What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Belnakor]

Pretty sure vettori used to be no.1 so his points just decaying.

Now Steve smith has got his batting going maybe he should work on his bowling too?

 

[The_Reaper]

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

Katich wasn't dropped- he suffered a pretty major injury to his leg from memory.

 

[footyfan1978]

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.

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. That didn't last, though.

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 places 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.

Well that is what I'm essentially getting at. No 6 or no 7 is the spot for an allrounder in batting line-up.
The traditional line-up for a Test team is to have 4 specialist bowlers, 6 specialist bats and a specialist keeper.
I think the alternative of 5 specialist bats and an allrounder the bats at 6 or 7 and averages in the 30's is acceptable in some circumstances. Depends on balance of team. For England I think Botham at 6 with bat clearly was very helpful many times , especially when he was a quality swing bowler and they had 4 other quality bowlers. He actually won them the 1981 Ashes series with those amazing centuries.
The risk is you have only 5 pure specialist bats but you have a bowling line-up you got to back to get 20 wickets if you consider it 5 bowlers which is essentially what the Poms had then. They never got to number 1 but was probably the best they could do at time with the limited talent they had.

The reality is that most Test nations will never have the quality of allrounder of Garfield Sobers or Keith Miller.
Guys like Flintoff, Botham and Kallis are the worthy next level down types. Flintoff was a bowler who batted quite well. Kallis a top class bat that handy 5th bowler for side. Botham a genuine bowler able to bat at number 6 without really being a specialist bat so you got 5 bowlers and a dangerous allrounder batting at number 6. Watson is not a top class bat but good enough 5th bowler and useful with bat at times to keep getting picked in an era we have been short on batting talent. In the decade before would not have got a look in.

I think two of most dominant teams in Test history had keeping allrounders.
Adam Gilchrist batting was so good at times he even had an average above 50.
Australia essentially had a number of years of 7 genuine specialist bats. It was a big reason we had such an edge. We had quality batting line-up but scary for opposition we had Gilly coming in number 7 and could take the game away in a session or two. For West Indies in early to mid 80's they found keeper Jeff Dujon and he was a damn good bat for a number 7. Not quite specialist bat but very handy. They also dominated the 80's. Never seen them lose to us until 1995.

It just seems if you can find that true allrounder it can be the strongest Test team in world. As a result all nations will try it out from time to time but more often than not what you will find is most players will fall short. Hence the Watson types that excite selectors and willing to persist for so long and reluctant to give up on so easily.
Most probably do not remember the first 3 to 5 years of Steve Waugh Test career the selectors were picking him as an allrounder, hoping to find a Botham type. Never worked but they still kept picking him. However in 1989 he had a great series with the bat and a few years later the fact he was not a true allrounder failing did not matter because now he had arrived as a specialist bat. I think that is what selectors in last 3 years hoped might happen with Watson. It has not happened. I think he is simply handy player and not an out and out disaster but also not a success. He contributes but not a high quality Test player you would find room for in a strong era. In the era we just had, he's not had much to keep him out. The will move onto Mitch Marsh next year I suspect. The only way Watson will remain in Test side next Aussie summer is if he moves to no 6 and averages around 40 with bat to get a pass mark and continues to be handy 5th bowler.

I think he is more like Simon O'Donnell was. A specialist one day allrounder but for Test cricket not what you really aim for.

 

[Hudu Gurusingha]

Katich wasn't dropped- he suffered a pretty major injury to his leg from memory.

He got dropped from the list of contracted players in 2011 and was rightly darker than khamal about it.

CA admitted they made a mistake. A what a f*** up it was too

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think the alternative of 5 specialist bats and an allrounder the bats at 6 or 7 and averages in the 30's is acceptable in some circumstances. Depends on balance of team.

Maybe. It just highlights the ridiculousness of Watson batting at No.3, when he's basically hanging on because of his bowling.

If he goes to No.6 and is better performed than Mitch Marsh, then he's worth his spot. But Marsh is the future and Watson is not. How long before the young guy replaces the old guy?

