What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Carbine Chaos]

Some support from an interesting source - KP on his twitter account.

I cannot believe I'm reading the paper & journalists are questioning whether Wato should be in the Aussie team! Ridiculous! He's a machine!

There are certain players that opposition fear & spend a lot of time discussing how to get out & believe me, he is one of them! #Wato

England will be v v happy if he doesn't feature next year...

 

[ManWithNoName]

Some support from an interesting source - KP on his twitter account.

KP is the master of master trolls.

 

[ROOTA#6]

Some support from an interesting source - KP on his twitter account.

Flintoff said pretty much the same thing on the big bash coverage last night

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

David Hussey is the same age as Chris Rogers. Just saying. He wasn't kept out of the side by the Waugh twins, Boon etc.

He was kept out of the side by Ponting, his brother, Clarke, Katich at times - and then the desire to have an all-rounder in there as well.

 

[Spook]

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.

Very good argument and I beleive your thoughts are exactly the same as the selectors. Actually M Waugh on Inside cricket the other day alluded to this as he said "there has to be someone to come in as well". He has only taken 2 english wickets at 114 in England so not really an all rounder. So he better do something in the West Indies on the way to the ashes.

 

[evdo1706]

I think he is a very useful cricketer for Australia if he bowls. Move him down the order to 6. He is not a number 3.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

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.

Marsh has been batting at 6, usually coming in at 4-300. Watson has been batting at 3, regularly coming in at 1 for sweet FA.

I'm all for giving youth an opportunity, if they earn it. But Mitch Marsh averages 28 at first class level, and under 25 in the shield. That is not top 6 material. I'd rather play Faulkner, he is far better with the ball, and while he has ZERO first class hundreds, his average is pretty similar to Mitch Marsh

David Hussey is the same age as Chris Rogers. Just saying. He wasn't kept out of the side by the Waugh twins, Boon etc.

He was kept out of the side by Ponting, his brother, Clarke, Katich at times - and then the desire to have an all-rounder in there as well.

David Hussey is an enigma. He was scoring all the runs in the world when the Test side was settled. Then every time there is a spot beckoning, he has a shithouse year. He had a first class average close to 60 3 years ago, but he hasn't averaged better than 40 in a completed shield season in about 5 years.

Very good argument and I beleive your thoughts are exactly the same as the selectors. Actually M Waugh on Inside cricket the other day alluded to this as he said "there has to be someone to come in as well". He has only taken 2 english wickets at 114 in England so not really an all rounder. So he better do something in the West Indies on the way to the ashes.

Watson's value with the ball is not always measured by wickets, nor should Mitch Marsh be measured in wickets. In the 2013 Ashes series, Watson was Australia's leading run scorer and bowled 85 overs, 38 of which were maidens.

He builds pressure on the opposition, which allows the strike bowlers to attack. If your 5th bowler is leaking runs, then it changes the way the opposition can play the strike bowlers and also how the strike bowlers can attack.

He bowled a spell at Nottingham of 15 overs, 11 maidens, no wickets for 11. But he was the bowler at the other end when 6 of 10 wickets fell. He also had Ian Bell plumb LBW for 9, but Pup didn't review. Bell then made a match winning century...

 

[Spook]

Watson's value with the ball is not always measured by wickets, nor should Mitch Marsh be measured in wickets. In the 2013 Ashes series, Watson was Australia's leading run scorer and bowled 85 overs, 38 of which were maidens.

He builds pressure on the opposition, which allows the strike bowlers to attack. If your 5th bowler is leaking runs, then it changes the way the opposition can play the strike bowlers and also how the strike bowlers can attack.

He bowled a spell at Nottingham of 15 overs, 11 maidens, no wickets for 11. But he was the bowler at the other end when 6 of 10 wickets fell. He also had Ian Bell plumb LBW for 9, but Pup didn't review. Bell then made a match winning century...

And we lost the series 4 - 0

You imply that Watson had a great series. He averaged 41 and took 2 wickets. Yes that is a great series for Watson but below average for most other test players.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

We lost the series 3-0.

If he was leading run scorer, took 2 wickets and bowled half his overs as maidens and its unacceptable - what do you do with the rest of the XI?

I don't imply he had a great series at all. My point with Watson has been the same all along, don't judge him against Ponting as a number 3, don't judge him against Kallis as an all-rounder. Hell, don't even judge him against anyone from another era.

the only relevant judgement is against his peers who he competes with for a spot. On those grounds, he remains very much in the frame for selection and is likely to continue to be selected in the medium term.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If he was leading run scorer, took 2 wickets and bowled half his overs as maidens and its unacceptable - what do you do with the rest of the XI?

