Shane Watson or Shakib Al Hasan?(ODI)

[Russell2k7]

Both are good players but who is better? I'd say Shane, the dude can bowl at 140K and has batting avg of like 40 something.

[BD-Shardul]

Shane is better but I do not like comparison.

[Eshen]

In last two years, in ODIs against G7 -

Watson scored 1052 runs @ average 50.09, took 30 wickets @ average 22.30 (statsguru).

Shakib scored 677 runs @average 29.43, took 26 wickets @ average 37.03 (statsguru).

* In the time period both played 25 ODIs against selected oppositions.

So, statistically, verdict clearly goes in favor of Watson to be a better ODI allrounder.

However, it's safe to say Shakib is a much better Test bowler while Watson is a much better Test batsman.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Eshen
...

* In the time period both played 25 ODIs against selected oppositions.

So, statistically, verdict clearly goes in favor of Watson to be a better ODI allrounder....

Statistics doesn't tell you the whole picture at times. Switch them around. You will see who performs better. With the bowling support of Johnson and others Shakib would post numbers that would rival Warne's prime numbers even. Let alone Watson's averages and wickets.

In the same token, Watson would sit in the bench had he played for BD most of the time because the captains would use him to the end.

[kalpurush]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Statistics doesn't tell you the whole picture at times. Switch them around. You will see who performs better. With the bowling support of Johnson and others Shakib would post numbers that would rival Warne's prime numbers even. Let alone Watson's averages and wickets.

In the same token, Watson would sit in the bench had he played for BD most of the time because the captains would use him to the end.

Plus, Tigers drop catches like Gulto miya....

[Haradhon]

Originally Posted by Eshen
In last two years, in ODIs against G7 -

Watson scored 1052 runs @ average 50.09, took 30 wickets @ average 22.30 (statsguru).

Shakib scored 677 runs @average 29.43, took 26 wickets @ average 37.03 (statsguru).

* In the time period both played 25 ODIs against selected oppositions.

So, statistically, verdict clearly goes in favor of Watson to be a better ODI allrounder.

However, it's safe to say Shakib is a much better Test bowler while Watson is a much better Test batsman.

Shane came through a much tougher system

[bharat]

Originally Posted by Eshen
In last two years, in ODIs against G7 -

Watson scored 1052 runs @ average 50.09, took 30 wickets @ average 22.30 (statsguru).

Shakib scored 677 runs @average 29.43, took 26 wickets @ average 37.03 (statsguru).
So, statistically, verdict clearly goes in favor of Watson to be a better ODI allrounder.

However, it's safe to say Shakib is a much better Test bowler while Watson is a much better Test batsman.

If you had asked me mid of last year I would have picked Sakib without blinking my eye ! I didnt think much of Watson then ..fget Sakib I would have even picked Afridi in my team in place of him.

But look at the average guys !!
@ average 50.09, took 30 wickets @ average 22.30

With those numbers forget Sakib , I would pick him ahead of Yuvrai.In fact I would pick him ahead of all the Indian players except Shewag,Ghambhir and Dhoni.He can walk (or run) into any team in the World and even into World X1

[Eshen]

T_E, I think you are being nostalgic (or desperate to discredit Watson). Based on last two years performances, Watson is way ahead of both Kallis and Bravo as an ODI allrounder. Why would anyone consider Flintoff for any team in his current condition?!

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Eshen
... Based on last two years performances, ...

There lies the problem. Last two years he is played in the top order most of the time. Those positions are already occupied by better deserving players. His only place is in the middle most likely #7 because he can't get in from 8-11 (4 bowlers). I hope you will agree Bravo is a better bowler. @ #7 the game becomes a SR game with that many quality (solid) batsmen in 1-6. Bravo is clear cut favorite in my book in SR as well. Clean hitter, demands attention.

As for Flintoff, I don't have to prove any one what he can do with the bat and ball @ #7.

Kallis's recent SR, adaptibility puts him up for consideration. Nothing nostalgic about that.
+++
I only mentioned those three just to show that Watson has others to fend off before he can walk in to a W-XI. My choice is already there. I would take a spinning alrounder. With W-XI playing, the pitch wouldn't be like anything where you would need five fast bowlers and no spinners.

[dolcevita]

Watson is better in odi and definitly better batsman shakib is better in test

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

[dolcevita]

Shak is only 22 and watson 29 so shakib has more potential wheras watson is in the peak of his career since 2 years

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

[simon]

Originally Posted by dolcevita
Shak is only 22 and watson 29 so shakib has more potential wheras watson is in the peak of his career since 2 years

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

Good point here.
we have to remember that we are comparing 2 allrounders from no°1 & n°9 team.
Watson bats with players like Hussey,Katich,Clarke,Ponting & many more.
So it's quite obvious that he learns a lot from them & doesn't have much pressure.
Even when he bowls he gets some fine bowling partners.
And we know what support Sakib gets from his team mates,he is also the captain.
It's quite difficult to compare these 2 but considering what I mentioned above I will keep
Sakib ahead.

[Tigers_eye]

G8 is considered by ICC. Not only that even inside G8 ranking is considered. So whoever rates Watson ahead of Shakib go visit ICC ranking for ODIs. Batting, bowling and alrounder. Plus Shakib is a better fielder and has the responsibility of captaining a side. Not enjoy his cricket like Watson does under Ponting.

Watson is part of the team. Shakib is the team.

