
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: The Switch
Has liked: 1773 times
Been liked: 1887 times

Postby MW » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:13 pm

Why would you play Jaques out of position at six? Nah I'd bring in Symonds for that unpredictability factor
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 14023
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2790 times
Been liked: 2065 times

Postby Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:23 pm

Yeah let's bring in a one day bowler who averages 18 runs an innings in Test Cricket instead of a guy who has scored two tons already against England this summer. Have you actually seen Jaques bat MW? He is flat out attacking, an ideal type of batsman for the number six position.

Plenty of Australian batsmen debuted down the order when serving their apprenticeship and I'm astounded that Jaques wasn't the first cab off the rank when Watto went down.

regards,

REB
User avatar
Rik E Boy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28588
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: The Switch
Has liked: 1773 times
Been liked: 1887 times

Postby scoob » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:34 pm

Rik E Boy wrote:Yeah let's bring in a one day bowler who averages 18 runs an innings in Test Cricket instead of a guy who has scored two tons already against England this summer. Have you actually seen Jaques bat MW? He is flat out attacking, an ideal type of batsman for the number six position.

Plenty of Australian batsmen debuted down the order when serving their apprenticeship and I'm astounded that Jaques wasn't the first cab off the rank when Watto went down.



Michael clarke??? WTF? why? what more does Jaques have to do? are we trying to lose the series already? Gotta play the blokes who are in form now, not who was in form 3 years ago. If you were the english captain, who would you rather the aussies pick? this is so frustrating.
User avatar
scoob
Veteran
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:15 pm
Location: The Track
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 87 times

Postby mal » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:52 pm

Something I dont understand :?:
The selectors pick Watson to be the allrounder[good logic] because they want one.
If he does not play why is a batsman [Clark] taking his spot :?:
The logic should be Symmonds or Hopes.
mal
Coach
 
Posts: 30232
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:45 pm
Has liked: 2110 times
Been liked: 2145 times

Postby Aerie » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:02 pm

mal wrote:Something I dont understand :?:
The selectors pick Watson to be the allrounder[good logic] because they want one.
If he does not play why is a batsman [Clark] taking his spot :?:
The logic should be Symmonds or Hopes.


I think the selectors consider Watson's batting to be at least equal, if not better, than the other batsman not in the Test team and the added fact that he can bowl nudges him ahead.
User avatar
Aerie
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:05 am
Has liked: 186 times
Been liked: 590 times

Postby Blue Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:51 pm

Bring back Roy - One more chance please !!!
It is what it is !!!
User avatar
Blue Boy
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Any where between here and there
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time
Grassroots Team: Flagstaff Hill

Postby Rik E Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:54 pm

Blue Boy wrote:Bring back Roy - One more chance please !!!


Australian cricket rules the roost and the reason is this...when in doubt, Bring in a Bluebagger. Why change a winning combination? Only this time the gits have picked the wrong one!

regards,

REB
User avatar
Rik E Boy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28588
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: The Switch
Has liked: 1773 times
Been liked: 1887 times

Postby Blue Boy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:07 pm

Rik E Boy wrote:
Blue Boy wrote:Bring back Roy - One more chance please !!!


Australian cricket rules the roost and the reason is this...when in doubt, Bring in a Bluebagger. Why change a winning combination? Only this time the gits have picked the wrong one!

regards,

REB


We are all scratchin our heads hey !!!
It is what it is !!!
User avatar
Blue Boy
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Any where between here and there
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time
Grassroots Team: Flagstaff Hill

Postby ORDoubleBlues » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:24 pm

Jaques at six for mine, regardless of whether Watson gets up or not.
User avatar
ORDoubleBlues
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:36 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 16 times
Grassroots Team: Wisanger

Postby rod_rooster » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:48 pm

Aerie wrote:
mal wrote:Something I dont understand :?:
The selectors pick Watson to be the allrounder[good logic] because they want one.
If he does not play why is a batsman [Clark] taking his spot :?:
The logic should be Symmonds or Hopes.


I think the selectors consider Watson's batting to be at least equal, if not better, than the other batsman not in the Test team and the added fact that he can bowl nudges him ahead.


If the selectors think Watson's batting is the equal or better than the other batsmen not in the Test side then they need to check into rehab. Watson the equal or better as a batsman than Jaques, Hodge, North, Cosgrove, Lehmann etc. I don't think so.
rod_rooster
Coach
 
Posts: 6595
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 24 times

Next

Board index   Other Sports  Cricket

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trader and 11 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |