What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Marstermind]

The guy is walking mediocrity. Not a great bat, but not awful. Not a great bowler. But not awful. Doesn't make big scores. But not many low scores. One of the great mysteries of this generation of cricket will be how such consistent ordinariness was left in place seemingly unchallenged for so long. Even when his moderate performances have been questioned the question has been where in the order should he bat - not whether someone else could do better.

I'd dump him. If he asked why (and he probably would) I'd ask back if there has ever been an Australian cricketer who played for 10 years, over 50 Tests and had a record as uninspiring as his. At that point he should thank whoever it is who has given him so many opportunities and be relieved he lasted so long.

 

[Ashton Agar]

 

[Power Raid]

The guy is walking mediocrity. Not a great bat, but not awful. Not a great bowler. But not awful. Doesn't make big scores. But not many low scores. One of the great mysteries of this generation of cricket will be how such consistent ordinariness was left in place seemingly unchallenged for so long. Even when his moderate performances have been questioned the question has been where in the order should he bat - not whether someone else could do better.

I'd dump him. If he asked why (and he probably would) I'd ask back if there has ever been an Australian cricketer who played for 10 years, over 50 Tests and had a record as uninspiring as his. At that point he should thank whoever it is who has given him so many opportunities and be relieved he lasted so long.

He's not that far behind tubby Taylor and Mark Waugh

 

[The Speaker]

He's not that far behind tubby Taylor and Mark Waugh

In what way?

 

[Phone]

The interesting thing about Watson is that even when he was at his best for Australia, when he came into the side in 09, he still massively underachieved. Like in that year he scored 716 runs at 65. So that's good. Until you realise he scored only one hundred. His top score was 120. For a career year. That's a massive underachievement imo, which isn't to say it was bad, but man...

 

[Caesar]

When you look at his technique, he was never really a Test player. Everything about him is designed for limited overs.

For a period he was good enough (and we were bad enough) for him to merit a place in the Test team. But he has no Test batting technique to fall back on. Totally incapable of grinding out an innings.

 

[Marstermind]

He's not that far behind tubby Taylor and Mark Waugh

Mark Taylor - 19 centuries from 186 innings (about 1 every 10 innings), batting average 43.50
Mark Waugh - 20 centuries from 209 innings (about 1 every 10 innings), batting average 41.82
Shane Watson - 4 centuries from 102 innings (about 1 every 25 innings), batting average 35.68

Mark Taylor > Mark Waugh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shane Watson.

 

[DJ Dupree]

He's gotta go, surely.

How is it that we tiptoe around this much-coveted Number 3 position, apparently requiring our best available batsman in the country, and continuously put the King of Mediocrity there to score, at most, 30-odd before falling weakly, and subsequently fronting the media, being involved in all the team issues like he's the linchpin, assuring everyone he's working on his flaws and will get better? How is it?

Cowan can't come in because he's only an 'opener' according to Lehmann. What a load of absolute crap! Happy to leave Watson at three though? Who cares where you bat, as long as you can bat, surely. Am I missing something? Do batsmen see the batting order and freak out, lose all ability, when they notice they're '3' instead of '2'. Utter tripe.

Ferg will 'get his chance one day'. When? When Watson has retired at age 40, still bleating about how well he's been going in the nets, he'll be better one day, and how Homeworkgate upset him?

Why didn't Klinger ever get an extended go? And why couldn't he now? If it's age.. Watson is 33. Enough said.

Mitch Johnson is twice the allrounder Watson could ever be. Number 6, then pick another bowler? A better all-rounder?

Steve Smith to number 3, Watson out, one of the above lower in the order? Or is that not correct, because Smith would see '3' next to his name and suddenly forget how to bat? Is he a number 5 or nothing?

These are all options that are better than having Watson score 30 (if we're lucky) time and time again at 3. All of them better.

 

[Marstermind]

Modern era (post-WSC) batsmen with 50 Tests and a lower average than Watson:
Graham Wood - 59 Tests @ 31.83 - 9 hundreds
Geoff Marsh - 50 Tests @ 33.18 - 4 hundreds

There are a few others who played way back in the age of uncovered pitches. Jeebus - imagine if Wood played today...the response in this forum alone would make the entire internet world melt down. Especially with the good players he ran out on his way to his 32 runs per innings over 59 Tests!

 

[Power Raid]

In what way?

Not too far behind in averages with the bat

Waugh and more so Taylor's failings with the bat were enormously frustrating.

 

[The Speaker]

Replacing Watson with Cowan, Ferguson or Klinger will achieve, at best, the same results as Watson gets with the bat.

Not too far behind in averages with the bat

Waugh and more so Taylor's failings with the bat were enormously frustrating.

There is actually a world of difference between someone averaging 35 and someone averaging 42. Especially when the former has four Test centuries and the latter has twenty.

