(12-01-2011 14:01 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]But good early batting and death bowling by Shane Watson proves he's World Class allrounder.
Shane Watson is already ranked as the no. 2 allrounder in ODI's, so he probably didn't need to play well in this game to prove he's world class. But it was certainly a terrific performance and very unfortunate for him to play that well and still be on the losing side.
A thrilling game, great advert for T20. On a stat note Australia bowled 12 overs for only 72 runs, but the remaining 8 from Tait and Lee cost 81.
Yeah it was a good game and I look forward to the game tomorrow if it survives the weather in Melbourne.
Watson is a half decent all rounder, his performance yesterday is proof of that. Maybe not a Hadlee or a Botham but a good player to have in this Australia side.
They'll have to take Lee and Tait to the world cup though. Loved the way Bell looked yesterday, his name now has to be the first of any England team sheet in my view.
(13-01-2011 13:37 )aaron Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2011 14:01 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]But good early batting and death bowling by Shane Watson proves he's World Class allrounder.
Shane Watson is already ranked as the no. 2 allrounder in ODI's, so he probably didn't need to play well in this game to prove he's world class. But it was certainly a terrific performance and very unfortunate for him to play that well and still be on the losing side.
Shane Watson, world class?
A little carried away with the "world class" plaudits, methinks. It's an overused phrase, never more so than in this case. Is he decent? Certainly. Very good? Most likely. But he's a million miles away from being world class, you're implying that he's right up there with the likes of Hadlee, Botham or Sobers, he's a VERY long way from being that good.
The fact that he's currently No.2 in the ODI all rounder rankings merely goes to prove the lack of top class all rounders currently playing international cricket, not that Watson's world class or anything like.
(14-01-2011 09:34 )colino Wrote: [ -> ]A little carried away with the "world class" plaudits, methinks. It's an overused phrase, never more so than in this case. Is he decent? Certainly. Very good? Most likely. But he's a million miles away from being world class, you're implying that he's right up there with the likes of Hadlee, Botham or Sobers, he's a VERY long way from being that good.
The fact that he's currently No.2 in the ODI all rounder rankings merely goes to prove the lack of top class all rounders currently playing international cricket, not that Watson's world class or anything like.
World class means good enough to be in a world team, just as international class means good enough to play at international level. Watson is definitely good enough to play in a world team at the moment. I would select him for certain.
Shane Watson is world class and colino is wrong.
He'd be in my World XI for 20-20.
There aren't many clean hitters who can ball at the death
Definitions of world class from the web:
* Ranking among the foremost in the world
* A player who is one of the very best in the world at a particular time
* Of a standard that ranks among the best or highest in the world
It's clear that the comparisons with yesteryear that colino tries to make are irrelevant. The world will always have world class players in a particular sport, regardless of whether those players are better or worse than the best players from the past. The expression world class needs to be understood as a relative term, not an absolute one. If relative to other players you're one of the best in the world at the moment then you're a world class player, so Rafael Nadal is a world class tennis player just now, regardless of whether he's better than Rod Laver, Björn Borg and Pete Sampras were or whether he's not better than them.
Shane Watson's ODI ranking indicates that he is currently world class.
(14-01-2011 10:41 )cosmonaut Wrote: [ -> ] (14-01-2011 09:34 )colino Wrote: [ -> ]A little carried away with the "world class" plaudits, methinks. It's an overused phrase, never more so than in this case. Is he decent? Certainly. Very good? Most likely. But he's a million miles away from being world class, you're implying that he's right up there with the likes of Hadlee, Botham or Sobers, he's a VERY long way from being that good.
The fact that he's currently No.2 in the ODI all rounder rankings merely goes to prove the lack of top class all rounders currently playing international cricket, not that Watson's world class or anything like.
World class means good enough to be in a world team, just as international class means good enough to play at international level. Watson is definitely good enough to play in a world team at the moment. I would select him for certain.
Shane Watson is world class and colino is wrong.
Oh, you REALLY are a lad aren't you?
Again, your overuse of the phrase "world class" is truly astonishing. Just because a decent all-rounder shows up well in an era when there really isn't that many decent all-rounders about, this propels him to "world class" status in the game?
Give me a break.
When Shane Watson has got ANYTHING LIKE the record that the three that i mentioned have, OR the plaudits OR the figures, then you can talk to me about him being world class. You comment proves you know nothing about cricket. It's completely ludicrous to even TRY to compare Watson to ANY of them.
Compared to those three icons he's been in the game barely ten minutes, any cricket commentator or expert, OR player past or present would laugh his nuts off at your statement.
Charlemagne, i'd have him in a current world team too, but again all that suggests is that there isnt much around at present that IS world class.
You want a
world class cricketer still playing the game? Try Sachin Tendulkar. Watson would be lucky to be given the honour of tying his cricket boots.
And William H Bonney, even if we're talking current, show me any statement currently where it has Waston's name with "world class" next to it.
(14-01-2011 11:15 )colino Wrote: [ -> ]Compared to those three icons
As explained above, comparisons between current players and 'icons' are irrelevant. Cricket will always have world class players, regardless of whether those players are better or worse than the best players from the past.
Shane Watson's ODI ranking indicates that he is currently world class.
(14-01-2011 11:23 )William H Bonney Wrote: [ -> ] (14-01-2011 11:15 )colino Wrote: [ -> ]Compared to those three icons
As explained above, comparisons between current players and 'icons' are irrelevant. Cricket will always have world class players, regardless of whether those players are better or worse than the best players from the past.
Shane Watson's ODI ranking indicates that he is currently world class.
Hate to push the point, but "world class" (whether past or present) is a status to be EARNED after a period of time in the game. Being the current best of an average bunch DOES NOT automatically elevate you to world class.
Calling someone like Watson "world class" is an insult to the likes of Tendulkar (who is still playing the game, if you consider "current" to be so important) who may not be an all rounder but IS considered world class, in this era or any other. You cannot possibly bracket them as being of the same standard, regardless of the different roles they perform within a team.
Watson may or may not be
currently the best around in an average bunch of all rounders, but he IS NOT world class, nor should he be regarded as such.