What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Sweet Jesus]

And when the World Cup is over, the discussion can return to his test form.

Is that the magic rule?

I'm afraid I don't accept your self-appointed mandate as the guy who says which direction the discussion can and can't take.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm comfortable being able to walk and chew gum to the extent that I can follow separate discussions about different formats at the same time. I know not everyone will be able to deal with that kind of mind-bending nuance but it's OK with me.

The last 10 pages in this are about his ODI form, that is what EVERYONE HERE was commenting on and you randomly brought up his Test match stats to somehow back up your opinion that he doesn't belong in the ODI side.

But that's not my opinion. I think it's fine for him to be in the ODI side. His overall record is excellent and experience can be telling in the World Cup. I'd point out that Mitch Marsh's numbers since the start of 2014 are actually better but, in the final analysis, he probably hadn't done enough to force Watson out.

But this thread is about Watson generally. And I responded to a suggestion that Watson has silenced his critics. The reality, though, is that the more sensible criticism always related to his place in the Test side. And that criticism remains absolutely valid.

 

[Bradesmaen]

So much forehead slappage in that. Not worth it. Back on discussion. Watson clearly deserves his spot even if he got lucky. Majority of batsmen get some luck early in the innings, whether it be missing one they should have hit or getting dropped.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So much forehead slappage in that. Not worth it.

If you want to sit at your computer slapping your forehead then no one can stop you. Have at it.

 

[Kram]

Here we go.. a silly and pointless circular argument.

 

[Zach Package]

Finch needs to get a good score soon or i am looking for his replacement.

I did say Watto to the top and Finch out for Bailey/Marsh, and i'm still liking the idea

 

[Coxy_]

That's a bit rich. He hit a catch straight down the throat of fine leg when he was on four. That catch goes down and suddenly Watson is a protected species again? These things happen in sport and it's all well and good. But you can't turn around and suggest that all criticism of Watson is misplaced because of this knock, when he was desperately lucky to survive that early chance.

Besides, sensible critics of Watson are focused on his lack of runs at Test level. Pretty sure that hasn't changed. In ODIs, Watson has an outstanding record and Mitch Marsh hasn't done enough to force his way in at Watson's expense.

He's been very good since they brought him back in yet people are still on his arse. Why it is so hard to give someone just a bit of credit has me rooted. You said it yourself, he has an outstanding record in ODI's. That's what we're talking about, his form in that format of the game. He had a bit of a rough patch but seems to have returned to form.

You say you're talking more about his test form which is fine but don't take potshots about him being dropped on 4 in a WC match as if that's somehow relevant to his test form.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He's been very good since they brought him back in yet people are still on his arse. Why it is so hard to give someone just a bit of credit has me rooted. You said it yourself, he has an outstanding record in ODI's. That's what we're talking about, his form in that format of the game. He had a bit of a rough patch but seems to have returned to form.

You say you want people to give Watson credit. On the other hand, maybe people shouldn't insist all criticism of Watson be muted on the back of 1-2 innings.

You say you're talking more about his test form which is fine but don't take potshots about him being dropped on 4 in a WC match as if that's somehow relevant to his test form.

I'm sorry but this part doesn't make sense to me.

It's not a 'potshot' to point out that he gave up an absolute sitter of a catch while on four. That's just a fact. And I've never suggested that has anything to do with his Test form. I'm not sure how you've made that link.

The reality is that, even in ODIs, Watson was short of runs and, frankly, Mitchell Marsh's ODI numbers since the start of 2014 are still better than Watson's. But Watson's overall record and experience saw him through and, following the move down the order, he's making a decent fist of it. That's fine, but it doesn't invalidate any and all reasonable criticism of Watson. It's still fair enough to point out that he was short of runs. And, when it comes to Tests, it's absolutely fair to ask whether this shortage of runs could or should be terminal.

 

[eth-dog]

Guptill got dropped on 4 today. Nobody will remember that, they'll remember the 233 more runs he piled on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Here we go.. a silly and pointless circular argument.

There's nothing circular about it. That phrase has quite a specific meaning that relates to a form of logical fallacy, which doesn't really apply here.

And the point is to question whether Watson is now beyond criticism. I think that's still premature – it certainly is when talking about the Test side.

Guptill got dropped on 4 today. Nobody will remember that, they'll remember the 233 more runs he piled on.

OK. What's your point?

 

[Coxy_]

Guptill got dropped on 4 today. Nobody will remember that, they'll remember the 233 more runs he piled on.

Surely his runs didn't count since he was dropped on 4. Surely

 

[Coxy_]

You say you want people to give Watson credit. On the other hand, maybe people shouldn't insist all criticism of Watson be muted on the back of 1-2 innings.

I said hopefully his critics have a spell for a while. I didn't say the guy should never come under scrutiny again. Since his return he's done his job admirably. So why not just say you still have concerns and then leave it be? Because by * does it get old seeing people like you continually bagging the bloke.

I'm sorry but this part doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah I'm not surprised.

It's not a 'potshot' to point out that he gave up an absolute sitter of a catch while on four. That's just a fact. And I've never suggested that has anything to do with his Test form. I'm not sure how you've made that link.

