The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Posts
- 41,937
- Reaction score
- 34,363
- Location
- Perth
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- East Fremantle
Clarke can't bat at 3. Look at his front foot.
-
LIVE: Western Bulldogs v Adelaide - Rd 14 - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Dogs at 60% chance -- What's your tip? -- Injury Lists » -- All Rd 14 Games
-
Love Survivor tipping? Join Instadeath 3
-
Witness 32 nations clash in your Graphic Design boards biggest competition yet: The 2026 FJGD World Cup!
What do you do with Shane Watson?
- Thread starter Slax
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Clarke can't bat at 3. Look at his front foot.
Well, if we are looking at front feet....neither can Watson.
Where the argument falls down (Watson down the order) is when you look at where players are naturally suited. Putting your best batsman in their best spot, and then building the order around them.
Clarke and Smith are both excellent players of spin, and (rather, because) they have far better footwork than their team-mates. Clarke and Smith at 4 and 5 is ideal, IMO, regardless of order.
Watson, like many batsman is a lousy starter against spin, or good swing bowling. He also struggles to find the gaps in a ring field, to rotate the strike. As such, if he is in the side (in part) for his batting, he is best suited at or near the top of the order. Opening/#3, there are lots of catching men, and hence more gaps he can play shots through, to build or maintain momentum. Later in innings the slips disappear and the 'circle' is strengthened.
Rogers is close to the end. We need two top-order players now, and should have spent the last 12-24 months developing them. It needn't be said what a loss PH was to our future on field side.
Warner likes to dictate at the top of the order, personally I think he would be a fantastic #6 in a dominant side, but we don't have the talent to spread around anymore. With that personality, my view is you need a #3 capable of lockdown roles (Khawaja?) for when he fails, but also to expand and build on a good platform.
At the moment, Watson is close to anyone else (after Clarke, Smith, Warner) we can play in that role.
- Banned
- #428
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2014
- Posts
- 38,196
- Reaction score
- 41,222
- Location
- spacetime
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- there are no other teams worthy
Oh my god. Friggin awesome. That batting line up for two or three years was really something at it's peak.
16 Test wins in a row will be heard to beat.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Banned
- #430
Just remind me – who was batting at No.3 during that streak in 1999-2001?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2014
- Posts
- 38,196
- Reaction score
- 41,222
- Location
- spacetime
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- there are no other teams worthy
Not going to remind you of anything. You now been taught your memory was hazy so sprouting off trying to tell another poster Langer got moved to open for Ponting to move to 3. to make some point about Watson. Nothing wrong with not remembering things off top of your head but you made it sound like you knew it all. Express an opinion fine, just work on your overall comprehension and also some sensible context of how you communicate would be helpful. Hopefully you have a good think about it rather just get reactive.
- Banned
- #432
That's no problem, mate.
Langer batted No.3 throughout that streak. You could almost say he had a defined or specific role, couldn't you?
But that's effectively what happened.
Langer had been batting at No.3 but then, after a short period outside the side, returned as opener, with Ponting having been promoted to bat at No.3 in Langer's brief absence. How is that inaccurate?
It was a conscious decision to reshape the top order. And we should do something similar regarding Watson's position. Which part of that do you disagree with?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2014
- Posts
- 38,196
- Reaction score
- 41,222
- Location
- spacetime
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- there are no other teams worthy
It's accurate. There is hope for you.
I'm glad you actually got in touch with reality.
- Banned
- #434
It's what I said in the first place.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Posts
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 12,529
- Location
- President of Terror Squad
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
Watson stinking up the joint again.
Carbine Chaos
Rut Deflector
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Posts
- 69,043
- Reaction score
- 109,923
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
No credit to the bowler?
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2003
- Posts
- 13,035
- Reaction score
- 12,315
- Location
- Bunvegas
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- WA, Australia
Not sure that's true any longer tbh - 1200 runs @ 33/26 wickets @ 40 over three years isn't exactly brilliant.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Posts
- 3,954
- Reaction score
- 3,013
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Don't know how much we can blame him for today. Was a jaffa
- Banned
- #440
Since the start of 2014, Watson has made 222 runs at 22 in ODIs.
Admittedly, Watson's record is excellent so I agree that he's not going to be dropped in the immediate future.
But fast forward past this World Cup and does Watson still get a gig at age 34?
I'm not sure we lose anything by picking our four best specialist batsmen at 1-4, with three all-rounders in Maxwell, Marsh and Faulkner following at 5-7. Then a keeper and three specialist quicks.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Posts
- 5,683
- Reaction score
- 2,879
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #441
With Mitch marsh bowling like McGrath how can you justify Watson spot?
If Clarke and / or Faulker, and Watson is still in the 11. That is shit
If Clarke and / or Faulker, and Watson is still in the 11. That is shit
- Banned
- #442
Will be interesting to see what happens when Clarke and Faulkner are both available.
It will be a hell of a shock if Watson's place is on the line. He has a settled spot in the test team and he's pretty ordinary with the bat in that format so you'd think that his batting record alone should see him given plenty of rope in ODIs.
- Banned
- #444
I'm not sure I buy that logic.
In the ODI format, we have three other all-rounders in and around the side. Maxwell and Faulkner are automatic selections and Mitchell Marsh is making a pretty decent fist of it at the moment.
That's not true in Tests, where Watson has been deemed the best and only option for a while.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
He'd have to be considered enough of a batsman though in ODIs. He has such a good record (obviously not recently but anybody who averages 40 as a good strike rate will be given time to find form.)
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Posts
- 5,683
- Reaction score
- 2,879
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #446
Exactly, shit.
- Banned
- #447
But look at his output since the start of 2014. And then compare it to Marsh's. It's not pretty for Watson.
Bailey also has a good record. But that's not going to save him. Because his form has been ordinary.
Marsh now has 5-16. I'm not saying that makes him an automatic selection but it makes it hard to argue that Watson should be picked 'for his bowling', which is what we often hear about his ongoing Test selection.
Art Vandelay_
OhhYessssss
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Posts
- 118,220
- Reaction score
- 169,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers.
What to do with Shane Watson. Still think the individual who suggested glue factory had the best answer.
- Banned
- #449
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Posts
- 5,683
- Reaction score
- 2,879
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #450
It will be a hell of a shame to play a team below full strength
Finch
Warner
MarshMitch
Smith
Maxwell
Clarke/fawkner/bailey/NotWatson
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Cumming/hazelwood
Exactly - I agree we wrote identical comments
Shit. - the reality Watson will play probably
Similar threads