For England I think Botham at 6 with bat clearly was very helpful many times , especially when he was a quality swing bowler and they had 4 other quality bowlers. He actually won them the 1981 Ashes series with those amazing centuries.

The risk is you have only 5 pure specialist bats but you have a bowling line-up you got to back to get 20 wickets if you consider it 5 bowlers which is essentially what the Poms had then.

Interestingly, Botham didn't actually do very well at No.6.

In 1981, he batted at No.7, above the keeper but essentially playing as one of the four bowlers. They had six 'specialist batsmen' ahead of him, although some of them weren't very good.

The reality is that most Test nations will never have the quality of allrounder of Garfield Sobers or Keith Miller.

Statistically, Sobers is very similar to Kallis. Miller is very similar to Khan.

Flintoff was a bowler who batted quite well.

Well, there was a period when he was probably their best bowler and also worth his spot as a hard-hitting No.6. Can't really complain about that.

Kallis a top class bat that handy 5th bowler for side. Botham a genuine bowler able to bat at number 6 without really being a specialist bat so you got 5 bowlers and a dangerous allrounder batting at number 6.

Again, that's not quite accurate. Not to be pedantic.

Watson is not a top class bat but good enough 5th bowler and useful with bat at times to keep getting picked in an era we have been short on batting talent.

That depends on Mitch Marsh. If he shows he can average 35-plus at Test level, then it's curtains for Watson.

For West Indies in early to mid 80's they found keeper Jeff Dujon and he was a damn good bat for a number 7. Not quite specialist bat but very handy.

Dujon scored slightly more Test runs than Brad Haddin at a worse average.

It just seems if you can find that true allrounder it can be the strongest Test team in world.

I'm not sure what constitutes a 'true all-rounder'.

I'd say if a player is basically good enough with bat or ball and contributes regularly with the other, then they are a very valuable player. If Watson was averaging high-30s with the bat and low-30s with the ball, he'd be one of the first guys picked. But both those numbers have drifted in the wrong direction, particularly the batting.

 

[footyfan1978]

Maybe. It just highlights the ridiculousness of Watson batting at No.3, when he's basically hanging on because of his bowling.

If he goes to No.6 and is better performed than Mitch Marsh, then he's worth his spot. But Marsh is the future and Watson is not. How long before the young guy replaces the old guy?


Statistically, Sobers is very similar to Kallis.
Dujon scored slightly more Test runs than Brad Haddin at a worse average.

I'm not sure what constitutes a 'true all-rounder'.

I'd say if a player is basically good enough with bat or ball and handy with the other, then they are a very valuable player. If Watson was averaging high-30s with the bat and low-30s with the ball, he'd be one of the first guys picked. But both those numbers have drifted in the wrong direction, particularly the batting.

Agreed about Watson at number 3. It was tried for long enough to give up on it now. Move him to 6 and can stomach it.
I really don't know what will happen with Mitch Marsh but clearly his introduction to Test cricket is as a number 6 bat that can bowl handy medium pace stuff with a lot of bounce. I suspect he will be another tease. His batting looks explosive but whether he can actually bat for long periods has yet to be seen. He took a wicket early in his first match so promising sign there he can at least be a handy 5th bowler like a Steve Waugh, Watson or Bravo type. I suspect Mitch Marsh is not good enough at either role to get in team on one skill alone but too early to be 100% sure. I'm happy to look at him for a number of Tests though and my gut feel is next summer unless Watson had some good series in West Indies and England that Mitch Marsh will be given a go ahead of him.

Statistically, yes. Sobers maybe similar to Kallis but plays also in an era of lots of Test also against minnow Test nations. Sobers did not get that type of easy help to boost his stats I suspect. Any of us that watched cricket long enough to see Kallis play would rate him a top class batsman but I suspect none of us would pick him in a Test team on his bowling alone. Doubt any of us saw Sobers play but from those that did the talk was he could get in team purely as a bowler or a batter. I for one cannot think of a player off top of my head I seen that I rate that high to say the same. I would not pick Kallis in a Test side on his bowling alone, even if his stats look nice. I watched him bowl. Very very handy 5th bowler but would never consider him an out and out quality pace bowler.

