What do you do with Shane Watson?

[The_Reaper]

did you catch the 2013 Ashes? they produced dry slow pitches, and will do so again. We absolutely need 5 bowlers. Agree the 5th one could be a spinner though.

Not convinced. Swann has retired and their number one spinner is Moeen Ali

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There are Tests where the result will not influence a series result, but all players are under pressure in every test match. It's Test cricket, every run ins savoured and every wicket is celebrated.

That doesn't mean there are no dead rubbers. Everyone knows these exist.

My point is that most of his runs have been made in what are considered 'dead rubbers' but he doesn't cop the same criticism for doing so. shows that it is more about personalities than actual facts.

It's got nothing to do with personalities.

Firstly, Rogers has had nowhere near as many opportunities as Watson, who has been short of runs for four years. So yes, the pressure on Watson is justified.

Secondly, Rogers has also been under pressure. Earlier in the summer, there were people on here suggesting he be dropped. He responded with six consecutive half-centuries and is now safe. If Watson had done that, he'd also go a long way to relieving the pressure on his spot.

Thirdly, Rogers was picked for a specific reason – for his experience and to serve as a foil for David Warner. He's doing his job. Also, there really aren't many guys outside the side with the record to suggest they could replace him, certainly not before the Ashes. None of that is true of Watson. He's a fish out of water at No.3 and he has direct competition for the all-rounder's spot from Mitch Marsh.

So comparing Rogers and Watson only reinforces the reasons Watson is under pressure while Rogers has managed to cement his spot – probably until the Ashes.

I believe all spots are pivotal, particularly in the Top 7.

Don't resort to platitudes.

Why do you think Ricky Ponting in his prime batted at No.3 and not No.6?

Before the series started, we had Warner, Rogers, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Marsh as the Top 6. Of those 6, only Warner and Clarke averaged more than 39. Watson averaged 37, rogers 35 or so and Marsh had played 2 tests ans sported a shield average of 23. Smith was hovering between 38 and 40.

For the record, Smith had an average of 40 at the start of the series. He has now taken the next step so the possibilities have changed. If we're looking at the batting order and ready to accept that Watson shouldn't be at No.3, then there's no reason to instinctively say Smith couldn't bat there.

I think he should be at 6, but I'm aware that coming into this series he averaged 34 for the past 3.5 years, but close to 40 at #3.

So after arguing at length that batting order doesn't matter, you now concede that Watson should be moved from No.3 to No.6?

I'm saying I want the best 5 batsmen picked, which they probably were. Those best 5 batsmen should then bat where they are most suited, and the 6th best should bat in the spot leftover. In this case, that is #3.

The point is that these batsmen should be shuffled to create a more effective line-up, one which doesn't include a perpetually out-of-form all-rounder in the pivotal position of No.3. That shouldn't be beyond us.

what exactly is my argument?

I respectfully disagree at this point. I don't think he does look like he could do a better job so far.

Your argument has been that there are a lack of real alternatives to Watson as the all-rounder. Marsh, however, seems like a pretty good alternative.

Why do you think he couldn't average better than 31 at Test level? It's early days but he's already doing that.

completely agree, but keep in mind Watson's dry patch with the bat of 31 in test cricket for 4 years is still better than Marsh averaging 28 for the same period at lower levels.

Marsh is now in the Test side so it's his performance at that level that count.

 

[eth-dog]

Producing dry pitches with an attack from Broad, Anderson, Finn, Jordan etc. would be an interesting selection to say the least.

 

[The_Reaper]

Using Mitch Marsh's average from 3-4 years ago is not a good measure given his age.

Young players do get their s**t together at some point. Mitch looks like he had - so the form when he was a young player doing just enough to not get dropped and getting played for experience is irrelevant.

Watson due to his age and experience does not get the same leeway

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Secondly, Rogers has also been under pressure. Earlier in the summer, there were people on here suggesting he be dropped.

Foolish people, yes.

He responded with six consecutive half-centuries and is now safe. If Watson had done that, he'd also go a long way to relieving the pressure on his spot.

If Watson had done that, he would be critiqued for not converting.

Thirdly, Rogers was picked for a specific reason – for his experience and to serve as a foil for David Warner.

