What do you do with Shane Watson?

[southernswannies]

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

This whole series has been on roads, Lyon has the best average of all the players with 28.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

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 debuted when he averaged 50 at first class level, could bowl 140+ km/h and we had just been cleaned up by Freddy Flintoff in the Ashes. He was a uniquely talented player at the time, who after finally overcoming repeated stress fractures in his back, many thought would kick on....then the soft tissue curse hit. The reason he debuted, was so they could play both Magill and Warne in the same side, but still have a 3rd quick.

He was essentially treated as a bowling all-rounder back then, despite batting at 3/4 for Tassie and then batting at 4 for QLD, they batted Watson at 7 for Australia behind Gilchrist. Then when Watto did his back and they still had a desire for an all-rounder, they plucked Symonds from nowhere (to replace the very unlucky Katich) and batted him at 6 ahead of Gilchrist. This was bizarre at the time, given Watson batted 2 spots ahead of Symonds for QLD and averaged close to 10 more at first class level. This was the beginning of his chronic mismanagement, and ****ing with his head completely.

Huss, Hodge, Jacques & Rogers didn't offer the bowling package, thus guys like Watto, Symonds and then later Andrew McDonald were preferred. Though if Jacques hadn't stuffed his back, I suspect he would have played 60+ tests.

People forget how good Watson's numbers as a batsman alone are at first class level. He has 20 x 100's at 44. Further, if you want to compare apples with apples when it comes to contenders for his spot, Watson averages 49.8 in first class cricket excluding his test numbers. If there was a young first class player out there averaging close to 50 who could also offer a genuine option with the ball, they would be rushed into the side quicker than you could say "Watto is an unfulfilled talent"

Watson has batted everywhere from 1-7, and save for a brief patch as an opener has been consistently ordinary.

Agree. He has been consistently just 'ok' but not good enough as a specialist batsman. However, when you look at the package and his tight bowling that breaks key top order partnerships and drys up the runs, its enough to keep him in the side. Especially when all the specialist batsmen that might have a desire to take his spot, average 35-40 at first class level and don't bowl.

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.

Completely agree. Worst 2 things to happen to Australian cricket in recent memory as a result of dumb decisions from selectors are:

1. Dropping Phil Hughes in the 09 Ashes for Shane Watson. At the time, it was more to shore up the bowling due to the struggles of Mitch Johnson, than it was to do with Hughes. Watson was in excellent form at the time, and then averaged close to 60 for the next 18 months opening the batting. This was disasterous, because it ****ed with the head of a once in a generation talent (Phil Hughes) and had the added stuff up of convincing Watson and the hierarchy that he was better suited to batting in the top order. In reality, Watson was in his longest period with no injuries, so his form flourished. He would have made runs wherever he batted at the time and would have absolutely dominated coming in at 6.

2. Letting Clarke and Hussey bat at 5 and 6 for 2 years, while a string of talented youngsters were thrown to the wolves with debuts batting at number 3. This set our batting development back 5 years, while boosting the egos and averages of Clarke and Hussey as they hid down the order. Khawaja is an outstanding player, had he been able to debut at 6 and develop is game (much like Steve Smith) I suspect he would be our long term number 3 and playing test cricket right now.

Doesn't matter if Watto is at 3 or 6 though, he needs to score more runs regardless. I suspect he is only being persisted with at 3 now, because of #2 above. They have realised its not fair on youngsters debuting in the pressure cooker at #3, and want them to start at 5/6. Clarke was unwilling to bat there, and Smith could possible move there long term - but Watson is essentially 'taking one for the team' because no other established senior player is prepared to bat at 3.

 

[Caesar]

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.

That's not really true.

Batting Average / Average Overs Bowled per Innings

2009: 65.09 / 9.88
2010: 42.71 / 9.55
2011: 24.09 / 12.61
2012: 31.45 / 11.21
2013: 35.21 / 8.12
2014: 25.80 / 8.93

None of those are front-line bowler numbers.

There does seem to be a rough correlation between overs and average, but it's a bit difficult to draw any conclusions from that.

 

[The Speaker]

Well said QAFL_Fan. Watson has a genuinely excellent FC career, and perhaps it actually worked against him. Too many roles that he could fulfill, and he's basically done them all...

 

[QAFL_Fan]

That's not really true.

