Watson should have been MOTS.

[pav_is_god]

Can you explain his career ODI average of 42 to me?

Thats irrelevant. Apart from Murali and Vettori I doubt any of the other World XI bowlers got below their average.

 

[DIG]

Pretty close but i was swayed toward Gilly. Even though Watson was man of the match in the first game, he hardly dominated it. Glad he did so well this series though.

 

[Russian]

He was MOTM in games 1 and 3, probably 2nd best in game 2. Gilly was good, but Watson was clearly the best player of the series

 

[davidgoes4wce]

Yeah Id still say gilly ....just the flair and the consistency. Also his wicket keeping was excellent as usual

 

[pav_is_god]

Also his wicket keeping was excellent as usual

Did you watch the Ashes series?

 

[Squizza]

Can you explain his career ODI average of 42 to me?

Mr. Seacrest,

Doubt anyone will able to do that.

Oh and before you start posting stats, it's best you actually get them right

Here's Watto's profile for future reference: http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/8180.html

Squiz

 

[shanrew]

Watson is useless. he played well in one series, he fails more than he domionates. GIlly was by far the best in the series. so much more influential than Watson. Gets the cheap wickets and not the best bat going round