[Eshen]

T_E, I agree that Shakib does not get enough support as a bowler, but as a batsman there is no excuse for how recklessly he gives away his wicket most of the time.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Eshen
... but as a batsman there is no excuse for how recklessly he gives away his wicket most of the time.

he is reckless because his predesesors didn't teach him anything. He is learning on fly. Those fools did their thing and wasn't punished. Coaches, mentors, other players ask them to play their natural game. improvise and play with an instinct. hit the bad ball etc. How many times do you hear the people surrounding the cricket team ask them to play their natural game with minimum risk? May be once or twice I have heard it from Siddons but that is about it. At the age of 22 How reckless was Watson?
+++
Sorry to hijack the thread but I have to.

Shakib is a man Army. He has the confidence in him to take on the whole world. He just don't have the guidance surrounding him. That video guy is worth of crap if you ask me. He should be leading the team with strategies. He is one who should let players know how they should play and why they should play every ball. Theirs' and opponents strength and weakness analysis should be his responsibility to begin with.

Ingram: No feet movement at all before he touches the ball. Very good at cut shots. Commentators have already figured out how Australia would play him. Straight with heavy on leg side. he is done. We on the other hand played him like McCullam with balls at off and away. Playing to his strong side. He got settled and creamed some mighty blow through point and gully.
Guptil: This chap is strong in the V and an excellent runner between the wickets. Field placing was poor. Shafiul ten yards in the 30 why? Ash backing off?

Shakib's batting issues (weaknesses): He pulls to long leg and gets out. That is his favorite way of getting out. Even though he is great at his off. Cover drives are jaw dropping.

Ash's slip catching practice batik is still there.

Video proof makes sure the players understand what they are up against. Their own demons and how to tackle them. The first job is to provide all the resources in a correct way. Then and only then these players can correct their mistakes.

We always talk about when will they learn or why why why? We never provide them with concrete evidence.

In US most of the game plans are done in the video room. Any professional team sports. Even most of the ameture games. It provies info on the fields, its nature, weather, ball condition, players weakness and strenghts and how to tackle them and force them in to mistakes.

As I mentioned several times our "video/stat guy" is the first Key to all success at this level.

[yaseer]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
he is reckless because his predesesors didn't teach him anything...................... At the age of 22 How reckless was Watson?........

Yes, we can point out why Sakib is not better at the moment. There are lots of argument to support it. Also on other side, there is arguments to support Watson also, lets not go there.

The point here is, who is better all-rounder at the moment? Who is performing better?

Think neutrally, if anyone picks a World XI and needs an all-rounder, Watson would be picked ahead of Sakib. It one requires a spin-bowling all-rounder, Vettori would be picked.

Sakib is up there, but still has not performed to that level to outperform these guys at the moment. He has a long way to go and age/time is everything with Sakib.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Eshen
...But if I am selecting a world ODI XI at this point, Watson would be hands down my first choice as the allrounder.

Originally Posted by yaseer
...
Think neutrally, if anyone picks a World XI and needs an all-rounder, Watson would be picked ahead of Sakib. It one requires a spin-bowling all-rounder, Vettori would be picked...

Gotcha!!

Now you try to think neutrally. If you are making a world XI:

1) Bravo, Flintoff, Kallis are way ahead in the World XI in the middle order as an alrounder. They have more bite in their bowling and Kallis is 10 times better batsmen than Watson. There are also much better openers (top order to chose from) for ODIs for world XI. Dilshan, Shewag, Smith, Strauss, McCullum etc.

2) Vettori is not ahead of Shakib. Statwise or other wise. We can agree to disagree on this one.

3) Combination of World XI is subject to change on who the selectors are. Since all this is arbitrary. I would choose a spinning alrounder and give 4 Fast because my top order would have solid players. Aameer, Roach, Steyn, Broad, Johnson and so many others to choose from.

IMO, Watson just doesn't make the cut at this point. He is good but not that good to walk in to any World XI.
+++
Coming back to our team, I wouldn't want it any other way.

[zainab]

Sakib has to perform very well in the coming months to maintain his No1 All rounder status, or else Shane Watson might pass him, but Sakib is still way ahead.

[Raynman]

both have different roles in the team so I'm not sure a comparison is fair.

Both have different roles in both the batting and bowling line up.

If I'm building a team and I needed a spinner in the team, I'd pick Shakib and if I needed an 'all rounder' I'd pick Shane so I guess Shane gets the nod.

[Eshen]

T_E, ok I admit Shakib has all kind of excuses to perform poorly. Yes, you can waste time pondering how capable Watson was at age off 22, or how he would perform playing for Bangladesh. But if I am selecting a world ODI XI at this point, Watson would be hands down my first choice as the allrounder.

[beshideshi]

As a batsman Watson would surpass Shakib, but as a bowler Shakib clearly knocks the stuffing out of bowler Watson. To say who is the better all rounder is a tough call, but in terms of value added to the team, Shakib is light years ahead of Shane of anyone else.
remember, Watson is 29 and is still a junior member of the team, where Shakib at 22 is bearing the pressure of 150 million people.

[AsifTheManRahman]

Watson who?

[nycpro96]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
Watson who?

Eggjactly. Post of the day!

[yaseer]

Watson - better by far.

Watson is a way better batsman than Sakib. He is opening for Australia in both forms of the game. That itself speaks his ability as a batsman.

Bowling-wise, not much difference. But the current performance and statistics speaks for Watson. As Eshen pointed out the bowling averages, 22 vs 37. So, you have to give it to Watson.

[Haradhon]

Originally Posted by Russell2k7
Both are good players but who is better? I'd say Shane, the dude can bowl at 140K and has batting avg of like 40 something.

I don't want to disuss about Shane Wa(rne)tson...!