Jacob Oram v Shane Watson

[Bahnz]

For the record - this is just debating their test careers. While they played similar roles in the longest form, their roles as ODI cricketers were very different (Watson opening bat and handy 5th bowler, Oram as 1st change seamer and lower-order slogger).

Oram scored more test hundreds than Watson in barely half as many tests, and did so against the best bowling attacks of his era (Australia, South Africa, England). Watson however showed greater consistency across his career, and faced the additional challenge of batting at the top of the order.

As batsmen both were powerful stroke makers who struggled with technical issues: Oram had weaknesses against the shorter ball, while Watson struggled with the full one angling into the pads. Both looked pretty daft at times when playing in spinning conditions (I vividly remember Oram once missing a Murali doosra by about a foot).

As bowlers they were both very handy - Oram because of his bounce, Watson because of his reverse - but couldn't have really ever made it as specialist bowlers. Both had their careers shortened by injury, though Oram more so than Watson.

Thoughts?

 

[Zinzan]

Good battle.

Oram for me as even though they averaged similarly with the bat, Oram batted his best against the best attacks going around at the time he played.

He averaged 52 against Australia, including a ton at the Gabba (no mean feat) against McGratth, Gillespie, Warne & Lee.

He averaged over 60 against SA with 2 hundreds, including 133 at Centurion, against a young Steyn, Pollock, Ntini & Kallis after SA were bowled out for 270 & scored a great hundred at Lords against a very good English attack in 2008.

Bowling wise they were quite even at Test level.

ODI are completely different of course with Watto being the better ODI bat and Oram the better, bowler & I'll add one of the most underrated ODI bowlers in recent times, but I know you want to keep this across Tests, so Oram marginally.

It's a great shame Oram lost confidence with the bat from about 2009, because he was really talented.

 

[Gnske]

Watson obviously

- Better bowler
- Better Batsman
- (More) Handsome
- Physique of Achilles himself with the additional heel (calf)

This wouldn't even be a question if his forward pad didn't exist.

 

[Red Hill]

Always thought a younger Watson should have played a lot more tests earlier, batting seven and being third seamer in a team that could've included Gilly at 6 and both of Warne and MacGill, plus McGrath and Gillespie. Had some serious pace when younger, 140 plus as I remember.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Watson had a couple of years success as a genuinely good opener. Oram, regardless of the fact that he has a similar record is a lower order hitter, not an actual top order batsman. So Watson, on that alone.

 

[_Ed_]

Oram, regardless of the fact that he has a similar record is a lower order hitter, not an actual top order batsman.

Disagree.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Disagree.

You think he could've done well in the top 5? I certainly don't.

 

[Zinzan]

Watson had a couple of years success as a genuinely good opener. Oram, regardless of the fact that he has a similar record is a lower order hitter, not an actual top order batsman. So Watson, on that alone.

Actually that's a gross misrepresentation of Oram the Test batsman. With respect, it seems like you're remembering him batting down the order in ODIs, without seeing some of his best Test innings. He was a proper test batsman, averaged over 40 for a good portion of his career. and wasn't by any means a lower order hitter.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Imo, he wouldn't have got those runs if he'd been coming in at 3 or 4 or opening like watson was.

 

[Shri]

Oram vs Justin Kemp would be a better comparison.

 

[Zinzan]

You think he could've done well in the top 5? I certainly don't.

For New Zealand at that time, prior to his losing confidence with bat from about 2009 onwards, he most definitely could have held his own as a number 5. He never would have been a world beater, but he could have averaged between 37-40 as a specialist bat, which by NZ standards would have been doing 'well'.

 

[Bahnz]

Oram, regardless of the fact that he has a similar record is a lower order hitter, not an actual top order batsman.

Could not disagree more with this. While that description matches his ODI cricket, Oram was an excellent test bat. Always batted above Cairns and Vettori, and usually above McCullum. Looked a bit of a tailender at times against the short ball, but if he managed to survive his first half hour at the crease, his class shone through.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Could not disagree more with this. While that description matches his ODI cricket, Oram was an excellent test bat. Always batted above Cairns and Vettori, and usually above McCullum. Looked a bit of a tailender at times against the short ball, but if he managed to survive his first half hour at the crease, his class shone through.

Yeah 'hitter' wasn't the proper term, but no way was he a top 5 bat imo. Honest question, do you think he could've averaged 40 as an opener or at 3 like watson did in those two seasons? Just no way imo.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah 'hitter' wasn't the proper term, but no way was he a top 5 bat imo. Honest question, do you think he could've averaged 40 as an opener or at 3 like watson did in those two seasons? Just no way imo.

But that is a different role. Opening is quite specialised & doesn't necessarily make one a better test batsmen if they're better at seeing off the new ball.

Example: Ross Taylor wouldn't be near as successful a Test opener as Mark Richardson was, but he's a better Test bat overall.

You've gone from saying batting in the top 5 to now talking about opening.

 

[Bahnz]

Probably not, his footwork wasn't up to opening. Would consider Oram to be considerably more likely to convert a start against a quality bowling attack than Watson though, which I think is arguably more valuable.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But that is a different role. Opening is quite specialised & doesn't necessarily make one a better test batsmen if they're better at seeing off the new ball.

Example: Ross Taylor wouldn't be near as successful a Test opener as Mark Richardson was, but he's a better Test bat overall.

You've gone from saying batting in the top 5 to now talking about opening.

You're just nitpicking my posts at this point. I'm making the same argument Bahnz made in the op.

I understand they're different roles, but the Richardson-Waugh thing is totally irrelevant. Both batted in the top 4-5. Oram did not.

 

[_Ed_]

Both batted in the top 4-5. Oram did not.

Is there that much difference between batting 4-5 and batting 6, coming in at 38-4?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Is there that much difference between batting 4-5 and batting 6, coming in at 38-4?

Fair point. And since NZ were a pretty poor batting team, I wouldn't say Oram had many easy situations to pad his stats coming in where he did.

 

[Zinzan]

You're just nitpicking my posts at this point. I'm making the same argument Bahnz made in the op.

I understand they're different roles, but the Richardson-Waugh thing is totally irrelevant. Both batted in the top 4-5. Oram did not.

I'm really not. You started asking whether he have gone well in the top 5, to which some of us who watched him as a Test batsman replied that he could have averaged late 30s-40 as a number 5.

You then focused on opening the batting which is a quite a different skill-set & I correctly pointed out that having a better skill for opening doesn't make necessarily make one a better overall test bat and gave a perfect example of Taylor and Mark Richardson. Weird you'd view that as nitpicking, It was responding to your posts.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I did not "focus" on opening the batting. But OK.