Good comparision of Dujon and Haddin. I think they provide similar value to their teams. Better bats than usual keeper batting standards before Dujon. When Dujon come along batting standards expected of keepers has risen sometimes at the expense of quality of keeping. Good example. We tried out Wayne Phillips as a wicket keeper batsman. In reality he was never a Test standard keeper but we tried it. This last decade Dujon batting standard is expected of keepers for most part. Anything less and risk being dropped. Dhoni and Gilchrist set the batting bench mark high. De Villiers also but I still not seen enough of De Villiers keeping to know if it is really high quality stuff. I do not have Foxtel so miss seeing him that others see more of.

Do not get caught up too much on phrase true all rounder. I probably just mean a player that gets in Test team on either of his skills of batting or bowling but both of those skills are more than just handy. Most allrounders get in the team by combination of both skills contributing enough that the selectors pick and hope that flexibility pays off. Sobers and Keith Miller maybe the only true allrounders in that lofty definition but in reality probably one of those skills being good enough to get you in team and the secondary skill is very handy is still a true allrounder. Hence Kallis and Botham types classed by most people as true allrounders but Kallis bowling and Botham batting I doubt could keep them in team if their primary skill was not of the standard it was. Watson falls into the other category of allrounder. Neither skill really good enough on it's own to get in team but the combination of both skills being more than handy is enough to get them playing in more than just a few Tests if your batting or bowling depth is lacking in a generation of players. We lack batting depth in Watson era and it has meant he has got a lot more Tests than he would of if he had been born a decade or half a decade earlier. He has been tried as opener and no. 3. Hopefully they bat him at number 6 in West Indies or he has to fight it out with Mitch Marsh for the same role. If they bat him at number 6 or leave him out of side I won't lose much sleep either way. Just think the important thing is we settle the top order with a true top order player specialist bat. With the sad passing on Phil Hughes I think it only leaves Shaun Marsh or Joe Burns to be given the role. I did not understand why Joe Burns was batting at 6 in his first Test if he normally is a top order batter and Watson not exactly setting world on fire at 3. Anyway, Burns least made some runs this Test and suspect he will be get his chance before the middle of the year some time.
It is nice to see him and Shaun Marsh get some runs.

 

[Cursed Cat]

enjoying the discussion relating to the role of all-rounders and the historical contributions of some of the best.

to me, without wanting to over-simplify things, an all-rounder has to demand selection in at least one of the two disciplines.

the situation with Watson's batting struggles and lack of durability as a bowling option has Mitch Marsh well positioned to stake a claim as a permanent replacement, if only Marsh's own fitness and form can hold up/improve. Marsh certainly looks a prospect to me, but does he demand selection purely as a batsman, or purely as a bowler? If not, then do we really need an all-rounder when we regularly produce bowlers who offer handy contributions with the bat (e.g. Johnson/Starc/Pattinson)? On the other hand, Test cricket can demand a lot of a bowling unit and a genuine fifth bowling option will always be welcome.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

to me, without wanting to over-simplify things, an all-rounder has to demand selection in at least one of the two disciplines.

Or be close enough to the mark that they're not a liability.

There's got to be some extra points for batsmen who can bowl. There's value in that. There's always going to be room for a player like that.

Otherwise, you're just picking the six best batsmen, a keeper and the four best bowlers and hoping one of the batsmen happens to be an all-rounder.

I think it's a much harder sell to pick a bowler because of their batting. You have to pick your best attack.

Watson, however, has now fallen too far short of that benchmark for batting all-rounders. His batting weakens the side more than his bowling can compensate. The liability of his batting, especially when he is still absurdly installed at No.3, outweighs the value of his bowling. And there's now a younger replacement ready to go.

the situation with Watson's batting struggles and lack of durability as a bowling option has Mitch Marsh well positioned to stake a claim as a permanent replacement, if only Marsh's own fitness and form can hold up/improve. Marsh certainly looks a prospect to me, but does he demand selection purely as a batsman, or purely as a bowler?

