What do you do with Shane Watson?

[The_Reaper]

Clarke scored 3 double hundreds and a triple hundred. Beyond that his record, particularly in the last 5 years, is a series of failures interspersed with the odd century, about once every 10 outings.

Watson has been the far more consistent contributor with the bat, a contributor with the ball, and has had the balls to bat at 3.

In the last 10 innings, Clarke has scored more than 40 twice. Same as Watson. The previous 10 innings it was Clarke twice, versus Watson 4 times. The previous to that it was Clarke twice, versus Watson 3 times.

My belief is that they're both past it.

I certainly think it would be best for Australia if Clarke retired after this Ashes.

If all goes well he'll want to retire having just won the world cup and won our first series in England in 14 years.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Because Watson is basically incapable of grinding out innings and has a fundamentally flawed batting technique. If Warner didn't establish himself as a test cricketer then Watson would still be opening.

Clarke is going through a long form dip, most people acknowledge it and accept that retirement is coming in short order. It isn't inconceivable to see Haddin, Rogers and Clarke retire at the end of the series and Watson reestablish himself at 4th drop. There's no way that he'll open again at test level, and to be honest, he isn't good enough to bat in test cricket, let alone bowl. His saving grace was his fielding, which went to absolute s**t in the last 18 months. Should he be in the test team? No.

Should Clarke be in the team? Yes. He's a good, aggressive captain and an excellent fielder. His batting isn't going real good right now and is tailing off in the same way that Ponting's did before he retired. There's still runs there but certainly not in the volume that there was 2 to 3 years ago. Thankfully Smith has stepped up to the plate. Same happened with Waugh and Ponting and players before that. Damien Martyn's form fell off the edge of a cliff before he was replaced.

Can people go and look at Martyn's record before they make claims like this?

 

[ManWithNoName]

Can people go and look at Martyn's record before they make claims like this?

Averaged 19 in 2005 Ashes, 56 v South Africa (inflated by 2 not outs in 6 innings, only two scores >50), 5.5 v Bangladesh, 15 in 2006/07 Ashes before retirement.

Passed 50 three times in his last 21 innings.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Averaged 19 in 2005 Ashes, 56 v South Africa (inflated by 2 not outs in 6 innings, only two scores >50), 5.5 v Bangladesh, 15 in 2006/07 Ashes before retirement.

Passed 50 three times in his last 21 innings.

And then retired himself. That was the first poor run of scores he'd had in about three years and included a fantastic ton in SA to win a match on the last day which inflated his average too.

I wouldn't call that falling off a cliff. Falling off a cliff is what Gilchrist did.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Clarke scored 3 double hundreds and a triple hundred. Beyond that his record, particularly in the last 5 years, is a series of failures interspersed with the odd century, about once every 10 outings.

Watson has been the far more consistent contributor with the bat, a contributor with the ball, and has had the balls to bat at 3.

In the last 10 innings, Clarke has scored more than 40 twice. Same as Watson. The previous 10 innings it was Clarke twice, versus Watson 4 times. The previous to that it was Clarke twice, versus Watson 3 times.

Watson's problem has always been that he has played to his average even when doing relatively well. If you don't bulk up your scores by going all the way to a ton 1) you are not going to win matches for the team 2) you aren't going to end up with a particularly good average.

An English blog writer called the Old Batsman - excellent prose writer - wrote a blog post devoted to Watson's habit and how rare it is.

I noticed he did it in the first Ashes match. He averages 26 at 6 and what did he average for the match. 24.5. Just a small thing to notice but it's his pattern.

 

[The_Reaper]

Averaged 19 in 2005 Ashes, 56 v South Africa (inflated by 2 not outs in 6 innings, only two scores >50), 5.5 v Bangladesh, 15 in 2006/07 Ashes before retirement.

Passed 50 three times in his last 21 innings.

Still scored a match winning century in South Africa.

So basically he got dropped after the Ashes (one bad series after scoring near 1400 runs the year before).

Made it back to tour South Africa and averaged 56 with a match winning century in the second innings.

And then retired 4 tests later.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Can people go and look at Martyn's record before they make claims like this?

He was putrid for 2 years before retirement. I can attest for many Victorian's, that we were pissed off that his recall killed off Brad Hodge's test career.

Averaged 19 in 2005 Ashes, 56 v South Africa (inflated by 2 not outs in 6 innings, only two scores >50), 5.5 v Bangladesh, 15 in 2006/07 Ashes before retirement.

Passed 50 three times in his last 21 innings.

This.

 

[The_Reaper]

He was putrid for 2 years before retirement. I can attest for many Victorian's, that we were pissed off that his recall killed off Brad Hodge's test career.


This.

Putrid for two years?

1400 runs in a year is putrid?

 

[Doodlesweaver]

He was putrid for 2 years before retirement. I can attest for many Victorian's, that we were pissed off that his recall killed off Brad Hodge's test career.