Batting Average / Average Overs Bowled per Innings

2009: 65.09 / 9.88
2010: 42.71 / 9.55
2011: 24.09 / 12.61
2012: 31.45 / 11.21
2013: 35.21 / 8.12
2014: 25.80 / 8.93

None of those are front-line bowler numbers.

There does seem to be a rough correlation between overs and average, but it's a bit difficult to draw any conclusions from that.

more to do with when and how he was used.

Watson in the current side is very much a '5th bowler' - only used to keep things tight and give specialist bowlers a rest.

There was a period when he was getting the ball when it was new or near new, and used a genuine strike bowler. So not so much how much he bowled, but more how he was used by his captain.

Without consulting the stats, I'd imagine he took half his test wickets in a 12-18 month period over about 10-15 tests.

 

[The Speaker]

For example, his best Test haul - 6/33 against Pakistan at Lords in 2010 - had him at first change.

 

[Scotland]

Watson debuted when he averaged 50 at first class level, could bowl 140+ km/h and we had just been cleaned up by Freddy Flintoff in the Ashes. He was a uniquely talented player at the time, who after finally overcoming repeated stress fractures in his back, many thought would kick on....then the soft tissue curse hit. The reason he debuted, was so they could play both Magill and Warne in the same side, but still have a 3rd quick.

Watson debuted in the January 2005, 6 months before the Ashes. Anyway, picking Watson as a 3rd seamer to play Warne and MacGill is sound reasoning, but Warne and MacGill retired years ago and until this test we had 5 seam options. That's just silly.

He was essentially treated as a bowling all-rounder back then, despite batting at 3/4 for Tassie and then batting at 4 for QLD, they batted Watson at 7 for Australia behind Gilchrist. Then when Watto did his back and they still had a desire for an all-rounder, they plucked Symonds from nowhere (to replace the very unlucky Katich) and batted him at 6 ahead of Gilchrist. This was bizarre at the time, given Watson batted 2 spots ahead of Symonds for QLD and averaged close to 10 more at first class level. This was the beginning of his chronic mismanagement, and ******* with his head completely.

Agree RE: CA not knowing what to do with him, but remember he played 3 tests in 2005 then didn't get another shot until 2008. Be batted in the top 6 in his first recall then opened after they replaced Hughes during the 2009 Ashes 8 months later. For the bulk of Watson's test career we have gone with 3 quicks and a spinner 8-11 and Watson as the 4th seam option batting somewhere in the top 6. By the time Watson played his 4th test in 2008 we had already lost Langer and Martyn, plus Warne and MacGill. CA missed the real area of need.

Huss, Hodge, Jacques & Rogers didn't offer the bowling package, thus guys like Watto, Symonds and then later Andrew McDonald were preferred. Though if Jacques hadn't stuffed his back, I suspect he would have played 60+ tests.

They don't offer bowling no, but they are capable of batting in the top 3 at test level. IMO Watson is not. I'm not talking about the latter names obviously.

People forget how good Watson's numbers as a batsman alone are at first class level. He has 20 x 100's at 44. Further, if you want to compare apples with apples when it comes to contenders for his spot, Watson averages 49.8 in first class cricket excluding his test numbers. If there was a young first class player out there averaging close to 50 who could also offer a genuine option with the ball, they would be rushed into the side quicker than you could say "Watto is an unfulfilled talent"

Watson's FC record is excellent, but he's not alone in that regard for a guy his age. Michael Bevan (older) averaged 57 with the bat and took over 100 wickets (average of 45 isn't amazing but a handy bonus) and played only 18 tests. 29 with the bat and 24 with the ball wasn't enough at test level for him to stay in the side. Hodge scored 10,000 runs in the shield alone with 29 centuries and 49 half centuries. He played half a dozen tests and exited with an average of 55. At some point the call needs to be made on Watson's test output, not his FC record or potential. Clarke didn't do a lot in the shield and has scored 8000 runs at 50 at test level. Doolan and Cowan killed it in the shield and were OK at best at test level.

Agree. He has been consistently just 'ok' but not good enough as a specialist batsman. However, when you look at the package and his tight bowling that breaks key top order partnerships and drys up the runs, its enough to keep him in the side. Especially when all the specialist batsmen that might have a desire to take his spot, average 35-40 at first class level and don't bowl.

If he averaged 40+ with the bat plus his bowling you could justify picking him at 6. What he has produced over the course of his career and particularly the last 2-3 years is not enough to keep him in the top order.

