What do you do with Shane Watson?

[jackster83]

Watson brings a lot to the team. No one else has perfected the disconsolate expression after every dismissal or when an appeal gets turned down.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

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

Probably more compelling than the case to keep Watson. Although that's not saying much is it

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I think Burns is more likely to be dropped

I'd like to find a way to keep Burns, so after the ashes, assuming Rogers retires. Top 6

Warner
Burns
Smith
Clarke
Marsh
Marsh

 

[The_Reaper]

I'd like to find a way to keep Burns, so after the ashes, assuming Rogers retires. Top 6

Warner
Burns
Smith
Clarke
Marsh
Marsh

Chuck Shaun Marsh to 3, Smith and Clarke at 4 and 5 in any order.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Chuck Shaun Marsh to 3, Smith and Clarke at 4 and 5 in any order.

I was going to post the order as

Smith/clarke/marsh because I couldn't figure out what the best option was. Burns shows promise I'd like to give him a run at it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

Really?

Look at his numbers since the start of 2011.

Not sure too many specialist bats would be hanging on with that kind of output.

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.

Well, certainty doesn't come into it. If that was the logic, you'd never drop any player. Because you can never be certain of how the replacement will perform.

But surely there's a reasonable chance that the possible replacements could improve on Watson's recent output with the bat. Or do you think there are no guys outside the side who could average more than 31? The Marsh brothers and Burns are already doing that so hopefully that answers your challenge above.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

^^

On that what were the averages of players previously dropped like Hughes, Khawaja, Cowan?

 

[Underdog]

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.

If he could bat at 6 he could get more leeway with a record like that. It's just not good enough for someone coming in at first drop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sweet Jesus]

^^

On that what were the averages of players previously dropped like Hughes, Khawaja, Cowan?

Hughes averaged 32 at Test level. Cowan averaged 31 and Khawaja averaged 25.

 

[eth-dog]

If he could bat at 6 he could get more leeway with a record like that. It's just not good enough for someone coming in at first drop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You shouldn't be averaging less than 35 in the top 6 after 10 tests/over a 10 test period.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Hughes averaged 32 at Test level. Cowan averaged 31 and Khawaja averaged 25.

So around Watson in recent years yet they were dropped. Interesting.

 

[ROOTA#6]

So around Watson in recent years yet they were dropped. Interesting.

But but but none of those bloke bowl

 

[eth-dog]

But but but none of those bloke are golden children of the selectors

Fixed.

 

[ROOTA#6]

Fixed.

Thank you!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Fixed.

He's got pics of Sutherland. He must have.

Coaches/Captains/Selectors have all come and gone and he's still here. The only one who been at CA longer is Sutherland.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So around Watson in recent years yet they were dropped. Interesting.

Marcus North was axed despite averaging 35.

 

[The_Reaper]

Cowan and Khawaja deserved to be dropped.

Hughes is more iffy but they did want the bowling option.

Watson has benefited from a very weak Australian team, being able to bowl and strong ODI performances.

And now he (and Haddin) are benefiting for the selectors correctly being wary of bringing too inexperienced a team to the Ashes.

If Clarke and Mitch Marsh had remained fit I suspect he would have been dropped.

Shaun Marsh could also push him out given he could plausibly bat at 3

 

[The_Reaper]

Marcus North was axed despite averaging 35.

The selectors needed to be seen to do something after that Ashes defeat (our low point). North and Katich were the easy choices.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The selectors needed to be seen to do something after that Ashes defeat (our low point). North and Katich were the easy choices.

Katich was hard done by.

 

[Scotland]

North and Katich were both dropped two tests into the Ashes in 2010/11.

 

[SEN_Fan]

Watson is very lucky there is currently no shield cricket being played, if someone was scoring tons of runs you would imagine you wouldn't be in the team in the test.

 

[footyfan1978]

2 wickets this match in first innings and 72. Just enough to keep him in the side.
lol
Just the type of player he is.
I wish they would simply bat him at number 6 and would be easier to stomach.
He has always reminded me of South African allrounder MacMillan from 1990's.
He batted 6 or 7 from memory and like most South Africans got found out against Warne a number of times.
Lets be honest. It is rare an allrounder actually can reach the heights people hope and expect of such a specialist player.
I think only Ian Botham is only allrounder in my time I feel got in his side based on he was good enough to be picked as a bowler or in side as a bat. He batted number 6 for England and also was clearly good enough to be picked in side as their fourth bowler.

The thing that clouds the view of Watson is he is seen to be in the side as a specialist bat and bats in the top order most of his career.
He has had injuries at times to stop him bowling and in those times he tried to make himself into a specialist bat. The selectors given him a chance to do that when we were especially weak but he has only teased of being good enough to be that. Made a couple of centuries but never really shown he can average upward of 40 for any length of time which you want from all your specialist bats if you can get it.

Now he seems to be able to bowl again they still persist playing him top order and if he fails he does enough just with ball to contribute to team in a way that keeps him from being disregarded altogether.