Marsh doesn't demand selection purely as a batsman or purely as a bowler. Neither does Watson.

He'd be picked as a batsman, who's expected to make runs as a member of the top six, but whose contribution with the ball is also a factor.

If not, then do we really need an all-rounder when we regularly produce bowlers who offer handy contributions with the bat (e.g. Johnson/Starc/Pattinson)? On the other hand, Test cricket can demand a lot of a bowling unit and a genuine fifth bowling option will always be welcome.

A fifth bowler is pretty important these days, especially when we have so many injury-prone young pacemen. Are you confident any of the young quicks could bowl 400 overs at Test level in a calendar year and not break down? That kind of workload breaks a bowler.

Consider this: Only once in his career has Dale Steyn bowled more than 400 Test overs in a calendar year. That was in 2008. The year that followed was his worst since he emerged as a world-class fast bowler.

Mitchell Johnson bowled 500-plus Test overs in 2008 and 2009. He completely lost his mojo after that and was basically useless in 2010 and 2011. But now he's back – in 2013, he bowled 212 overs and in 2014 he bowled 346 overs and was miraculously a match-winner once more. Do you see a pattern emerging?

Peter Siddle bowled bowled 432 Test overs in 2009 but was apparently young enough and durable enough to deal with that workload. Then, in 2013, he bowled 472 overs. That was a heroic effort. But now, after averaging 30 or less for five straight calendar years, he's in the doghouse because in 2014, the year after his heaviest Test bowling workload, his lost his pace and became less effective. What happened to Jason Gillespie in the 2005 Ashes? Well, in 2004 he bowled 514 overs at Test level. And that was the end of his career.

Go back and look at fast bowlers (real pace, not Glenn McGrath) of the modern era and check how many times they bowled 400 Test overs in a calendar year. For example:

Ambrose: twice – the first time was followed by a noticeable drop-off
Donald: once – by that stage he was a hardened athlete but still hadn't played that many Test matches
Younis: none
Akram: none
Gough: none
Ntini: three – average ballooned after the first spurt and the third go ended his career

Fast bowlers are like racehorses. You can't overbowl them. If you have a pace attack that relies heavily on speed, as Australia's does, you pick a fifth bowler.

After the Ashes, what's the first-choice fast bowling line-up? Harris retires and Siddle has been discarded at age 30 because durability and consistency aren't sexy enough. So Johnson, Pattinson and Cummins/Hazelwood? Who's doing the donkey work in that line-up? How long do you reckon that will last without a fifth bowler before some or all of them break down?

Bear in mind that in the 12 months after the Ashes, Australia will play 14 Test matches. That probably amounts to a collective bowling workload of about 2300-2700 overs in a calendar year. Conservatively, that equates to 165-200 overs per Test match. It could be much more if the opposing batsmen dominate, less if Australia do the smashing. But even against England in the last Ashes, when their batting capitulated and our bowlers dominated, it still averaged out at 150 overs per Test. Even in the current home series against India where Australia have always been on top, we've not bowled less than 170 overs in a match.

So bearing in mind that number of 2300-2700 yearly overs as a starting point. Let's set aside 700 overs to spinners and part-timers – Lyon, Smith, Agar, Warner etc. That's based on 2013, when we also played 14 Tests. At a minimum, you're still looking at 1600 overs spread between whatever 3-4 quicks are being selected regularly.

