What do you do with Shane Watson?

[QAFL_Fan]

I suspect if Mitch didn't break down, Watson probably would have been dropped.

Having said that, they're not going to bat Mitch Marsh at 3. So if they are in direct competition for a spot, they should both be batting 6.

I'm confident that Mitch Marsh has a technique that will stand up to Test cricket at #6, and he also has the ability to play two tempp innings, which is great for a number 6. He has the defence to drop anchor (plays with a straigher bat than his brother) and we know he can swing like a drunken sailor if the situation demands it.

I think his bowling needs serious work, and like Watson - he already has serious back and hamstring problems.

having said all that, I'm very comfortable that Watson is simply a better bowler than M.Marsh, a better batsman than Marsh, and a better fieldsman than Marsh - so if they are competing for an all-rounders role who bats at 6, I would still pick Watson.

If dropping Watson and having Marsh at 6, finally forces the selectors and/or captain to find an appropriate #3 - then great. Marsh would inevitably get injured anyway, and if Watson's form is up to it (and he isn't also injured!), he would then get a recall at #6 where he ultimately belongs.

I don't like the attitude these days where 'the captain picks the batting order'. The selectors should strongly suggest a batting order at the very very least.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

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.

Yes, but if we replaced Watson with Faulkner or Henriques or M.Marsh - do you reckon they would bat at 3? If they did, how do you reckon they would go?

 

[Bucking Beads]

Yes, but if we replaced Watson with Faulkner or Henriques or M.Marsh - do you reckon they would bat at 3? If they did, how do you reckon they would go?

I wouldn't bat any of them at 3. WATSON should jot be at 3 either.

 

[Slax]

Shit Watson is on the mend and likely to play, someone please get some dodgy food back into him quick smart so he misses.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

I wouldn't bat any of them at 3. WATSON should jot be at 3 either.

Agree, he shouldn't. But he shouldn't be turfed out, he should be at 6.

Hopefully Smith or Burns move to 3 in the next 12 months.

 

[sherb]

Finally, the truth comes out:
http://thepublicapology.net/2015/01...rogram-that-almost-ruined-australian-cricket/

 

[damochandler]

they are going to keep picking him no matter what. there are 3 things the selectors are desperate to come good. an all rounder and that has compromised everything in the last 10 years since the 05 ashes. watson because of all that talent and starc because johnson has only got a year or 2 left

 

[The_Reaper]

they are going to keep picking him no matter what. there are 3 things the selectors are desperate to come good. an all rounder and that has compromised everything in the last 10 years since the 05 ashes. watson because of all that talent and starc because johnson has only got a year or 2 left

Starc has absolutely nothing to do with a desire for an allrounder

 

[QAFL_Fan]

And if Watson didn't bowl, he would still be very much in the frame to play in the side as a specialist batsman given his record at both test and first class level.

His bowling just puts him at the very front of the queue of all the batsmen. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face they are certain that Cowan, Ferguson, Marsh, Burns, Quiney, Khawaja etc etc would do a better job than Watson with the bat, even if Watson wasn't bowling.

Given he has a better batting record than ALL of them, in all forms of cricket at all levels.

 

[The_Reaper]

And if Watson didn't bowl, he would still be very much in the frame to play in the side as a specialist batsman given his record at both test and first class level.

His bowling just puts him at the very front of the queue of all the batsmen. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face they are certain that Cowan, Ferguson, Marsh, Burns, Quiney, Khawaja etc etc would do a better job than Watson with the bat, even if Watson wasn't bowling.

Given he has a better batting record than ALL of them, in all forms of cricket at all levels.

Most of the record is from many seasons ago though.

And Khawaja actually has a great Sheffield Shield record- think only Smith and Warner have a better record

 

[eth-dog]

And if Watson didn't bowl, he would still be very much in the frame to play in the side as a specialist batsman given his record at both test and first class level.

His bowling just puts him at the very front of the queue of all the batsmen. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face they are certain that Cowan, Ferguson, Marsh, Burns, Quiney, Khawaja etc etc would do a better job than Watson with the bat, even if Watson wasn't bowling.

Given he has a better batting record than ALL of them, in all forms of cricket at all levels.

Given that he's averaged 30 at test level from 2011-2014, surely they could equal if not better hat? White has a superior FC average, Burns is a selection for the future, Shaun Marsh scored 120 more runs in less tests than Watson last year.

 

[The_Reaper]

Given that he's averaged 30 at test level from 2011-2014, surely they could equal if not better hat? White has a superior FC average, Burns is a selection for the future, Shaun Marsh scored 120 more runs in less tests than Watson last year.

The difference between test cricket and lower cricket.

Though I agree, career averages are a very misleading measure of the player you are actually selecting

 

[eth-dog]

The difference between test cricket and lower cricket.

