What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Scotland]

How do we do that?

By picking guys who consistently average 30 and occasionally bowl.

 

[The_Reaper]

Look at his record in the second half of his career i.e. since the start of 2011.

What standard is Watson's batting?

How do we do that?

Everything points to Cowan coming in as an interim when Rogers retires.

He probably has improved since last time but not sure if he's improved enough.

There aren't any other options bar some really speculative selections of Silk, Maddinson, Carters, Bancroft, Burns etc.

Though if Burns does stay in the team and score runs he might get tried out. Not sure someone who is so suspect early in his innings is the man to partner Warner though.

 

[footyfan1978]

That's the frustration, because I think his bowling record could have been excellent had he been fit consistently.

Better than his batting could have been. That's how much I rate it.

Interesting. I still see him well short of Botham as a bowler. Well short. Probably compare as a batter but used at top order.
Still consider him more like McMillan of South Africa who was handy at both skills but nothing special at either.
38 matches 1968 runs 39.36 average, 75 wickets@33.83

Actually did not realize MacMillan batting average was nearly 40. Bit of a surprise.
Watson numbers..
56 matches 3646 runs 35.75 average, 73 wicket@33.25

Those players tend to get an extended go in a team that is not great.
Chris Lewis ? of England was also an allrounder that was not what you want but England played for a while.

 

[Caesar]

Mitchell Marsh and Moises Henriques have both consistently averaged at or above 50 in the Shield in recent history. The claim that Watson is the only decent batting allrounder in Australia is no longer true.

 

[The_Reaper]

Mitchell Marsh and Moises Henriques have both consistently averaged at or above 50 in the Shield in recent history. The claim that Watson is the only decent batting allrounder in Australia is no longer true.

Marsh hasn't averaged that high. From memory his best was high 30s/low 40s last summer. But then he scored a 200 in the A series.

Henriques has the third highest shield average over the last three completed shield seasons.

Only Ponting and Warner averaged more.

 

[footyfan1978]

By the way, rated as our best allrounder ever is Keith Miller.
55 matches 2958 runs at 36.98
170 wickets@22.98

Batting average similar to Watson. Bowling good enough to picked in side on that alone.

 

[Caesar]

Marsh hasn't averaged that high. From memory his best was high 30s/low 40s last summer. But then he scored a 200 in the A series.

Oops, meant first class.

 

[The_Reaper]

By the way, rated as our best allrounder ever is Keith Miller.
55 matches 2958 runs at 36.98
170 wickets@22.98

Batting average similar to Watson. Bowling good enough to picked in side on that alone.

From what I have read Keith Miller's batting was not only adversely effected by his bowling (O'Reilly recommended he give up bowling to concentrate on his batting) but when the result was already know he was pretty lackadaisical about batting

 

[The Speaker]

Mark Waugh + Ryan Harris = Keith Miller

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I suspect Watson's bowling could be quite useful in England. He can swing it and get some nip off the pitch, if his body's up to it he could be very handy.

If you want a decent swinging allrounder, select Faulkner.

 

[footyfan1978]

Mark Waugh + Ryan Harris = Keith Miller

Impressive if true.
I tend to think of Mark Waugh as one of best fielders I ever seen. Probably when a ball goes within reach of a guy to catch you wanted it to be Mark Waugh going for it. Bloody good hands.
Saw his first innings at Adelaide Oval. Still one of best innings of batting I have ever seen for class of shots. Absolute joy to watch when in form.

 

[The_Reaper]

If you want a decent swinging allrounder, select Faulkner.

I know the first class averages may suggest otherwise in comparison to Mitch Marsh's career average and what Watson has done recently but Faulkner is not capable of batting in the top 6.
And we don't have a keeper capable of a batting in the top 6 either.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I know the first class averages may suggest otherwise in comparison to Mitch Marsh's career average and what Watson has done recently but Faulkner is not capable of batting in the top 6.
And we don't have a keeper capable of a batting in the top 6 either.

I agree - I was responding to the post which said we should pick Watson because he can swing the ball in England. Whilst not technically as good as Watson with the bat, Faulkner would probably average about the same & much better bowler.

If only Tim Paine could get back to his best, as a genuine top 6 batsman imo.

Having said that, Imo we should persist with m marsh at #6. Smith to #3 if he is keen.

 

[The Swans Blog]

As a 6 Watson still has a future in test cricket, as long as he bowls. Solid 50s and keeping it tight with the ball are quite handy from an all rounder. However at 3 his batting just isn't good enough to demand that spot.

It also doesn't help that that people around the Australian team (Watto included) shift the goal posts in relation to what his role is in the team. When he's not bowling he is a world class batsman, when he can't buy a run his bowling is important, struggling down the order he is a top order player etc.

I think the bigger problem is that the selectors, coaches, CA organisation are trying to manufacture a great test all-rounder. They all seem to forget what utter freaks Sobers and Kallis were, in ability and longevity. Then combine it with the fact they want the player to have an X-FACTOR quality and you might as well try looking for a unicorn.

Wonder if they're looking to shape Burns into a no.3, Smith 4th, Clarke 5th and Watson 6th.

 

[The_Reaper]

Wonder if they're looking to shape Burns into a no.3, Smith 4th, Clarke 5th and Watson 6th.

If Burns because a n0.3 it won't be whilst Clarke and Watson are still around

 

[footyfan1978]

Wonder if they're looking to shape Burns into a no.3, Smith 4th, Clarke 5th and Watson 6th.