Bearing in mind that 400 overs in a calendar puts pacemen into a red zone from which they sometimes don't recover, there are a few options:

• always pick the three best quicks without an all-rounder, bowl them into the dirt and then act surprised when they break down
• accept that a rotation policy makes sense and begin shuffling 4-5 quicks on a regular basis, even though it contravenes the mantra of 'always picking the best available side'
• include a medium-pacer or a durable workhorse among the attack to soak up more overs than the express pacemen
  
• pick an all-rounder capable of holding down a spot in the top six while also capable of bowling 200 overs over the course of a calendar year

I'm not sure which of those options you prefer but Mitchell Marsh looks like he help deliver on the last one; handy enough with the bat to be worth his spot in the top six or be close enough to the mark that his ability to bowl gets him over the line. If he can bowl 200 overs in a calendar year, that might be the difference between, on one hand, keeping our first-choice pace attack on the park and, on the other, watching them break down and then hurriedly drafting replacements.

For a period, Watson ticked that box. But he's been short of runs for four years and there's now a guy 10 years younger who may be one of those emerging talents who warrants being earmarked and fast-tracked. If that's the case, it's curtains for Watson. To say nothing of Faulkner and Henriques, who I think could both average mid-30s with the bat and low-30s with the ball. Apparently that's the pass mark for Watson.

 

[1892]

Bearing in mind that 400 overs in a calendar puts pacemen into a red zone from which they sometimes don't recover, there are a few options:

• always pick the three best quicks without an all-rounder, bowl them into the dirt and then act surprised when they break down
• accept that a rotation policy makes sense and begin shuffling 4-5 quicks on a regular basis, even though it contravenes the mantra of 'always picking the best available side'
• include a medium-pacer or a durable workhorse among the attack so soak up more overs than the express pacemen
  
• pick an all-rounder capable of holding down a spot in the top six while also capable of bowling 200 overs over the course of a calendar year

For a period, Watson ticked that box. But he's been short of runs for four years and there's now a guy 10 years younger who may be one of those emerging talents who warrants being earmarked and fast-tracked. If that's the case, it's curtains for Watson. To say nothing of Faulkner and Henriques, who I think could both average mid-30s with the bat and low-30s with the ball. Apparently that's the pass mark for Watson.

Given Siddle bowled bowled well over the 400 over mark you talk about, it would be safe to assume that not only was Watson's batting down, but he also didn't bowl enough in 2013. For mine ideally an all-rounder should be good enough to get into the side on either their batting or bowling, currently Australia doesn't have that, Watson did at one time and Marsh may.

Another option, which has been used on a few occasions mainly to accommodate a second spinner is playing 5 bowlers. There's no reason this couldn't be done with quicks provided you have a keeper who is good enough to hold down six, and/or bowler/s who can bat, whether that be 1 bowler who can hold down 7 or a combined contribution from 7,8/9 who can cover the short fall of moving your keeper up. Haddin is no longer solid enough to hold down 6, but the bowlers have showed they're capable and a few upcoming keepers look promising with the bat. Johnson has a 100 and a couple of 90s and while early in their careers both Starc and Pattinson average over 30 with the bat. Faulkner I see as more of a bowling all-rounder. Going forward the above option could give Australia something like (the names could easier be shuffled or changed):

1-5. batsman
6. keeper
7. Faulkner
8. Johnson / Starc
9. Pattinson
10. Hazlewood / Cummins
11. Lyon

 

[Caesar]

Watto is still the best batting all-rounder in the country.

You have to go back years before that would be true. These days Henriques is comfortably better with the bat than Watson in the long format, and has more potential moving forward. I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that Henriques should be in the team, but he is more deserving of it than Watson.

If you must have an allrounder in the team then put Mitch Marsh or Henriques at 6 and **** Watson off, he's a waste of space.

 

[Craze]

I've been frustrated by Watson over the years. But he should be picked by the selectors as an all-rounder. Therefore I'd say it is only fair to critique Watson on his contributions as an all-rounder. When compared to the best all-rounders of the past 40 years, his stats are actually OK ...

Watson ... 3,549 runs @ 35.49, 71 wickets @ 33.36 (5,100 balls)

Imran (regarded more as a bowling all-rounder) ... 3,807 runs @ 37.69, 362 wickets @ 22.61 (19,000+ balls)
Botham (more a batting all-rounder) ... 5,200 runs @ 33.54, 383 wickets @ 28.40 (21,800 balls)
Kallis ... 13,000 runs @ 55 (wow!), 292 wickets @ 32.65 (20,100 balls)

Firstly I wouldn't put Watson in the class of the other three. So don't jump down my throat. But I think there's plenty worse.