Though I agree, career averages are a very misleading measure of the player you are actually selecting

White scored how many runs in FC Cricket in 2013 and 2014? There's a definite argument that he should be in the test side ahead of Watson.

 

[The_Reaper]

White scored how many runs in FC Cricket in 2013 and 2014? There's a definite argument that he should be in the test side ahead of Watson.

There is an argument. Not sure how compelling it is.

 

[PrideOf]

Finally, the truth comes out:
http://thepublicapology.net/2015/01...rogram-that-almost-ruined-australian-cricket/

That's very good. Kudos to the author.

 

[damochandler]

Starc has absolutely nothing to do with a desire for an allrounder

just pointing out what the selectors are desperately hoping comes good and those 3 are top of the tree

 

[sherb]

That's very good. Kudos to the author.

I laughed.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

White scored how many runs in FC Cricket in 2013 and 2014? There's a definite argument that he should be in the test side ahead of Watson.

there's certainly an argument. Though if he was, I'm fairly sure India would still be batting, and if White bowled 20 overs on this deck he would have gone for over 100.

Take into account when comparing first class averages for players with little or no test record, that a regular test player has test numbers bringing their career first class record down.

Apples with Apples - Watson averages 49.8 in first class cricket as a batsman when excluding his test record.

The counter argument to that is perfectly valid though, Watson has barely played any first class cricket at all outside test cricket for about 4 years now - so that excellent first class batting record he established over time, has not been maintained in recent years.

I would also argue that while Watson remains an automatic selection in the ODI side, based on his record - his ODI numbers have been dwindling for 2 years now as well.

The common element in this is that he no longer opens in either format of cricket. I'm of the view that he should never have been moved from opening in ODI's and if they wanted to get Finch & Warner in, one of them should have had to bat 3. In test cricket, if you move Watson from opening - it should only be to #6.

Again, I also understand the reasoning for Watson being at #3 in Test cricket. They are unwilling to torch another youngster there, and Clarke is unwilling to bat there, as was Hussey before he retired. I get the distinct impression that Smith would love to bat at 3 though, so this problem could be solved very soon.

 

[The_Reaper]

there's certainly an argument. Though if he was, I'm fairly sure India would still be batting, and if White bowled 20 overs on this deck he would have gone for over 100.

Take into account when comparing first class averages for players with little or no test record, that a regular test player has test numbers bringing their career first class record down.

Apples with Apples - Watson averages 49.8 in first class cricket as a batsman when excluding his test record.

The counter argument to that is perfectly valid though, Watson has barely played any first class cricket at all outside test cricket for about 4 years now - so that excellent first class batting record he established over time, has not been maintained in recent years.

I would also argue that while Watson remains an automatic selection in the ODI side, based on his record - his ODI numbers have been dwindling for 2 years now as well.

The common element in this is that he no longer opens in either format of cricket. I'm of the view that he should never have been moved from opening in ODI's and if they wanted to get Finch & Warner in, one of them should have had to bat 3. In test cricket, if you move Watson from opening - it should only be to #6.

Again, I also understand the reasoning for Watson being at #3 in Test cricket. They are unwilling to torch another youngster there, and Clarke is unwilling to bat there, as was Hussey before he retired. I get the distinct impression that Smith would love to bat at 3 though, so this problem could be solved very soon.

Clarke is unable to bat at 3 because of his straight front leg.

Not sure Smith belongs at 3 either- at least not in England

 

[QAFL_Fan]

I would have said the same thing about Smith a year ago, but his game has adapted.

2 years ago I thought he should be in every test side in the sub-continent, but not play in Aus/Eng/SA. He's proven me very very wrong.

He has the game to bat 3, no question. (Certainly moreso than Watson or Clarke)

 

[The_Reaper]

I would have said the same thing about Smith a year ago, but his game has adapted.

2 years ago I thought he should be in every test side in the sub-continent, but not play in Aus/Eng/SA. He's proven me very very wrong.

He has the game to bat 3, no question. (Certainly moreso than Watson or Clarke)

moreso than Watson or Clarke is hardly a glowing reference.

Keep him at 4.

Put SOS in at 3 if we want to move Watto on.

Handscomb the long term candidate

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Watto is still the best batting all-rounder in the country. So he should move to 6, or stay at 3 until someone else puts their hand up.

SMarsh will go straight out for Clarke when fit.

 

[The_Reaper]

Watto is still the best batting all-rounder in the country. So he should move to 6, or stay at 3 until someone else puts their hand up.

SMarsh will go straight out for Clarke when fit.

I think Burns is more likely to be dropped

 

[Gough]

Geld him? It works for some horses.

 

[eth-dog]

Watto is still the best batting all-rounder in the country. So he should move to 6, or stay at 3 until someone else puts their hand up.

SMarsh will go straight out for Clarke when fit.

As you can tell by Watson's batting average of 30 and bowling average of 38 from 2011-2014. Clearly a great batting all rounder.