Firstly I used the last 18 months as recent form is far more important than historical averages. Helps to differentiate with who actually is currently performing rather than relying their historical average based on good performances in the distant past. So let's refine that 18 month player comparison even further to 2014
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;spanmax2=31 Dec 2014;spanmin2=1 Jan 2014;spanval2=span;team=2;template=results;type=batting
So it doesn't matter whether it's 12 months or 18 months like here:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;spanmin1=14 Aug 2013;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=batting
Finch, Warner and Smith are comfortably outperforming Watson. I do not think he deserves to be in our top 3.
Even expanding out to 2 years from today doesn't flatter Watson
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;spanmin1=15 Feb 2013;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=batting
I'm starting to get a bit baffled as to how you're actually able to mount an affirmative Watson argument.
If you think an average of 23 is acceptable for someone in the team in the last 12 months, let alone batting in the top 3 then that confirms your clear bias towards Watson.
Quite necessary. I'm being objective, he scores runs I stop asking for his removal from the side. Very very simple concept.