What do you do with Shane Watson?

Remove this Banner Ad

NSFB said:
He has credits in the bank, that's why. Watson has been out of credits for a while.
Click to expand...

Credits in the bank compared to Watson? I'm still trying to work out why Watson was moved to number 3 to accomodate Finch in the side in the first place.

Watson was the best ODI opener in the world, averaged 45, striking at 90+. We moved him to get Finch in the side to average low 30's and strike at under 90. Bizarre decision.

Your own signature states 'form is temporary, class is permanent'. There is not a single format of cricket, or level of cricket where Finch has a record remotely close to that of Watson with the bat. As the saying goes...

I'm not upset with the shot that Finch played to get out, he is an opener with a license to go hard, especially with the best opener coming in next at 3. It's a small ground, everyone is talking up a 350 pitch and he is there early with fielding restrictions in, and a hard ball. Go hard or go home.

Same with Watson, he got a long hop from a bowler who was turning the game in NZ's favour. He was perfectly entitled to try and lift it over mid wicket and into the stands on a small ground like that. He executed the shot poorly, the decision to play the shot was a sound one.

Clarke easily played the worst shot to get out (although MJ was pretty bad). Maxwell and Marsh I felt got out trying to play unnaturally, as they reigned in attacking instincts and prodded.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

QAFL_Fan said:
Credits in the bank compared to Watson? I'm still trying to work out why Watson was moved to number 3 to accomodate Finch in the side in the first place.

Watson was the best ODI opener in the world, averaged 45, striking at 90+. We moved him to get Finch in the side to average low 30's and strike at under 90. Bizarre decision.

Your own signature states 'form is temporary, class is permanent'. There is not a single format of cricket, or level of cricket where Finch has a record remotely close to that of Watson with the bat. As the saying goes...
.
Click to expand...

Since when is an average of 39 in the low 30's? Seems strange to question our best ODI batsman of the last 18 months selection.

And Watsons ODI average is whole 1.5 more than Finch's. Unfortunately his last 18 months is nearly half that of Finch's though. If I were asking questions about anyone taking Watsons spot at the top it would be the guy who is actually averaging in the low 30's. Sometimes when you pick your best 11 someone has to play slightly out of position and the selectors thought that out of the 3 Watson would suit first drop better than the other two.

Either way, I think Watsons best is well behind him, if he can't make runs at 3 I'm not sure how much difference it would make if he was opening. We can only just hope he finds some form before too long otherwise he will lose his spot.
 
I think we are a bowler short anyway and think Faulkner replacing Watson makes sense and also gives us someone who can get us out of a pickle when we are in trouble with the bat.

I've stood up for Watson as an ODI cricketer for a long time, but there comes a time when you have to perform.
 
QAFL_Fan said:
Credits in the bank compared to Watson? I'm still trying to work out why Watson was moved to number 3 to accomodate Finch in the side in the first place.

Watson was the best ODI opener in the world, averaged 45, striking at 90+. We moved him to get Finch in the side to average low 30's and strike at under 90. Bizarre decision.

Your own signature states 'form is temporary, class is permanent'. There is not a single format of cricket, or level of cricket where Finch has a record remotely close to that of Watson with the bat. As the saying goes...
.
Click to expand...

Watson WAS a great ODI opener, and that was AGES ago. unfortunately he is being selected on reputation and not on actual form.

the stats don't lie, and they show that Watson has been complete s**t since the 2011 world cup. that amounts to almost FOUR years of s**t performances.

take a look at his stats since the sri lanka tour after the 2011 world cup. i'm not counting the series he had against bangladesh for obvious reasons:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

an average of 33.27, with 3 hundreds - two of them against popgun bowling attacks like india and west indies. on those stats he is CLEARLY not one of the best ODI players in the world, and he doesn't deserve a place in the side. you can't tell me that 33.27 over a 4 year period is acceptable for an australia number 3.

his overall batting average at 3 doesn't even hit 30!!

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=2;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

speaking of overall records, george bailey also has a decent overall record but we had no issues with him being dropped on account of his s**t form. WHY can't we do the same thing with a player who has been in s**t form for almost FOUR YEARS? it makes NO sense.

Watto has NO CREDITS left in the bank, if anything - he is over-drawn at this point, and we should be collecting the furniture from his house to pay the debts.