Completely agree. Worst 2 things to happen to Australian cricket in recent memory as a result of dumb decisions from selectors are:

1. Dropping Phil Hughes in the 09 Ashes for Shane Watson. At the time, it was more to shore up the bowling due to the struggles of Mitch Johnson, than it was to do with Hughes. Watson was in excellent form at the time, and then averaged close to 60 for the next 18 months opening the batting. This was disasterous, because it stuffed with the head of a once in a generation talent (Phil Hughes) and had the added stuff up of convincing Watson and the hierarchy that he was better suited to batting in the top order. In reality, Watson was in his longest period with no injuries, so his form flourished. He would have made runs wherever he batted at the time and would have absolutely dominated coming in at 6.

2. Letting Clarke and Hussey bat at 5 and 6 for 2 years, while a string of talented youngsters were thrown to the wolves with debuts batting at number 3. This set our batting development back 5 years, while boosting the egos and averages of Clarke and Hussey as they hid down the order. Khawaja is an outstanding player, had he been able to debut at 6 and develop is game (much like Steve Smith) I suspect he would be our long term number 3 and playing test cricket right now.

Doesn't matter if Watto is at 3 or 6 though, he needs to score more runs regardless. I suspect he is only being persisted with at 3 now, because of #2 above. They have realised its not fair on youngsters debuting in the pressure cooker at #3, and want them to start at 5/6. Clarke was unwilling to bat there, and Smith could possible move there long term - but Watson is essentially 'taking one for the team' because no other established senior player is prepared to bat at 3.

Don't disagree with that. I don't like the idea of guys coming in and batting at #3 on debut. Ponting, Clarke, Martyn etc. all worked their way up the order. Hussey filled in as an opener then worked his way up the order. I think one knock on Clarke when he retires will be that he never took on the responsibility of batting at #3. Since he's been captain he has carried the team a lot and I do feel safe having him at 5, though.

 

[The Speaker]

Why should Clarke have batted at three?

 

[Scotland]

He's our best batsman and we needed someone to step up and bat at 3.

 

[Jimthegreat]

He's our best batsman and we needed someone to step up and bat at 3.

Some aren't suited to 3. Our best batsman bats where he's best suited. You don't screw with that. Border and S.Waugh batted mostly at 5. 3 they didn't handle so well.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Watson's in as long as Marsh is injured. His ability to bowl has kept him in the side. Watson's bowling was a godsend in those hot Brisbane conditions. Soon as Marsh is fit then Watto's up for the chop.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Clarke when he returns has to replace Watson at 3rd and Watson has to be dropped down the order to 7th or 8th.

 

[The Speaker]

He's our best batsman and we needed someone to step up and bat at 3.

If the team relies on his batting you don't put him in a position where his batting will be negatively affected. Personally I'd still prefer to have him at five.

 

[Marstermind]

No one here denies his Test record is ordinary. I hope Australia win tomorrow. Not just because I'm Australian. But because a dead rubber would be the perfect time to say "Baggy greens aren't handed to consistent mediocrity. Sorry Watto and anyone else not performing, go and earn one back. If you come back a better player then fantastic. If whoever takes your place does better than you- even better." Watson's history is irrelevant. right now he isn't performing so let him work his arse off to earn a spot back. I think what is pissing most of us off is the perceived favouritism he gets from selectors in spite of his moderate output. If he was to go back and earn his spot I'd love to see him step up.

 

[Slax]

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

Ok, I give who is it?

I can think of a couple of others in the 40s, Di Venuto actually could claim to be unlucky and a few how only got one or two test matches.

 

[boncer34]

Ok, I give who is it?

I can think of a couple of others in the 40s, Di Venuto actually could claim to be unlucky and a few how only got one or two test matches.

Well Huss did get a run in the OD so does that count him out?

 

[Slax]

Well said QAFL_Fan. Watson has a genuinely excellent FC career, and perhaps it actually worked against him. Too many roles that he could fulfill, and he's basically done them all...

Plenty of blokes have had brilliant FC careers who were never given the same amount of leeway as Watson going back over the last 40 years, so trying to use it as an excuse is clutching at thin air.

Heard a great analogy last night. Watson is like a poker machine, you will get the odd collect but in the end all you end up doing is getting frustrated and wasting both time & money. Instead selectors should move on to a different player who offers a different sort of gambling were the odds are so stack against you.

 

[Slax]

Well Huss did get a run in the OD so does that count him out?

