[quote author=bala24 link=topic=100072.msg654492#msg654492 date=1441714241]
ketch.
How come you can tell he was a fine all rounder ?
He was good at start of his career,but through the fag end,he was pathetic,more like a freebie wicket.
captainship was never his material.
Even recently in IPL he quit captaincy to concentrate on bowling and batting.
His qualities,figures,were never inspiring as captain buddy.
[/quote]
As I mentioned above, Watson had the potential to be one of the games all time great all-rounders. His first six years in Test cricket showed this. However, as you mentioned, over the last 5 years, injuries really took their toll, he was an all-rounder in name only and his performances with the bat were largely underwhelming.
The same can be said for his ODI career. A monumental talent and start to his career but injuries brought down his overall numbers.
However, with all that being said, ketchim is right, Watson's ODI numbers are elite for an all-rounder. Of all cricketers to have taken a minimum of 150 ODI wickets, only Tendulkar, Kallis and Lance Klusener have a higher batting average. Of those three, only Klusener had a better bowling average - Kallis finished with the same bowling average (31.79) as Watson. In fact, Kallis' career batting and bowling ODI numbers are almost identical to Watson's.
[quote author=dillinger10 link=topic=100072.msg654637#msg654637 date=1441780314]
As I mentioned above, Watson had the potential to be one of the games all time great all-rounders. His first six years in Test cricket showed this. However, as you mentioned, over the last 5 years, injuries really took their toll, he was an all-rounder in name only and his performances with the bat were largely underwhelming.
The same can be said for his ODI career. A monumental talent and start to his career but injuries brought down his overall numbers.
However, with all that being said, ketchim is right, Watson's ODI numbers are elite for an all-rounder. Of all cricketers to have taken a minimum of 150 ODI wickets, only Tendulkar, Kallis and Lance Klusener have a higher batting average. Of those three, only Klusener had a better bowling average - Kallis finished with the same bowling average (31.79) as Watson. In fact, Kallis' career batting and bowling ODI numbers are almost identical to Watson's.
[/quote]
[quote author=dillinger10 link=topic=100072.msg654338#msg654338 date=1441612479]
Injuries played a big role in this, which saw him in and out of the side during this tenure with Australia - his bowling suffering especially.
In the first six years of his career (2005-2010) he averaged 41.55 with the bat and 31.00 with the ball.
However, from 2011-2015 he wasn't nearly as effective, averaging 30.50 with the bat and 37.09 with the ball.
[/quote]
C'est la vie :
"Watson's frame was so brittle it threatened to break him. He refused to give up.
Not through recurrences of back stress fractures, hamstring strains, calf problems, hip complaints, a dislocated shoulder
or a suspected heart attack that turned out to be food poisoning "
It suggests,kallis did it over a long period and with more number of matches..
[/quote]
While Kallis deserves extra credit for his longevity, Watson's numbers still compare quite favourably even if you were to just look at Kallis' numbers through his first 190 matches. Kallis averaged 46.65 with the bat, scored 12 centures, and picked up 184 wickets at an average of 30.38. Watson, for comparison, averaged 40.54 with 9 centuries and took 168 wickets at an average of 31.79.
2,242 players have played at just least 1 ODI, but just 4% have played 190+. So although Watson has been hampered by injuries throughout his ODI career, he has still managed to play in more matches than 96% of all cricketers that have played at least one ODI.
Even if you were to ignore his contributions with the ball, Watson has a higher ODI batting average than Lara, Lloyd, Greg Chappel, Mark Waugh, Dravid, Crowe, Boon, Gooch and Azharuddin.
The one-day game definitely suited his style and body more so than Test cricket.