I could live with that but I think Shaun Marsh has to get in there somewhere. Which returns us to issue of Watson in team. he he. Enigma!!

Random stat --> Heading into the 1989 Ashes series, Waugh's batting average was 30.52 from 26 Tests

He played 168 Tests and ended up averaging over 50 after starting his career picked as an allrounder. He never reached 100 Test wickets.
I think he got dropped in 1991 or 1992 tour of West Indies for Mark Waugh when still considered essentially an allrounder in Test side.
He played 112 more Tests than Watson has and got 19 more wickets.
Watson got 3 wickets this Test just finished. He will need to do more of this to stay in side to reach 100 Tests. Otherwise he won't last for much longer. His batting does not look like it will ever average 40. Whether he can continue to bowl will be the real Test. He needs to be moved to number 6 as soon as possible and make that spot his own. He is probably better bowler than Mitch Marsh but his injuries have meant he barely bowled apart from change bowler in recent years.

 

[bird_man]

I know the first class averages may suggest otherwise in comparison to Mitch Marsh's career average and what Watson has done recently but Faulkner is not capable of batting in the top 6.
And we don't have a keeper capable of a batting in the top 6 either.

Agreed, I think Faulkner is capable of batting 6 in ODI cricket but he needs to improve his red ball form before he's up to batting 6 I'm test cricket. Still yet to make a FC century.

 

[The_Reaper]

I wouldn't have Faulkner at 6 in ODI cricket.

He's done well so far but I'd be wary of putting him in a position of too much responsibility with the bat

 

[Phone]

If only Tim Paine could get back to his best, as a genuine top 6 batsman imo.

this has never been true

I wouldn't have Faulkner at 6 in ODI cricket.

He's done well so far but I'd be wary of putting him in a position of too much responsibility with the bat

i would coz it means he's not at 8 and playing as a bowling all-rounder. i mean, he's only stayed in the OD team cause of his batting so you may as well actually paly him as a batting all-rounder

 

[The Swans Blog]

I could live with that but I think Shaun Marsh has to get in there somewhere.

There's no place for Shaun Marsh in this team. He's a rubbish fielder and an ordinary batsman. I know Burns is still raw, but he's already managed 2 50's in this test. If Shaun Marsh has already been dropped a few times from the national team, then he should be working harder to stay in it. He should be scoring runs, fielding well and taking catches and making the most of his opportunities.

Since he was recalled for Michael Clarke, it stands to reason that he'll be dropped to 13th or 14th man as soon as Clarke is ready. Mitchell Marsh or Watson will be 12th man.

 

[bird_man]

I wouldn't have Faulkner at 6 in ODI cricket.

He's done well so far but I'd be wary of putting him in a position of too much responsibility with the bat

I'd be happy to see him float between 6 and 8. Definitely worth giving a go in the tri series IMO. Can't just ignore his record. He has played some fabulous innings when he had all the responsibility on his shoulders.

 

[footyfan1978]

Watson interesting batting average to compare with Steve Waugh at around 50 Test mark in their careers.
At 52 Tests Steve Waugh had scored 2503 runs at average 36.28

Love seeing players turn career around when arm chair knockers simplify things and call them crap. Not saying by any means Watson would be able to replicate a change in destiny like Steve Waugh did but those that dismiss guys like Shane Watson and even Shaun Marsh so easily when they still got time in career to turn around almost make me laugh at simpleton thinking.

I think Watson won't reach 100 Tests myself but hope I am wrong.

Having said that. I seen guys make it that myself I doubted ever would. Damien Martyn I never wanted to see again after mid 90's but he came back and made a later return to Test cricket and did very well. Hayden I doubted too at times but eventually made it. Always backed Langer in myself because he was an amazing fighter as he showed in his first Test but never saw McGrath getting as many wickets as he did. Hazelwood reminds me of this in that early on I did not think much of McGrath then all of a sudden in 1995 tour of West Indies he hit his strides. Maybe Hazelwood will surprise me in future but at this stage I prefer right armers Cummins and Pattinson when fit.

 

[footyfan1978]

I'd be happy to see him float between 6 and 8. Definitely worth giving a go in the tri series IMO. Can't just ignore his record. He has played some fabulous innings when he had all the responsibility on his shoulders.

Faulker at no 8 is ideal. No need to fix it if not broken. 6 is too high for him. Will kill the goose that lay the late over golden eggs.

 

[The_Reaper]

Watson interesting batting average to compare with Steve Waugh at around 50 Test mark in their careers.
At 52 Tests Steve Waugh had scored 2503 runs at average 36.28

Love seeing players turn career around when arm chair knockers simplify things and call them crap. Not saying by any means Watson would be able to replicate a change in destiny like Steve Waugh did but those that dismiss guys like Shane Watson and even Shaun Marsh so easily when they still got time in career to turn around almost make me laugh at simpleton thinking.

Having said that. I seen guys make it that myself I doubted ever would. Damien Martyn I never wanted to see again after mid 90's but he came back and made a later return to Test cricket and did very well. Hayden I doubted too at times but eventually made it. Always backed Langer in myself because he was an amazing fighter as he showed in his first Test but never saw McGrath getting as many wickets as he did. Hazelwood reminds me of this in that early on I did not think much of McGrath then all of a sudden in 1995 tour of West Indies he hit his strides. Maybe Hazelwood will surprise me in future but at this stage I prefer right armers Cummins and Pattinson when fit.

Watson is 34

 

[footyfan1978]

Watson is 34

I know. Hence why I don't think he will even reach 100 Tests.