What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Scotland]

He's the Jarrad Waite of Australian cricket.

 

[Marstermind]

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

That's not the point. Do you keep the old car that you know only sometimes starts, or buy a new one that sounds OK, but, who knows, may have problems. A turd in the hand is worth SFA.

 

[MisterMarcus]

You guys are so harsh.

He is absolutely smashing them big time in the nets! Those District Fourths net bowlers don't know what hit them when big Watto comes striding out!

 

[whatwhatsaywhat]

Would rather Klinger or Cowan than Twatto.

Klinger is, I fear, the Jamie Siddons of his era.

 

[southernswannies]

Would rather Klinger or Cowan than Twatto.

Klinger is, I fear, the Jamie Siddons of his era.

Except, you know, he averages 8 runs less.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Must be the only one in Australia who actually likes Watto. He bats alright and bowls well, gets some handy wickets. I'd put him at 6 even if he doesn't want it, he'd do some serious damage there.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

He's become one of the all-rounders we used to hang shit on England for playing - Ronnie Irani/Craig White/Ben Hollioake.

 

[dumb]

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!

said in the other thread. also mirrors greg blewett (46 tests), 4 100's @ 34. blewett started at 6, then went up the order to play as opener and #3, though he never did so under the guise of all-rounder though he too could bowl some useful overs. what watson could and will never do though, is grind out an innings. blewett once batted an entire day in SA.
watson's record in ODI is exceptional, but in test cricket he's mediocre and even the commentators have started chattering over his career stats.

 

[The_Reaper]

He's become one of the all-rounders we used to hang shit on England for playing - Ronnie Irani/Craig White/Ben Hollioake.

Kiwi Bitsa

 

[southernswannies]

He's become one of the all-rounders we used to hang shit on England for playing - Ronnie Irani/Craig White/Ben Hollioake.

Very harsh. Watto's done more than enough in ODI/T20I to not be amongst the failed English allrounders. Even his Tests efforts put him above that group.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Very harsh. Watto's done more than enough in ODI/T20I to not be amongst the failed English allrounders. Even his Tests efforts put him above that group.

Certainly not questioning his limited overs record (he's probably close to first picked in the ODI side), but he's a mediocrity at test level.

Kiwi Bitsa

Was going to compare him to Piggy McMillan, but 3116 @ 38 with six centuries kind of leaves Watto in the shade.

 

[Phone]

Except, you know, he averages 8 runs less.

i think it's a perfect comparison. just as long as you overlook the fact that Klinger has played a game in 14 shield seasons and had a season average of over 40 in 3 of them

 

[Messenger]

He's the Jarrad Waite of Australian cricket.

I've read that somewhere before.....

 

[dumb]

was it here?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...n-other-thread.1017519/page-123#post-29093225

 

[The_Reaper]

Well, he's better than our previous number 3

 

[The Swans Blog]

His fielding is horrendous. Needs to be pulled from the slips.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

His fielding is horrendous. Needs to be pulled from the slips.

Doesn't drop many. And you could make a case that Haddin was equally to blame.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Doesn't drop many. And you could make a case that Haddin was equally to blame.

Absolutely. He caked on and completely missed another. And those two rippers that Haddin took he didn't even look like getting near it if it went through to him.

He's in decent form with the ball but doesn't really threaten a lot. He's been in rubbish form in the field and with the bat.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Watson's value is only relevant to the alternatives.

Averaging 31 with the ball and ~36 with the bat is very good if you're batting at 6.

But he bats in the Top 3, and we also have Rogers in the Top 3 also averaging 36.

However, the reason selectors have persisted with Watson for so long (and recently turned to a 38 year old Rogers) is because of the lack of alternative talent.

Watson's numbers after about 30 tests included an average of 40 with the bat, but his bowling was under-utlised when he opened the batting. When Clarke became captain, and our bowling stocks dwindles, Watson took on a front line responsibility with the ball for a solid 18 months and his batting suffered. As his bowling responsibilities dried up again, his batting form hasn't returned to the 09/10/11 heights and he's come under pressure.