This.

Ok so it's not about Martyn as such but more selection issues related to parrochialism. I'm glad you made that clear.

Everyone would like the selectors to not treat underperforming senior players like gods, but there is little that has changed in that regard.

 

[Kram]

lol, 2 things are certain in life, the sun rising in the morning and Victorians whinging like bitches about Hodge being replaced by a far better cricketer.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And then retired himself. That was the first poor run of scores he'd had in about three years and included a fantastic ton in SA to win a match on the last day which inflated his average too.

I wouldn't call that falling off a cliff. Falling off a cliff is what Gilchrist did.

He did get dropped. Although I thought he was stiff because he was victim to a series of poor LBW rulings in that series against England.

 

[Kram]

He did get dropped. Although I thought he was stiff because he was victim to a series of poor LBW rulings in that series against England.

Good old umpire Morgan Freeman..

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Good old umpire Morgan Freeman..

True. It's one of those things. You can't be too sympathetic because he was beaten each time (not unlike Watson), but he did snick them all so they just weren't out.

 

[Kram]

From memory one was edged about a foot away back into his pads.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

lol, 2 things are certain in life, the sun rising in the morning and Victorians whinging like bitches about Hodge being replaced by a far better cricketer.

Kram old boy you disappoint me

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Good old umpire Morgan Freeman..

No wonder he retired from umpiring, can you imagine him in the DRS era

 

[The Swans Blog]

lol, 2 things are certain in life, the sun rising in the morning and Victorians whinging like bitches about Hodge being replaced by a far better cricketer.

Heh good old East vs West.

From memory one was edged about a foot away back into his pads.

Yeah that happened I think I remember it. Tough luck in that series, but at the same time his form really did fall off the edge of the cliff, and by the end his retirement saved him from being permanently dropped. His 2004 season was really good but fell away against England. South Africa was OK and his average in the last 6 tests was over 30, but the last 3 was 12.

By the end, there was a monumental difference between his 2004 and 2006 form, certainly not enough to reaffirm his selection at the cost of a player who was scoring, only to retire half-dozen tests later.

 

[The_Reaper]

Well I can't blame Victorians for being so hung up about Hodge, he is your only test centurion this millennium after all.

Don't worry, Nevill will break that duck soon

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Well I can't blame Victorians for being so hung up about Hodge, he is your only test centurion this millennium after all.

Don't worry, Nevill will break that duck soon

That tired old chestnut again, irrelevant stat is irrelevant.

 

[The_Reaper]

That tired old chestnut again, irrelevant stat is irrelevant.

It's not actually irrelevant.

The fact that for some reason or another the second biggest state in Australia is no longer producing test batsmen is one of the reasons why Australian batting is declining.

 

[The_Reaper]

In our last four test matches, Chris Rogers is the only player to have played who doesn't currently play for NSW or WA.

That's a sign of a pretty weak player base.

Australian cricket should not be as dependent on NSW as it currently is

 

[Art Vandelay_]

It's not actually irrelevant.

The fact that for some reason or another the second biggest state in Australia is no longer producing test batsmen is one of the reasons why Australian batting is declining.

Yes, but you don't use it constructively to make a point. Rather to poke fun at a superior cricketing state. #shotsfired

 

[The_Reaper]

Yes, but you don't use it constructively to make a point. Rather to poke fun at a superior cricketing state. #shotsfired

I'm not poking fun at NSW though?

It, unlike the idea that Martyn was s**t for years, is also actually true.

 

[The Swans Blog]

In our last four test matches, Chris Rogers is the only player to have played who doesn't currently play for NSW or WA.

That's a sign of a pretty weak player base.

Australian cricket should not be as dependent on NSW as it currently is

NSW has always been the primary international cricketing state. Victoria has produced excellent cricketers over the years that haven't been given ample opportunity, opportunity full stop, or have been overlooked for vastly lesser quality players from favoured states.

Why not throw NT in to the argument considering it's significant land mass, SA, Tas and ACT.

No point doing a state vs state argument, but test players have predominately originated from either NSW or WA whether or not their selections have been warranted.

I'm not poking fun at NSW though?

It, unlike the idea that Martyn was s**t for years, is also actually true.

There have been decent and reasonable prospects from Victoria that have had opportunity and haven't had opportunities, just like every other state. There's the usual state bias in selection when most players originate from 2 or 3 different states, but then again it comes down to form and ability of players. Victoria haven't produced enough to usurp the incumbent, and when they've had opportunity they've fluffed it.

 

[Phone]

In our last four test matches, Chris Rogers is the only player to have played who doesn't currently play for NSW or WA.

That's a sign of a pretty weak player base.

Australian cricket should not be as dependent on NSW as it currently is

Rogers was born in NSW and played for WA though so he barely counts anyway