Besides, Taylor's average was harmed by that long run of low scores. Watson has just been getting totally average results the whole way through.

Waugh never bothered to apply himself for quite long enough to get massive scores consistently - but he was never mediocre.

 

[Phone]

Not too far behind in averages with the bat

Waugh and more so Taylor's failings with the bat were enormously frustrating.

Their match defining centuries were enormously pleasing. Waugh is slightly similar due to the big hundreds thing, but he still got there with regularity

 

[ROOTA#6]

Taylor also almost scored as many centuries in one innings as Watson has managed in his career so far

 

[Power Raid]

Taylor also almost scored as many centuries in one innings as Watson has managed in his career so far

Which highlights his inconsistency and below average performances

 

[sherb]

Replacing Watson with Cowan, Ferguson or Klinger will achieve, at best, the same results as Watson gets with the bat.

That's not the point to me though.

That means that two messages are being sent out - (1) below par test performances do not warrant being dropped and (2) excellent form in the Shield does not warrant being selected.

I can't say I am happy with that.

 

[ROOTA#6]

That's not the point to me though.

That means that two messages are being sent out - (1) below par test performances do not warrant being dropped and (2) excellent form in the Shield does not warrant being selected.

I can't say I am happy with that.

Agree wholeheartedly...blokes who get dropped are told to go back and bang the door down with runs. If they are doing that yet blokes in the side are not putting scores on the board and they still can't get in what is the point?

 

[Tim Whatley]

Who do we replace him with? I don't see anyone at shield level that will do any better.

 

[sherb]

Agree wholeheartedly...blokes who get dropped are told to go back and bang the door down with runs. If they are doing that yet blokes in the side are not putting scores on the board and they still can't get in what is the point?

Well, that's what appears to have happened with Cowan.

But he seems to be stamped by the selectors (and many here) "never to play for Australia again", due to his existing Test record.

So what's the point of (once you are dropped) working on your game, improving it and scoring heaps of runs, if you are going to be faced with such a blinkered attitude?

And what sort of complacency does it engender in the Australian side if you are seemingly immune from being dropped?

 

[ROOTA#6]

Who do we replace him with? I don't see anyone at shield level that will do any better.

I'm not sure that is even the point. My point is if a bloke is not performing at the level but someone below is putting up really good number then they should be given the opportunity. If they do,not take the opportunity so be it

 

[ROOTA#6]

Well, that's what appears to have happened with Cowan.

But he seems to be stamped by the selectors (and many here) "never to play for Australia again", due to his existing Test record.

So what's the point of (once you are dropped) working on your game, improving it and scoring heaps of runs, if you are going to be faced with such a blinkered attitude?

And what sort of complacency does it engender in the Australian side if you are seemingly immune from being dropped?

The best recent example I can think of is Simon Katich. Had a first crack at Test cricket and didn't grab the chance...got dropped but then smashed the door down with bulk runs. Came back in and was a successful Test cricketer. Imagine if his cards were marked simply based on his first opportunity. Aussie test cricket is littered with such example...pretty much most of our greats were dropped and sent back to shield cricket and made to earn their it's,back. They did that and were given another opportunity to,show,that they had developed.

Actually the current captain is probably the best recent example but you know what I mean!

 

[Richard Pryor]

Well, that's what appears to have happened with Cowan.

But he seems to be stamped by the selectors (and many here) "never to play for Australia again", due to his existing Test record.

So what's the point of (once you are dropped) working on your game, improving it and scoring heaps of runs, if you are going to be faced with such a blinkered attitude?

And what sort of complacency does it engender in the Australian side if you are seemingly immune from being dropped?

There's also the weird phenomenon where being bad in a winning side means your spot will likely be safer than someone who is mediocre in a losing side. Surely a side that can carry a poor performance is a side that can take a risk with a selection.

 

[Phone]

It's sadly not weird, but anyone who ever says "cant changing a winning side" or whatever rubbish needs to be told how stupid they are. It has got to the point where the selectors have followed that logic to such a point that if all of a sudden watson/haddin got chopped for the next match, they'd have strong reason to feel aggrieved, given it's so against what they've been doing

 

[Scotland]

Geoff Marsh - 50 Tests @ 33.18 - 4 hundreds

Shaun Marsh - 10 tests @ 31.88, 2 hundreds.

Chip off the old block.

 

[Scotland]

43.5 over 104 tests >>> 35.5 over 54. Plus Taylor was an exceptional slip fieldsman and captain. I guess Watson bowls a bit.

BigFooty...

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Probably Nz's best spinner, Vettori, has more centuries than Watson.

Your number 3 needs to be scoring centuries. It is that simple. You can't have a guy who only skill as a batsmen is getting out for a start.

I mean his average isn't much better than Vettori's who is a bowling all rounder and we have this guy in the most pivotal spot in our lineup.....

It's pathetic really. Cull the deadwood please CA.