Watson was doing a perfectly good job as an opener, in fact he was averaging 44 there when he was moved. I think its purely cooincidental, but his form slump almost perfectly matches up with being moved.

Also, there really aren't many guys outside the side with the record to suggest they could replace him, certainly not before the Ashes.

Agreed

None of that is true of Watson. He's a fish out of water at No.3 and he has direct competition for the all-rounder's spot from Mitch Marsh.

While his form hasn't been ideal, it's a fallacy that he isn't capable of batting 3. You can't average over 40 as an opener, and over 50 at #4 in first class cricket and suddenly not be able to bat at 3.

His form is the issue, not his suitability to the position.

Why do you think Ricky Ponting in his prime batted at No.3 and not No.6?

Because it was his preferred batting position. Waugh, Border, Lara, Tendulkar, G.Chappell, Kallis, Jayawardene, De Silva etc etc all rarely batted at 3, and spent large parts of their careers as the best batsman in the side.

Australian fans subscribe to the theory about the best player batting at 3, becase Bradman batted there and in more recent history - Ponting batted there.

Most of the shield sides don't have their best player at 3 either.

For the record, Smith had an average of 40 at the start of the series. He has now taken the next step so the possibilities have changed. If we're looking at the batting order and ready to accept that Watson shouldn't be at No.3, then there's no reason to instinctively say Smith couldn't bat there.

I think he could bat there, of course he could. He's good enough to bat anywhere. Smith moved to #3 for NSW when he became captain, specifically to reinforce his position that he wanted to be considered a specialist batsman. He was very good there too.

So after arguing at length that batting order doesn't matter, you now concede that Watson should be moved from No.3 to No.6?

I think it matters. I'm saying it shouldn't influence the selection or otherwise of Watson. I think he should be opening, or at 6.

His last 2 test captains have differed in that view so far. I think its more important to pick the best 5 batsmen + batting all-rounder. How they wish to order themselves is up to them, but we shouldn't be building that order around where Watson should bat, it should be built around where Smith & Clarke want to bat and then we fill the holes after that.

The point is that these batsmen should be shuffled to create a more effective line-up, one which doesn't include a perpetually out-of-form all-rounder in the pivotal position of No.3. That shouldn't be beyond us.

It's proven to be effective for smith, Clarke and Warner. Do you want to shuffle it to suit Watson?

Your argument has been that there are a lack of real alternatives to Watson as the all-rounder. Marsh, however, seems like a pretty good alternative.

Why do you think he couldn't average better than 31 at Test level? It's early days but he's already doing that.

Yes, I strongly view that Mitch Marsh is both a lesser batsman and bowler than Watson in all forms of cricket at all levels, as such I would select Watson.

This is my opinion, and may appear to be the only major thing we differ on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Foolish people, yes.

I think Rogers also knew he needed runs to really nail down his place for the Ashes.

If Watson had done that, he would be critiqued for not converting.

Maybe. But it would be impossible to argue he should be dropped if he scored that heavily. But he hasn't done that. That's why Rogers is safe and Watson isn't. Like I said, it's not a comparison that flatters Watson – Rogers has actually scored some runs to cement his place.

Watson was doing a perfectly good job as an opener, in fact he was averaging 44 there when he was moved. I think its purely cooincidental, but his form slump almost perfectly matches up with being moved.

Why are you so determined to make excuses for Watson?

He has had a shitload of opportunities so is in no position to complain about his treatment at the hands of the selectors. But because he's not allowed to open, it's someone else's fault that he's been short of runs for four years?

Also, you've argued at length that batting order doesn't matter, so why is it a big deal that Watson no longer opens? Why can't he just move to No.3 and make runs there?

Look at the way Watson has been found out batting at No.3. Getting starts and then getting out, often in the same old ways. How would opening remedy that? Surely he'd just be back in the pavilion even sooner.

It's a fallacy that he isn't capable of batting 3. You can't average over 40 as an opener, and over 50 at #4 in first class cricket and suddenly not be able to bat at 3.

His form is the issue, not his suitability to the position.

I couldn't agree more.

Based on his form, he should move to No.6 or be dropped.

I think he could bat there, of course he could. He's good enough to bat anywhere. Smith moved to #3 for NSW when he became captain, specifically to reinforce his position that he wanted to be considered a specialist batsman. He was very good there too.