That fact is he made 64 not out. He was huge for us last night. You're jumping on here saying your posts on Watson are about his form in the test side when the rest of us are talking his ODI form.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I said hopefully his critics have a spell for a while. I didn't say the guy should never come under scrutiny again. Since his return he's done his job admirably. So why not just say you still have concerns and then leave it be? Because by **** does it get old seeing people like you continually bagging the bloke.

Sure, he's done OK. Let's not break out the champagne just yet.

As for 'continually bagging him', all I've done is point to his recent performances. Is that unfair?

That fact is he made 64 not out. He was huge for us last night.

That's one fact. Another fact is that he was very lucky not to be gone for four. A balanced view takes account of both.

Is that too much nuance? Are we only allowed to have 'one fact' and everything else gets airbrushed?

You're jumping on here saying your posts on Watson are about his form in the test side when the rest of us are talking his ODI form.

I'm making a point generally about criticism of Watson.

He was short of runs in ODIs as well, but his record and experience allowed him to get through, even though Marsh's numbers since the start of 2014 are better. When it comes to Tests, his shortcomings are more sustained and more acute, so criticisms pertaining to that format remain entirely valid and harder to shift.

Surely his runs didn't count since he was dropped on 4. Surely

No one is saying that the runs 'don't count'. That wouldn't make any sense. The point is that being dropped on four is problematic if you're claiming this knock effectively silences all criticism.

 

[Mateyman]

David Warner gives about 5 chances and innings in Test matches, but is the greatest batsman to have ever lived.. enough said. The Watson hate is now into hilarity level.

So David Warner averages high 40s just because the fielding team contrive to drop him lots of times, but then decide not to drop other batsmen?

 

[Doodlesweaver]

So David Warner averages high 40s just because the fielding team contrive to drop him lots of times, but then decide not to drop other batsmen?

That really would make David Warner an 'escapegoat'.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

So David Warner averages high 40s just because the fielding team contrive to drop him lots of times, but then decide not to drop other batsmen?

No, but in recent years - both Warner and Clarke in particular have made some big hundreds after giving numerous chances before they get to 50.

They are good enough players to cash in and deserve all the credit that comes their way.

It's just a bit ironic that the handful of times Watson has been a bit lucky, nobody talks about him cashing in, and instead refer to the chances.

 

[thetradesman]

Finch is a great one day player who has hit a rough spot, anyone declaring that he is under pressure is kidding themsleves!

Warner must be under pressure as well then?

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Finch is a great one day player who has hit a rough spot, anyone declaring that he is under pressure is kidding themsleves!

Warner must be under pressure as well then?

Warner 288 runs at 57
Finch 199 runs at 28
57=28??

 

[frankrizzo]

I think watto will play the ashes simply because even he manages to look like a safe bet fitness wise compared to mitch marsh.

Marsh looks likely to become the better test batsmen in the years to come but right now he would be getting picked as the allrounder and he has a snowflake in hells chance of being fit to bowl for 5 straight tests.

 

[Kram]

Finch is a great one day player who has hit a rough spot, anyone declaring that he is under pressure is kidding themsleves!

Warner must be under pressure as well then?

Just lol.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Warner 288 runs at 57
Finch 199 runs at 28
57=28??

Minus Warner's century against Afghanistan? He's scored * all in the last heap of ODI's that weren't against B-nations.

 

[Jak!x]

Minus Warner's century against Afghanistan? He's scored **** all in the last heap of ODI's that weren't against B-nations.

A century is a century

 

[psychobrown]

Well done to Shane, he secured his spot in the WC when all was lost a few games ago. The "dropped" catch by the Pakistan* fieldsman did help with his odds of staying in the side, but a 50 is a 50 and he batted manfully to fix his problems. The pressure now diverts to Fatty Finch I think, if he can't gobble up the Indian attack then the tough call will be made.

 

[footyfan1978]

Well done to Shane, he secured his spot in the WC when all was lost a few games ago. The "dropped" catch by the Pakistan* fieldsman did help with his odds of staying in the side, but a 50 is a 50 and he batted manfully to fix his problems. The pressure now diverts to Fatty Finch I think, if he can't gobble up the Indian attack then the tough call will be made.

It is a bit late to be dropping Finch now though.
Always felt we would be a better side if Warner opened with someone like Clarke, Watson or Haddin and we had Bailey in middle order at expense of Finch but has not happened and probably just play it out to the final now. I'd love to go in final with our best eleven but do not think they will do it.
They can still win even if Finch does not fire. Thankfully he has taken a few catches to contribute. The only thing I will say is the selectors have shown they have no qualms picking what they feel is their best eleven for a particular game. They may still surprise with leaving somebody out in Sydney and then bringing a same player back for final.

 

[The Speaker]

Minus Warner's century against Afghanistan? He's scored **** all in the last heap of ODI's that weren't against B-nations.

Then Finch's century against a B-nation should be taken away too.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Then Finch's century against a B-nation should be taken away too.

No complaints here.

Take out England, Scotland, Afghanistan etc and Warner is averaging below 30 this season in 12 innings.