He was the leading run-scorer but that tally was massively inflated by a century in the dead rubber.

In the first four Tests, when the series was still live, he averaged 27. He passed 50 twice in 10 innings.

So really, when people talk about Watson having a good series with the bat in England, they're talking about one innings once the series was already over. Up until that point, he had been pretty ordinary.

 

[dumb]

someone could whisper in wade's ear about being just a batsman and honing his right arm MF. be a very quick ticket back into the side for him.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Watsons score in the last series is massively influenced by belting Simon 'who the heck is this' Kerrigan

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Some support from an interesting source - KP on his twitter account.

Spoken by someone who wants the poms to win...

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Spoken by someone who wants the poms to win...

Does he?

 

[Scotland]

Marsh has been batting at 6, usually coming in at 4-300. Watson has been batting at 3, regularly coming in at 1 for sweet FA.

I'm all for giving youth an opportunity, if they earn it. But Mitch Marsh averages 28 at first class level, and under 25 in the shield. That is not top 6 material. I'd rather play Faulkner, he is far better with the ball, and while he has ZERO first class hundreds, his average is pretty similar to Mitch Marsh

Marsh's test innings + Melbourne:

4/206
5/92
5/100
4/101
3/208* (Watson came in at 1/50, made 14)
4/213 (Watson came in at 1/38, made 33)
4/208 (Watson came in at 1/47, made 25)
5/122 (Watson came in at 1/18, made 0)
DNP (Watson came in at 1/0, made 52)
DNP (Watson came in at 1/57, made 17)

When is Marsh coming in at 4/300? Warner and Rogers have hardly hung Watson out to dry, and the only time he has passed 50 is coming in at 1/0.

I'd be happy to have seen Faulkner given a go at #6 instead of Marsh, but Marsh is in the team (injury excluded) and Faulkner is not, so trying to think of reasons Marsh should not have been picked in the first place doesn't achieve a lot. Do you drop a 23 year old all rounder batting at 6 for averaging 37 from 4 tests? Seems harsh given you don't drop a 33 year old all rounder averaging less after 50+.

Watson's value with the ball is not always measured by wickets, nor should Mitch Marsh be measured in wickets. In the 2013 Ashes series, Watson was Australia's leading run scorer and bowled 85 overs, 38 of which were maidens.

Marsh has a test economy rate of 2.68. Watson sits at 2.75. Advantage Marsh?

Watson is in the team because he made a bunch of half centuries as an opener 5 years ago...

 

[Hamingja]

Watson is in the team because he made a bunch of half centuries as an opener 5 years ago...

Watson is still in the team because Clarke can't play a full series out and guys like Khawaja, Cowan, Doolan, Bailey, Henriques, M.Marsh, Burns etc have done sfa when given the chance.

 

[The_Reaper]

Marsh has been batting at 6, usually coming in at 4-300. Watson has been batting at 3, regularly coming in at 1 for sweet FA.

I'm all for giving youth an opportunity, if they earn it. But Mitch Marsh averages 28 at first class level, and under 25 in the shield. That is not top 6 material. I'd rather play Faulkner, he is far better with the ball, and while he has ZERO first class hundreds, his average is pretty similar to Mitch Marsh



David Hussey is an enigma. He was scoring all the runs in the world when the Test side was settled. Then every time there is a spot beckoning, he has a shithouse year. He had a first class average close to 60 3 years ago, but he hasn't averaged better than 40 in a completed shield season in about 5 years.


Watson's value with the ball is not always measured by wickets, nor should Mitch Marsh be measured in wickets. In the 2013 Ashes series, Watson was Australia's leading run scorer and bowled 85 overs, 38 of which were maidens.

He builds pressure on the opposition, which allows the strike bowlers to attack. If your 5th bowler is leaking runs, then it changes the way the opposition can play the strike bowlers and also how the strike bowlers can attack.

He bowled a spell at Nottingham of 15 overs, 11 maidens, no wickets for 11. But he was the bowler at the other end when 6 of 10 wickets fell. He also had Ian Bell plumb LBW for 9, but Pup didn't review. Bell then made a match winning century...

Mitch Marsh averaged just under 50 for a 12 month period before getting selected.

That's far more relevant than his record as a teenager.