We've rarely tried allrounders because a true class one is hard to find. I think Adam Gilchrist is the only one I seen in my time but he not seen as one because he was keeper.
Steve Waugh failed at it. He made it as a specialist bat in 1989 and that is what he was seen for most of his career after that.
Mitch Marsh is the most recent new experiment. Simon O'Donnell failed at it.
Keith Miller might be the only one we had that clearly a success in our history.

Kapil Dev, Imran Khan and even Richard Hadlee were talked as allrounders but to be honest they all got in side on their bowling and doubt they would have stayed in side as a specialist top 6 batsmen. In recent decades because more Test nations play Test cricket some guys can score big runs against minnow Test nations and have their stats make them look like maybe a true allrounder. I class Wasim Akram as a classy bowler that on his day could bat a bit in explosive manner. Our present Mitchell Johnson is the same. Geez, Jason Gillespie got a double hundred against some minnow Test nation in his last Test.

The next Garfield Sobers, Keith Miller or Ian Botham is hard to find. Kallis probably the closest since. I probably forgot one or two others but generally the true class allrounders that could get in side alone as a batter or bowler in a strong team for their nation are rare.
I myself doubt Kallis bowling ever would make a Test career for long if he was not a great bat. He probably got a lot of wickets against crap nations much like Murali in recent decades.

Watson like most allrounders is nearly good enough to get in side with bat but probably would not remain on it alone if he was not such a handy 5th bowler to the side. The thing is, despite him being a frustrating player to watch at times, he does enough to contribute to the team often enough to be valued enough to not be an automatic dropped. Those two wickets were very handy in first innings.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Watson is very lucky there is currently no shield cricket being played, if someone was scoring tons of runs you would imagine you wouldn't be in the team in the test.

Nah, they want the all-rounder.

The litmus Test will be when Clarke and Mitch Marsh are both fit.

I think Burns and Shaun Marsh have perhaps done enough to suggest that Watson is no longer among the five best batsmen. The question is whether he is preferred to Mitch Marsh as the all-rounder.

2 wickets this match in first innings and 72. Just enough to keep him in the side.

Surely it has to come down to Watson v Mitch Marsh at No.6.

Lets be honest. It is rare an allrounder actually can reach the heights people hope and expect of such a specialist player.

I think only Ian Botham is only allrounder in my time I feel got in his side based on he was good enough to be picked as a bowler or in side as a bat. He batted number 6 for England and also was clearly good enough to be picked in side as their fourth bowler.

Botham averaged 33 with the bat. Probably not quite good enough overall to cut it as a specialist batsman. There was only one calendar year when Botham averaged 40-plus with the bat. That was in 1982 but he didn't have much success with the ball that year.

Kallis took 292 Test wickets at 32. Again, that's probably not good enough for a specialist but at one point in 2003 he had taken 150 wickets at 28 while having also made 4670 runs at 49. That's hard to beat.

Imran Khan averaged 37 with the bat and 22 with the ball. That's excellent. Basically the same as Keith Miller but with more runs and more wickets. An automatic selection on his bowling alone and then a pretty serious batsman with 30 FC centuries. At Test level, that batting average went up to 50-plus on the occasions he batted in the top six. There was a period between 1987-1990, during which he had a batting average in the 50s and a bowling average in the 20s.

At one point, very briefly, Flintoff was the kind of player you're describing. In 2005, he was good enough to bat No.6 for England and was one of the best few fast bowlers in the world. And even across a longer stretch of 2003-07, he averaged 40 with the bat and 28-29 with the ball. His record overall, though, is nothing special, because he was so ordinary so for so long at the start of his career.

I think the upshot is that an all-rounder doesn't need to be good enough with bat and ball. That may be the case for some players for certain periods of their career but it's pretty hard to sustain. Botham, for example, had that great Ashes series in 1982, where he took 34 wickets at 20 and scored 399 runs at 37. In a series they won 3-1, he was man of the match in all three of their wins, scoring two awesome second-innings centuries in Leeds and Manchester, and taking 5-11 in Australia's second innings in Birmingham, preventing them chasing down a modest target. But over the course of his career, I don't think you could say his batting was up to the level expected of a specialist batsman. Admittedly, England had some pretty awful specialist batsmen around that time.

Long term, they need to be good enough with bat or ball, or close enough to it that they're not a liability, and useful with the other. Just before he dropped his bundle, Symonds was showing signs that, on those terms, he might have been good enough. Averaging 40-something with the bat and mid-30s with the ball would probably have earned him a pass.

As for Watson, his bowling remains useful but, on recent evidence, his batting is no longer up to scratch, even for an all-rounder. His bowling, while still useful, is not good enough to carry him if he's averaging 31 with the bat.

If Watson averaged high-30s with the bat and low-30s with the ball, I think that would be good enough to justify picking him at No.6. As it stands, he's being picked at No.3 and that's not working. And, frankly, even at No.6, he has a real challenge on his hands from Mitch Marsh.

 

[footyfan1978]

Surely it has to come down to Watson v Mitch Marsh at No.6.

We shall find out by end of Ashes tour I suspect.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Lol at MJ and Harris being ranked higher than Watto. Also not sure how Vettori is on the list.