There you go. Problem solved.

Smith is an alternative to Watson at No.3. And Marsh is an alternative to Watson as a batting all-rounder.

That's why Watson is under pressure.

I think it matters. I'm saying it shouldn't influence the selection or otherwise of Watson. I think he should be opening, or at 6.

When I said he should be moved from No.3 to No.6, you said we shouldn't get hung up the fact he's been batting at No.3. But you now agree that he shouldn't be batting there. What's that about?

His last 2 test captains have differed in that view so far. I think its more important to pick the best 5 batsmen + batting all-rounder. How they wish to order themselves is up to them, but we shouldn't be building that order around where Watson should bat.

It's proven to be effective for smith, Clarke and Warner. Do you want to shuffle it to suit Watson?

It would be built around not having a liability at first drop.

I want to shuffle it because of Watson – because he's not performing at No.3.

Yes, I strongly view that Mitch Marsh is both a lesser batsman and bowler than Watson in all forms of cricket at all levels, as such I would select Watson.

Well, Watson's last four years with the bat have set the bar pretty low. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest Marsh could improve on that.

If Watson isn't performing, you can't keep picking him on the intangible basis that 'he's better'. It's about runs and Watson hasn't scored enough of them.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

He has had a shitload of opportunities so is in no position to complain about his treatment at the hands of the selectors. But because he's not allowed to open, it's someone else's fault that he's been short of runs for four years?

I merely found it strange that they desperately went searching for an opening batsman, and discarded Watson (and Katich) so readily - who in the previous 2-3 years had been doing such a great job.

Given Watto only lost his spot as opener to injury, and returned to find Cowan there averaging 30 - why did they put him at 4 on this return?

It's certainly not why he isn't scoring, I was merely commenting on the strange nature of that decision. The only suggestion I have is that under Clarke, Watson started to a bowl a bit more and they may have wanted to reduce workload.

Also, you've argued at length that batting order doesn't matter, so why is it a big deal that Watson no longer opens? Why can't he just move to No.3 and make runs there?

You're getting confused, it does matter. But what matters more is that the best 5 batsmen play + the batting all-rounder. While I personally disagree with the batting order, its of no concern to me regarding selection.

I couldn't agree more.

Based on his form, he should move to No.6 or be dropped.

I disagree. He either gets dropped or he doesn't. Couldn't care less where he bats.

On form, his position is tenuous. I don't want him to average 31 at #6, #3 or anywhere else for that matter.

Smith is an alternative to Watson at No.3. And Marsh is an alternative to Watson as a batting all-rounder.

Watson is under pressure because he isn't scoring runs. It wouldn't matter if he was at 6 or 3. His career average of ~36 doesn't make him any more attractive to me at 6 than it does at 3.

By all means, if Smith would like to bat at 3, he is more than entitled to. You could shift Watson to 6, and everyone can shuffle up one.

But if Smith doesn't want to, he's not going to get moved there to accommodate Watson at 6.

When I said he should be moved from No.3 to No.6, you said we shouldn't get hung up the fact he's been batting at No.3. But you now agree that he shouldn't be batting there. What's that about?

My opinion on where he should bat is unrelated to whether or not he should be in the team. They are mutually exclusive.

If we pick 5 batsmen and 1 all-rounder, I don't mind how they arrange the furniture - as long as Smith, Clarke and Warner get to pick their spots. The other 3 can then raffle the other spots off for all I care.

It would be built around not having a liability at first drop.

The guys at 4/5 might love him at 3. Soaks up the new ball, looks good at the wicket - makes 30 odd and then gets out. Prime time for an in formn number 4 to stroll out! they don't want a guy who gets out early with regularity.

Well, Watson's last four years with the bat have set the bar pretty low. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest Marsh could improve on that.

A bar so low Marsh couldn't manage to get above it at lower levels.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I merely found it strange that they desperately went searching for an opening batsman, and discarded Watson (and Katich) so readily - who in the previous 2-3 years had been doing such a great job.

They brought Warner in and probably felt they needed someone slow and steady to bat alongside him. And you'd have to say that's been vindicated.

Katich is a different kettle of fish.

You're getting confused, it does matter. But what matters more is that the best 5 batsmen play + the batting all-rounder. While I personally disagree with the batting order, its of no concern to me regarding selection.