WHO in their right mind would select an overrated, under-performing player when we clearly have better options?

steve smith doesnt have a flash ODI record, but he has INCREDIBLE FORM coming into this tournament. he had 3 ODI tons in his last 3 series, thats as many as TWATTO had since the 2011 world cup!! this is the guy we should play at 3.

instead, we're playing this guy, and this decision will cost australia the world cup.
 
so his poor form in the past 3 years is still superior to Warner's career form AND we moved him from his preferred and dominant batting position?

so in the last 4 years, he averages 33 at a strike rate of 90 - while also being shunted down the batting order one spot for no apparent reason.

Warner averages 32, at a strike rate of 85 for his entire CAREER!

So Watson's 'form slump' is superior to Warner's career record....without taking into account his bowling.
 
Watson had a good 2013, then towards the end of 2013 was moved to 3 and hasn't been the same in ODI's since. His record prior to that was really incredible. As much as some wouldn't like to admit it, it was in the region where he was a genuine candidate for an all time Australian ODI XI.

But it's hard to know whether the move to 3 was the catalyst for a form slump, or whether the two are just coincidences. He is out of form at all levels and all formats.

QAFL_Fan makes a good point about Dave Warner. He has somewhat flown under the radar a little. If you look at his Reverse cumulative performance in ODI's he must be hardly secure. His average over the last 10 to 25 games floats between about 32 and 38, but he does have SR in the 90's which is good. I wouldn't have him at the front of queue for the axe, but some more runs and consistency would be good.
 
QAFL_Fan said:
so his poor form in the past 3 years is still superior to Warner's career form AND we moved him from his preferred and dominant batting position?

so in the last 4 years, he averages 33 at a strike rate of 90 - while also being shunted down the batting order one spot for no apparent reason.

Warner averages 32, at a strike rate of 85 for his entire CAREER!

So Watson's 'form slump' is superior to Warner's career record....without taking into account his bowling.
Click to expand...


Totally agree about Warner for some reason People talk about him like he is one of the best ODI players in the world the guys record is poor but no one ever questions it he is the most overrated ODI player in the world.

Watson was out best opener in the short form and they moved him to number 3 cause they wanted both Finch and Warner in the team and the selectors where to gutless to make a call on 1 of them.
 
thorne89 said:
It isn't as though 33 is a total train wreck - Gilchrist averaged 36 across his career, Mahela 33, Jayasuriya 32 etc.
Click to expand...
Watson was part of the group that changed the expectations regarding what top 3 batsman should average imo. This change took place from around 2008 to the end of 2012 and for me, if you want to be one of the best OD teams in the world and you're carrying a number 3 that averages 33, which is now way under par, you better have a good reason. With Watson's bowling having fallen off a cliff, and plenty of all-rounders around (and too many of them getting games in my books), that reason doesn't exist anymore for Watson. And obviously with Warner we're actually carrying two of them.

I've been a long term Watson-in-OD-Cricket fan, and spent most of the past year campaigning for him to return to the top, but the switch from opening to 3 doesn't justify or explain his massive drop in performance with bat and ball, and so his place in the side has to come under question, particularly given his current position means moving Steve Smith down to 5 where he is historically a complete tire fire. At the very least they should be swapped around, and then if Watson is at 5, you have to consider whether Bailey is the better option.
 
QAFL_Fan said:
so his poor form in the past 3 years is still superior to Warner's career form AND we moved him from his preferred and dominant batting position?

so in the last 4 years, he averages 33 at a strike rate of 90 - while also being shunted down the batting order one spot for no apparent reason.

Warner averages 32, at a strike rate of 85 for his entire CAREER!

So Watson's 'form slump' is superior to Warner's career record....without taking into account his bowling.
Click to expand...

i have been saying that warner is a hit and miss ODI player. then again, he has a specific job at the top of the order, to give it a lash and get the team off to a flyer. those types of openers tend to be hit and miss.

watson doesn't have that kind of role. he is a number 3, which is the most important position in odi cricket. and he doesn't even average 30 at that spot.

i guess this whole argument depends on what your expectations are for a number 3 player. i'd want my number 3 to bat through the innings, have big partnerships and make hundreds. like virat kohli, sangakara or kane williamson. watto isn't even half the player williamson is.

do you really think watto is worth persisting with at number 3 ahead of steve smith?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

when you have a hit and miss opener like warner, you need a steady number 3. having 2 unreliable batsmen in the top 3 will kill us in the knockout stages. you lose 1 and the 2nd wicket could easily follow. we'll be 40/2 in the semifinal and spend the next 20 overs trying to get back into the game. at least if smith bats at 3, we can risk a low score from warner.

its even worse when you consider that unlike warner, who doesn't waste time - the out of form and short of runs watto will probably kill the scoring rate before getting out cheaply.
 
