Shane Watson should be banned

[Donny]

..... for impersonating a Test cricketer.

[fineleg]

:regular_smile:

[coffee_rules]

His stats are better than the "test" bowler you have ...Mr Golden Buttocks Lee!

[Donny]

"you have" ? My team has Dirk Nannes, Shane Harwood, Clinton McKay and Damien Wright as pacemen and we're doing quite nicely, thankyou. :regular_smile:

[Predator_05]

He is really, really strong though. Benches over 300 lbs.

[Dravid]

^tu uska spoter tha kya? :hahaha:

[flamy]

..... for impersonating a Test cricketer.

[punjabi_khota]

^tu uska spoter tha kya? :hahaha:

:haha::hysterical::hysterical: Abbe 300 pound bench press to kya... spot karna bhi mere bas ki baat nahi..

[cowboysfan]

shane watson looks like he is going to keel over after bowling an over-he will not last long in test matches-he is however perfectly suited for 20/20.

[THX_1138]

hey watson is a great sportsman... if only he had symond's fitness... and if only symonds had watson's pleasant nature...

[Mr. Wicket]

Best thread ever. Watson is not fit to clean the studs on Noffke's boots.

[bharat297]

In Watsons defence, he has never been given an extended run as a Test cricketer. Remember Flintoff made his debut in 1998. It was only in 2004 where he started to show signs that he was a true all-rounder. Watson debuted in 2005 (i think). He may well prove to be a decent player.

[Donny]

Ho hum. Missed the point as usual, Bharat.

[Mr. Wicket]

bharat: Shall I direct you to those people who felt in 2001/2 that Ajit Agarkar may prove to be a decent test cricketer if given a few chances?

[bharat297]

Ho hum. Missed the point as usual' date=' Bharat.[/quote'] :hysterical: Seriously you are funny ... How did I miss the point? Please tell me what your point was, coz Im pretty sure that you were suggesting that Shane Watson seems out of place in Test cricket.

[bharat297]

bharat: Shall I direct you to those people who felt in 2001/2 that Ajit Agarkar may prove to be a decent test cricketer if given a few chances?

Im just saying ... Watson could turn out to be the next Agarkar or the next Flintoff but one-off tests here and there (he has only played 5 tests) are not an ideal platform to judge a cricketer on. He does have a better wrist position that Mitchell Johnson ... In my personal opinion, I dont think he is very good (and Symonds is better) but you can not argue with his domestic record. Anyone who can score a triple century and take 7/29 in the same match definitely has the potential to be a good player. Remember how many chances Symonds had in Test cricket before he came through? A lot of people thought Symonds shouldnt have been a Test cricketer aswell.

[Mr. Wicket]

Symonds has heart and fight in him, and the sort of character that makes him a go-to guy in a crucial test match, a tight ODI chase or a high pressure game like a World Cup game against top opposition. That is a test cricketer. Watson is a softcock.

[bharat297]

^ thats true ... I dont believe Watson has the mental toughness required for Test Cricket ... agreed.