But you agree that Watson shouldn't be batting at No.3. That's the point. Even though you previously said it's not an issue either way.

I disagree. He either gets dropped or he doesn't. Couldn't care less where he bats.

On form, his position is tenuous. I don't want him to average 31 at #6, #3 or anywhere else for that matter.

The point is that, in his current form, he is a bigger liability at No.3 than at No.6.

You could carry him at No.6 but if he's struggling at No.3, that makes it much harder to build a platform. One early wicket quickly becomes two early wickets. It puts the rest of the line-up under extra pressure. That's not what you want from your top order. And Watson simply hasn't made enough big scores when it matters to justify his spot there anymore.

Watson is under pressure because he isn't scoring runs. It wouldn't matter if he was at 6 or 3.

See above.

A bar so low Marsh couldn't manage to get above it at lower levels.

How's he going at Test level?

Surely that's what matters.

 

[The Swans Blog]

You 2 want to get a room? Maybe at the Hilton where you can have a jolly roger pillow fight to tough it out...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You 2 want to get a room? Maybe at the Hilton where you can have a jolly roger pillow fight to tough it out...

Maybe they could just hurry up and move Watson to No.6 so we don't have to rehash this.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Maybe they could just hurry up and move Watson to No.6 so we don't have to rehash this.

You're right! It's Watson groundhog day!

 

[Scotland]

Thread needs a poll.

I vote glue factory.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Thread needs a poll.

I vote glue factory.

Not gonna lie. That made me lol

 

[ChampRevesby]

You don't want Watson batting at first drop on current form. Your number 3 is suppose to anchor your innings not cause the momentum to swing to the opposition after the first wicket. Opposition teams must just mark it down as 2 for once Watson comes to crease. Bat him down in the order if he has to be there or replace him with someone like Marsh.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Watson rarely if ever gets out 'early'. Thats about the only value he has been providing in recent times.

 

[Spook]

Producing dry pitches with an attack from Broad, Anderson, Finn, Jordan etc. would be an interesting selection to say the least.

We produced dry slow pitches this summer with the likes of Johnson, Harris, Starc, Siddle, Hazel!

 

[Spook]

Ashwin averages more wit the bat than Watson.... nuf said!

 

[eth-dog]

We produced dry slow pitches this summer with the likes of Johnson, Harris, Starc, Siddle, Hazel!

Lyon was the leading wicket taker this summer though.

 

[The_Reaper]

We produced dry slow pitches this summer with the likes of Johnson, Harris, Starc, Siddle, Hazel!

Would we have done it in an Ashes?

After losing 5-0?

 

[bird_man]

They brought Warner in and probably felt they needed someone slow and steady to bat alongside him. And you'd have to say that's been vindicated.

Katich is a different kettle of fish.

But you agree that Watson shouldn't be batting at No.3. That's the point. Even though you previously said it's not an issue either way.

The point is that, in his current form, he is a bigger liability at No.3 than at No.6.

You could carry him at No.6 but if he's struggling at No.3, that makes it much harder to build a platform. One early wicket quickly becomes two early wickets. It puts the rest of the line-up under extra pressure. That's not what you want from your top order. And Watson simply hasn't made enough big scores when it matters to justify his spot there anymore.

See above.

How's he going at Test level?

Surely that's what matters.

Ian Dargie I'm guessing?

 

[The_Reaper]

Ian Dargie I'm guessing?

Took a while

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Was reading and I pretty much agree... He's just never done enough to match the hype... and he's not gonna start now

https://thelastkick.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/six-cylinder-watson-just-not-built-for-these-times/

 

[Zach Package]

Titus O'Reily ‏@TitusOReily 2h2 hours ago
Kyrgios might have the most potential of all current Australian sportsmen. Apart from Shane Watson of course.

 

[PaddyO]

Watson's biggest problem is that he needed his career to happen 10-20 years ago. Would've been ideal as third seamer when we wanted to fit Warne and Macgill in the team together, esp with Gilly at 6.

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
S.Waugh
Gilchrist
Watson
Warne
Gillespie
MacGrath
Macgill

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Can Henriques or Marsh bat at 3 though?

Don't need to as we can bat marsh at #6 & use a specialist batsman at #3. Ie one capable of making regular tons!