I wouldn't drop Watson before I drop Warner, Finch, Marsh or Clarke - if that means he bats at 3 or opener, I'm not bothered. Though I'm still mystified as to why he was ever moved from a spot he dominated in.

While his bowling may have statisitically fallen off a cliff wickets wise in the past 12 months, when he is playing regular cricket - his ODI bowling remains very underrated. He has long been our 'go to' man when the heat is really on to bowl the last over in a close game, and often has done the job very well.

I just can't understand the eagerness to drop a proven ODI matchwinner, who has won a world cup, repeatedly performed under pressure on the biggest stage in this format after 2 games, one where he got a rip snorter first ball, and the other when he was 3rd top score in a s**t total.
 
CheekyMonkey said:
when you have a hit and miss opener like warner, you need a steady number 3. having 2 unreliable batsmen in the top 3 will kill us in the knockout stages. you lose 1 and the 2nd wicket could easily follow. we'll be 40/2 in the semifinal and spend the next 20 overs trying to get back into the game. at least if smith bats at 3, we can risk a low score from warner.

its even worse when you consider that unlike warner, who doesn't waste time - the out of form and short of runs watto will probably kill the scoring rate before getting out cheaply.
Click to expand...


Watson has a higher strike rate than Warner in both ODI and T20 cricket.

He came to the crease the other day when we were off to a flyer. The last thing you want is for a player like him to come in and nudge it around to consolidate. 1 wicket down is not panic stations, not even 1-10 is panic stations, the #3 still needs to be attacking. If you then find yourself 2-20, then you consolidate and see off the dangerous bowler, or reign in a few shots.

That was the failure of the middle order on Saturday, after we got off to a solid start.

Coming into the World Cup, below are the stats for Australian batsmen, a good measure of a short form batsmen is to sum his average and strike rate together to get a total:

Watson 42 @ 98 = 140
Clarke 47 @ 80 = 127
Bailey 42 @ 87 = 129
Finch 38 @ 86 = 124
Warner 36 @ 86 = 122
M.Hussey 35 @ 83 =118

Then from the 'non regular' players

Smith 33 @ 86 = 119 (rising sharply I'm guessing!)

D.Hussey 35 @ 91 = 126
Maxwell 28 @ 119 = 147
Wade 22 @ 70 = 92
SMarsh 45 @ 80 = 125
MMarsh 36 @ 90 = 126
White 24 @ 62 = 86
Voges 55 @ 87 = 142 (why isn't he in the squad?!)
Faulkner 45 @ 109 = 154

Faulkner is an anomaly there, because while we all get excited about his vaunted finishing skills - apart from the Gabba heist against England where he was a 1 man match winner, he largely finishes the good work of others.

Not out in 12 of 27 innings drives up his average, when in reality he has only made more than 30 in 6 of this 27 ODI innings. He is good at making 10-15 at the end of an innings at a run a ball, and then gets hailed the hero, which is a useful skill - but hardly justification for his reputation.

Faulkner and Maxwell are the only 2 Australian players to strike at 100+ in the last 4 years. Watson close behind at 98, way ahead of Finch and Warner.

Maxwell averaging 28, people might say he in underperforming, but I'll take his 28 striking at 119 ahead of guys averaging mid 30's and striking in the mid to low 80's every time in limited overs cricket.
 
Last edited:
QAFL_Fan said:
I wouldn't drop Watson before I drop Warner, Finch, Marsh or Clarke - if that means he bats at 3 or opener, I'm not bothered. Though I'm still mystified as to why he was ever moved from a spot he dominated in.

While his bowling may have statisitically fallen off a cliff wickets wise in the past 12 months, when he is playing regular cricket - his ODI bowling remains very underrated. He has long been our 'go to' man when the heat is really on to bowl the last over in a close game, and often has done the job very well.