My mistake, thought he played 1 test match, so put him into the bracket of blokes who were never given a fair shot as selectors preferred others who didn't perform well enough but stayed in the side (looking at you Mark Waugh)

 

[QAFL_Fan]

It's irrelevant quoting all the guys from history who had outstanding first class records and didn't get much of a go at test level. You only have to be better than your current peers to get a game, not in comparison to blokes from the past.

The likes of Law, Love, Siddons, Cox, Di Venuto, D.Hussey, Elliot etc etc came from an era of Australian cricket where we were rich with talent. These guys barely played test cricket, not because they weren't good enough, but because of the presence of Waugh X 2, Ponting, Martyn, Langer, Hayden, Boon, Slater, Taylor made it a bloody hard side to break into. If you got an opportunity, you really needed to seize it.

These days we have guys like Bailey, Cowan, S.Marsh, M.Marsh, Quiney, Doolan all making their test debuts with first class averages of 35-38 !

So while Watson averaging 36 at test level isn't good enough, are you really going to replace him with a guy who can't average more than 36 at first class level, and doesn't bowl either? In fact Mitch Marsh has a first class batting average under 30! Given M.Marsh has jumped the above queue to bat in the top 6 despite an average under 30, just shows how much value the selectors place on the 5th bowling option.

I've heard people suggest James Faulkner as a replacement for Watson, he has never even made a first class ton!

If Watson didn't bowl, he would be just another talented batsman amongst the above queue of suitors. But like M.Marsh, his bowling puts him at the front of the queue.

Where he bats is clouding the argument. He only bats 3 because nobody else wants the job.

 

[Blue1980]

It's irrelevant quoting all the guys from history who had outstanding first class records and didn't get much of a go at test level. You only have to be better than your current peers to get a game, not in comparison to blokes from the past.

The likes of Law, Love, Siddons, Cox, Di Venuto, D.Hussey, Elliot etc etc came from an era of Australian cricket where we were rich with talent. These guys barely played test cricket, not because they weren't good enough, but because of the presence of Waugh X 2, Ponting, Martyn, Langer, Hayden, Boon, Slater, Taylor made it a bloody hard side to break into. If you got an opportunity, you really needed to seize it.

These days we have guys like Bailey, Cowan, S.Marsh, M.Marsh, Quiney, Doolan all making their test debuts with first class averages of 35-38 !

So while Watson averaging 36 at test level isn't good enough, are you really going to replace him with a guy who can't average more than 36 at first class level, and doesn't bowl either? In fact Mitch Marsh has a first class batting average under 30! Given M.Marsh has jumped the above queue to bat in the top 6 despite an average under 30, just shows how much value the selectors place on the 5th bowling option.

I've heard people suggest James Faulkner as a replacement for Watson, he has never even made a first class ton!

If Watson didn't bowl, he would be just another talented batsman amongst the above queue of suitors. But like M.Marsh, his bowling puts him at the front of the queue.

Where he bats is clouding the argument. He only bats 3 because nobody else wants the job.

I agree he does number 3 because those who could do it don't want to and those that want yo aren't capable of it. His batting record is fine for an all rounder

 

[DrVanNostrand]

Where is the 'public stoning' option?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Clarke when he returns has to replace Watson at 3rd and Watson has to be dropped down the order to 7th or 8th.

Smith or burns more likely at #3.

Once m marsh returns, should be the end of Watson.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Is

Smith or burns more likely at #3.

Once m marsh returns, should be the end of Watson.

Is Mitch Marsh better than Watson as a bowler, or as a batsman?

Doesn't appear to be by any reliable measure available.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Is

Is Mitch Marsh better than Watson as a bowler, or as a batsman?

Doesn't appear to be by any reliable measure available.

Watson is not going to get better!

Marsh is young & has huge potential. No guarantee he will make it but we need to find out rather than persisting with mediocrity.

 

[Scotland]

Is Mitch Marsh better than Watson as a bowler, or as a batsman?

Doesn't appear to be by any reliable measure available.

Marsh averages more with the bat at test level, and his average isn't inflated by scores from 5 years ago.

In his 8 innings at test level he's made 262, 56 more than Watson in his most recent 8.

When your 23 year old finding his way at test level is making more runs than your 33 year old veteran of 55 tests that's a worry.

Hasn't done a lot with the ball yet taking 1/164 in 7 innings, but Watson has 2/170 in his last 7 so is not exactly demanding a spot as a bowler either.

But yes, Watson has a better FC record with the bat.