Don't recall Mitch going in at great positions very often either

 

[The_Reaper]

Marsh's test innings + Melbourne:

4/206
5/92
5/100
4/101
3/208* (Watson came in at 1/50, made 14)
4/213 (Watson came in at 1/38, made 33)
4/208 (Watson came in at 1/47, made 25)
5/122 (Watson came in at 1/18, made 0)
DNP (Watson came in at 1/0, made 52)
DNP (Watson came in at 1/57, made 17)

When is Marsh coming in at 4/300? Warner and Rogers have hardly hung Watson out to dry, and the only time he has passed 50 is coming in at 1/0.

I'd be happy to have seen Faulkner given a go at #6 instead of Marsh, but Marsh is in the team (injury excluded) and Faulkner is not, so trying to think of reasons Marsh should not have been picked in the first place doesn't achieve a lot. Do you drop a 23 year old all rounder batting at 6 for averaging 37 from 4 tests? Seems harsh given you don't drop a 33 year old all rounder averaging less after 50+.



Marsh has a test economy rate of 2.68. Watson sits at 2.75. Advantage Marsh?

Watson is in the team because he made a bunch of half centuries as an opener 5 years ago...

Watto is in the team because Clarke's future is really questionable and Hughes is dead and we're not going to bring a completed inexperienced batting lineup to England.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

We lost the series 3-0.

If he was leading run scorer, took 2 wickets and bowled half his overs as maidens and its unacceptable - what do you do with the rest of the XI?

I don't imply he had a great series at all. My point with Watson has been the same all along, don't judge him against Ponting as a number 3, don't judge him against Kallis as an all-rounder. Hell, don't even judge him against anyone from another era.

the only relevant judgement is against his peers who he competes with for a spot. On those grounds, he remains very much in the frame for selection and is likely to continue to be selected in the medium term.

Those batting stats were fattened by 176 in the dead rubber at the oval where England played Kerrigan and Woakes, when the series was alive it was the same ol Watto, ordinary.

 

[eth-dog]

Drop him. He's 33, been mediocre all his career and is just taking up a space that could be better utilised.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Watto is in the team because Clarke's future is really questionable and Hughes is dead and we're not going to bring a completed inexperienced batting lineup to England.

He's in the team because he can bowl and Marsh is injured, no other reason. We need a 5th bowling, 4th fast bowling option. Clarke being injured is irrelevant in this case. If Marsh was fit I'm guessing Watto may have got the chop as Marsh could take the extra bowling duties and is batting better.

Watto's 20s and 30s are quite glorious at times. Pity it stops there. His time in the side is guided my Marsh's injuries.

 

[Beutbrute]

someone could whisper in wade's ear about being just a batsman and honing his right arm MF. be a very quick ticket back into the side for him.

Tim Zoehrer thinks this might just work

 

[Scotland]

Wade averages 34.6 from his 12 tests with 2 100s and 3 50s. Not bad for a guy who batted 6/7/8. Maybe we can put him at #3?

 

[footyfan1978]

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.

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.

Pretty much agree with all that.

You also did not mention guys like Lehmann and Blewett from mid 1990's to new century were also in same era as Langer , Martyn, Law, Hayden etc. etc. We probably had a time when about 10 to 12 batsman easy good enough to play Test cricket but not everyone can fit into 6. Now we probably got 3 or 4 at best and you still need to fill 6. If I remember correctly Law made 50 or so not out in only Test innings.
Hodge also got a go at some stage when someone was injured. I think he scored a double ton. I was not a fan though. He was relatively slow scoring and I don't think we won that Test.
As for Matthew Elliott. His Test career was brief but when he was in form, boy he was good to watch. Especially his pull shots off the likes of Allan Donald. Pity Mark Waugh ran into him and stuffed his knee up. Never really made it back after that but still played plenty of shield cricket. We are in a cycle of drought right now for quality batsmen. You can only pick from what is there. There is not much. Watson is no star with bat but he is still better than likes of Doolan as an example. I think there was only one player in Australia that averages over 50 at first class level in career and unfortunately that poor guy is no longer with us. Shaun Marsh may not have set the world on fire either but he is probably the next best after Clarke, Smith and Warner. Similarly Rogers is no stylish batsman but he is doing well enough to hold his spot for now. People should also look up Steve Waugh batting scores in first 10 to 20 Tests. Not exactly brilliant but he remained in team when in an era before all the guys like Ponting, Langer, Slater etc came along. Actually from memory Steve Waugh got dropped for the Test Mark Waugh may have made his debut.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Once Mitch Marsh is fit again I think the selectors need to make the call on Watson. He can't continue batting at 3 and not scoring more runs. I'd prefer Moises Henriques over Shane Watson.