I imagine, had M.Marsh and Clarke not been injured, Watson would not have played the 3rd test. But I also question the value of replacing Watson with Mitch Marsh, who offers far less with the ball and has a first class batting average of under 30....probably because they are sick of Watson being the 'almost' man. Having said that, Baggy Greens should be earnt not gifted, and its up to someone to take his spot.

If you're of the view, that we need someone in the Top 6 who offers a 5th bowling option. The options are thin. You have Watson, who has a sub standard test record with the bat, but has a first class record superior to pretty much every contender for a specialist batting position, let alone the blokes who have designs on being an all-rounder. Suddenly when you survey the alternatives, it becomes obvious why Watson remains in the side.

Shaun Marsh is currently getting a gig, yet is an average fieldsman, doesn't bowl and his record with the bat is inferior to Watson's in all forms of cricket and at all levels. Ideally, Joe Burns will play 5-10 tests at 6, establish himself and make the move to number 3 (you know, like how most batsmen use to do it, instead of being thrown to the wolves at 3 on their debut) and Watson can move back to 6 with a succession plan for M.Marsh or another young all-rounder.

Eddie Cowan is making a good case for recall, and could replace Rogers, or could come into the side at 3. But he also has an inferior test record and first class record to Watson (excluding bowling of course).

The cupboard is extremely bare. The only guys not tried at test level yet, who average over 40 at first class level are Voges, Cosgrove & Chris Lynn. Other guys who average 40 at first class level are Cowan, Maxwell & Khawaja. So we don't exactly have guys making a strong case to replace Watson, hence he is retained in the side. Voges is the interesting one, as I think he could bat at 5 or 6, and he does offer a 5th bowling option. Not as strong as Watson with the ball, but still an option.

 

[Slax]

Would rather Klinger or Cowan than Twatto.

Klinger is, I fear, the Jamie Siddons of his era.

He's nowhere near as unlucky as Siddons. Jamie Cox would have the runners-up spot covered there comfortably.

Watto just needs to be put out to a good paddock and left to belt the ball around in the IPL & T20 games and earn his lazy $1m a year for a couple of months work.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Who would you replace him with and why?

 

[boncer34]

He's nowhere near as unlucky as Siddons. Jamie Cox would have the runners-up spot covered there

Dunno mate. I can think of a bloke who averaged 50+ but never got a crack at test level.

 

[Scotland]

However, the reason selectors have persisted with Watson for so long (and recently turned to a 38 year old Rogers) is because of the lack of alternative talent.

Disagree strongly. The selectors have been pushing Watson as a test all rounder for a decade. For mine he's the horse they backed and they will keep backing him until his body doesn't allow him to play test cricket.

The cupboard is pretty bare currently, but this hasn't always been the case. Watson debuted before Mike Hussey, Brad Hodge, Phil Jaques, Chris Rogers, Marcus North... Hard to say these guys weren't better credentialed alternatives. Hussey forged a long career, but the other guys (like Simon Katich) played a lot less test cricket than they could have. A lot of people bag Andrew Symonds, but he retired with a test batting average of 40.6 and bowling average of 37.3. Watson's already played twice as many tests and his record is no better.

Watson has batted everywhere from 1-7, and save for a brief patch as an opener has been consistently ordinary. We're sacrificing our top order having him batting at 3 because he can bowl a bit. If Watson is at 3, why have an all rounder at 6? With the benefit of hindsight we should've kept Watson at 6 (then dropped him if he failed) and persisted with someone better in the top order. Now it looks like we're stuck with him / too stubborn to give up on the experiment.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Watson's last 2 years.

17 Tests, 1068 runs @ 32 (two centuries), 201 overs 9wkts @ 54.

Highest innings score: 176
Best bowling in a match: 2/87

Why the **** is he still in the side?

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Cant even cash in on this road at MCG when he needed a big score to save his place.