I just can't understand the eagerness to drop a proven ODI matchwinner, who has won a world cup, repeatedly performed under pressure on the biggest stage in this format after 2 games, one where he got a rip snorter first ball, and the other when he was 3rd top score in a s**t total.
Click to expand...

i'm not interested in his overall record. yes, he has been a good limited overs player for australia, but his career is on the decline. how long do we keep picking him at the xpense of other players that are ACTUALLY IN FORM?

lets look at the numbers over the last year:

warner: 634 runs @ 37.29, SR 94.2
finch: 1491 @ 44, 89
clarke: 399 @ 44, 85
smith: 776 @ 48, 88
maxwell: 908 @ 32, 119

and, last but not least, our champ:

watto: 740 @ 31, 97

so we're getting the consistency of a lower order batsman from our number 3.

sure, if he batted lower down, 5 or below...it wouldn't be a problem, but this isnt the case. he doesn't bowl anymore, so the all rounder argument is no longer valid. he is in the side purely as a batsman and the facts show that he has been under-performing for almost 4 years, and also happens to be our worst batsman over the last year.


but who cares, lets keep picking him because he won a world cup 8 years ago. that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
You just said he stuffs around and then gets out after chewing up time.

then provided your own stats showing him to have the highest strike rate of all the top order batsmen in the past 12 months, to support mine which show has has the highest strike rate of top order players in the last 4 years by a mile

You then say he has been underperforming for 4 years, despite the last 4 years stats showing him to be the best performing batsman outside Adam Voges.

Are you being deliberately stupid?

He does bowl, he just hasn't taken heaps of wickets in recent 12 months. In fact he only played 7 ODI's in 2014 and he bowled in 6 of them, more than 5 overs per match. Often in the 40-50 over period when the pressure is on.
 
No one denies he has a terrific career average, but what's really important is his current form. Since his last century in October 2013 Watson has only made it to 50 just once, with an average of 24.5. Hardly good enough for a number 3 batsman for almost an 18 month period.

Sure his career average is still above 40, but I find that irrelevant now, Ponting still had a good ODI average when he was dropped, as did others. But there is only so long the selectors will take that into account, he needs runs and he needs them soon. I for one hope he does find form because I remember how destructive he was at his best.
 
QAFL_Fan said:
Credits in the bank compared to Watson? I'm still trying to work out why Watson was moved to number 3 to accomodate Finch in the side in the first place.

Watson was the best ODI opener in the world, averaged 45, striking at 90+. We moved him to get Finch in the side to average low 30's and strike at under 90. Bizarre decision.

Your own signature states 'form is temporary, class is permanent'. There is not a single format of cricket, or level of cricket where Finch has a record remotely close to that of Watson with the bat. As the saying goes...

I'm not upset with the shot that Finch played to get out, he is an opener with a license to go hard, especially with the best opener coming in next at 3. It's a small ground, everyone is talking up a 350 pitch and he is there early with fielding restrictions in, and a hard ball. Go hard or go home.

Same with Watson, he got a long hop from a bowler who was turning the game in NZ's favour. He was perfectly entitled to try and lift it over mid wicket and into the stands on a small ground like that. He executed the shot poorly, the decision to play the shot was a sound one.

Clarke easily played the worst shot to get out (although MJ was pretty bad). Maxwell and Marsh I felt got out trying to play unnaturally, as they reigned in attacking instincts and prodded.
Click to expand...
Recent form is what counts. Finch's has been good. Watson well what do we say.... Umm well this thread is here for a reason :)

You unwittingly summed it up perfectly "Watson was the best odi opener in the world". Past tense. He's not anymore.
 
he doesn't bat there, in case you haven't noticed.

His form dip is mildly concerning at most. No way should he be dropped, and no way will he be dropped before the knockout stages, if at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wormkilla
T20I How do you statistically determine a good T20 cricketer?
Replies
11
Views
329
Yoda_
Yoda_
2
How Does Khawaja stack up all time as an opener?
Replies
14
Views
632
melanChronic
melanChronic
Gough
  • Poll
Spot Poll, what's going to happen?
Replies
6
Views
659
Woody15
Woody15
Gough
  • Poll
BBL match 36 Melbourne Renegades v Melbourne Stars 1900hrs @ Docklands Stadium
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
298
Views
4K
NYRB
N
Gough
  • Poll
BBL Match 26 Melbourne Renegades v Hobart Hurricanes 1845hrs @ Docklands Stadium
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
178
Views
3K
madmug
M
Gough
  • Poll
BBL Game 18 Melbourne Renegades v Adelaide Strikers 1845hrs @ Docklands Stadium
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
559
Views
7K
Chuckie357
Chuckie357
Gough
  • Poll
BBL Game 10 Melbourne Renegades v Brisbane Heat 1845hrs @ Docklands Stadium
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
173
Views
3K
The Passenger
T

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top