Print

[Alvaro]

Nah.

I like Watson over Warner at 6.

[ProCricketer1982]

Nah.

I like Watson over Warner at 6.

I'd take Watson over Warner too. Warner's a dirty slogger with an attitude problem and no brain cell.

[WalkingWicket37]

I'd take Watson over Warner too. Warner's a dirty slogger with an attitude problem and no brain cell.

Whereas Watson is a slightly more refined slogger with a slightly better attitude and 1 working brain cell!
I don't think there's much to pick between them if I'm honest with you.

[ProCricketer1982]

Whereas Watson is a slightly more refined slogger with a slightly better attitude and 1 working brain cell!
I don't think there's much to pick between them if I'm honest with you.

Quite agree

[Jason_Yuan]

For me it will be:
Cook
Carberry
Compton
Root
Bell
Stokes
Bairstow/Prior
Broad
Finn/Mills/J Overton
Anderson
Panesar/Kerrigan

Personally i think carberry n compton deserve their chances, prior should play but with performance recently giving bairstow a chance would be good, finn mills or overton r all pace and they will be good for the seam attack, maybe finn as more experience, also panesar n kerrigan as spin as i dont think swann is at near his best anymore, kerrigan got smashed last ashes but he will be a great bowler just need more experience.

N maybe in2-3 years:
Cook
Robson
Root
Bell
Ballance
Stokes
Bairstow
Broad
Finn
Mills/Overton
Kerrigan

[joeljonno]

Whereas Watson is a slightly more refined slogger with a slightly better attitude and 1 working brain cell!
I don't think there's much to pick between them if I'm honest with you.

Watson is a bit less up himself and can bowl as well.

[Manormanic]

Watson is a bit less up himself and can bowl as well.

but either man's primary job is batting, and Warner averages ten clear of Watto.  If we go into secondary responsibilities, Warner is an annoying t**t and worth the odd wicket for the value of sticking him at short leg to Warne and watching batsmen trying to kill him!

[WalkingWicket37]

but either man's primary job is batting, and Warner averages ten clear of Watto.  If we go into secondary responsibilities, Warner is an annoying t**t and worth the odd wicket for the value of sticking him at short leg to Warne and watching batsmen trying to kill him!

As long as he's not allowed to wear a box while fielding there that's valid selection criteria!

[joeljonno]

but either man's primary job is batting, and Warner averages ten clear of Watto.  If we go into secondary responsibilities, Warner is an annoying t**t and worth the odd wicket for the value of sticking him at short leg to Warne and watching batsmen trying to kill him!

I'd happily give up 10 runs per innings to have someone who can bowl tightly and get a few wickets.

Especially when you are talking about having an opening bat at 6. There's is a possibility that either will struggle there, at least Watson can tie up an end.

Problem with putting Warner at short leg to Warne is Warne is to good batsmen topin short leg. If Lyon was bowling, maybe, but not Warne.

[Manormanic]

As long as he's not allowed to wear a box while fielding there that's valid selection criteria!

I can imagine Warney ordering him to take his box out in front of the batsman!

[Manormanic]

I'd happily give up 10 runs per innings to have someone who can bowl tightly and get a few wickets.

Especially when you are talking about having an opening bat at 6. There's is a possibility that either will struggle there, at least Watson can tie up an end.

On the former point, its not really relevant - you've got Warne, who will bowl 35 tight overs any day you need him to, McGrath, who gets through 20 plus at next to nothing and workhorses in (two of) Harris, Gillespie and Lee.  In those circumstances the only reason you need a fifth bowler is as a pure unadulterated strike breaker and Watson is not that.  On the latter, Warner has batted six and done well, Watson has batted six and, erm, failed....go figure...

[joeljonno]

On the former point, its not really relevant - you've got Warne, who will bowl 35 tight overs any day you need him to, McGrath, who gets through 20 plus at next to nothing and workhorses in (two of) Harris, Gillespie and Lee.  In those circumstances the only reason you need a fifth bowler is as a pure unadulterated strike breaker and Watson is not that.  On the latter, Warner has batted six and done well, Watson has batted six and, erm, failed....go figure...

But it is always good to have a fifth bowler.

Take out the Watson/Warner spot, you still have 6 top batsmen plus Warne and either Harris or Lee. Why would you need the extra 10 runs that Warner would bring when Watson would probably make that up in his bowling?

Tight bowling to give the others a break. Slower pace and more accurate that Dizzy/Harris/Lee. Something different ti have is always good.

[Gerry SA]

Out of interest can someone please explain how and when David Warner became 'a dirty slogger'?

Warner plays proper shots. Hitting the ball in the air doesn't make you a slogger.

Warner doesn't just hack to mid wicket a la Afridi.

If you think Warner's 'a dirty slogger' then I think you've lost it...

[joeljonno]

Out of interest can someone please explain how and when David Warner became 'a dirty slogger'?

Warner plays proper shots. Hitting the ball in the air doesn't make you a slogger.

Warner doesn't just hack to mid wicket a la Afridi.

If you think Warner's 'a dirty slogger' then I think you've lost it...

It was when he first started test cricket. He would play too many big shots to the wrong ball. If he got bogged down or scored slowly, he wouldn't dig in, rather blast his way out of it.

Not so much now, but reputations stick.

[Manormanic]

But it is always good to have a fifth bowler.

Take out the Watson/Warner spot, you still have 6 top batsmen plus Warne and either Harris or Lee. Why would you need the extra 10 runs that Warner would bring when Watson would probably make that up in his bowling?

Tight bowling to give the others a break. Slower pace and more accurate that Dizzy/Harris/Lee. Something different ti have is always good.

If it is so important to have that fifth bowler, how come none of the great Australian sides had one?  Even when they were reduced to using Dusty Miller to open the bowling they still stuck with four and fiddled a few overs if they really had to - and I think that that would still be the way with the team we've already identified, especially as Watson doesn't really offer you anything that different to get two set batsmen to play with a false sense of invincibility the way that Punter, Hussey, Katich et al managed.  As for the extra runs rom Warner, it is not so much that he would make them as the manner of their making - he isn't the dirty slogger of repute so much as a developing strokeplayer who scores very quickly - when you'd be looking to put opponents under the cosh, he would be your go to man.