What I will say in Watson's defence is that his batting is comparable to Botham and Imran. Kallis is in a class of his own. Watson's bowling is comparable to Botham and Kallis (Imran obviously light-years ahead).

Watson has been used to fill holes in a relatively weak Australian batting line-up, without the benefit of batting lower in the order against tired bowlers with an older ball. He obviously has his limitations as a batsman, but I think he is batting out of position. I'd argue that had he played in an era of an established, successful Australian top-order, slotting in at 6, he'd have a higher average and more 100's. That may be simplistic, but I think he'd be a damaging player in the middle-order.

As far as his bowling is concerned, his injuries cannot be ignored. It is also true to say (as has been discussed in other threads) that there has been no time in the history of test cricket that batting has been easier. Better bats, shorter boundaries, and a never-ending supply of bastman-friendly pitches. I'd say Watson's bowling is under-rated, and is not far behind Botham in terms of average and strike rate (1 wicket every 72 balls for Watson, compared to 1 wicket for every 59 balls for Botham).

So my view is that there is definitely a spot in the Australian XI for a fit 33 year-old Shane Watson, batting at 6, and as a 2nd change bowler.

Now I'll duck for cover

 

[The_Reaper]

Watson's problem is that he- unlike those other players bats at number 3.

If he were playing at number 6 his batting lapses would still be irritating but they would be tolerable.

At number 3 it's a liability that is exposing our lower order too early

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I've said this before, but IMO Watson is an excellent illustration of the Born vs Made argument.

Watson has a large collection of great technical movements, clearly honed through 1000s of hours facing the bowling machine. Even his one-time nickname of "Robot" reflected these movements. Each individual shot was technically perfect. His issue was with shot selection, and failure to work singles and gaps. He played the ball where it should be hit based on where that shot is "supposed" to go.

His bowling again was robotic, able to bowl consistently, with little or no variation.

His physique was (NTIGNTTAWWT) also "perfect" obviously something he worked very hard on.

All of the elements, which in isolation should have provided the outcome of the "perfect" player.

But...

It lacked the intangible "it", to bring it all together.

Over time, he has added nuances, especially with his bowling, but the batting has never come together as it could have.

Indeed the approach of "perfection" also played with Watson's mentality and possibly contributed to his seeming performance anxiety (90 and out).

Compare that to Smith (or Warner or Hughes for that matter) Incredible natural talent, unorthodox technique, flaws exposed early through higher levels, weaknesses worked on and now a far more dominant, free-flowing batsman.

Watson was the "completed product" when he arrived on the scene, such was his professionalism at junior/lower levels. Almost as if he had already completed a "finishing course" in coaching. Smith, Warner and Hughes either didn't have, or (more likely) didn't need that level of coaching at lower levels.

This combined, with the media/public fascination with the next big thing led to Watson's early performances being extrapolated out to expectations of a Sobers level career. In reality, he's not that far off Botham over his career, who has long been celebrated as a great all-rounder.

 

[Craze]

I've said this before, but IMO Watson is an excellent illustration of the Born vs Made argument.

Watson has a large collection of great technical movements, clearly honed through 1000s of hours facing the bowling machine. Even his one-time nickname of "Robot" reflected these movements. Each individual shot was technically perfect. His issue was with shot selection, and failure to work singles and gaps. He played the ball where it should be hit based on where that shot is "supposed" to go.

His bowling again was robotic, able to bowl consistently, with little or no variation.

His physique was (NTIGNTTAWWT) also "perfect" obviously something he worked very hard on.

All of the elements, which in isolation should have provided the outcome of the "perfect" player.

But...

It lacked the intangible "it", to bring it all together.

Over time, he has added nuances, especially with his bowling, but the batting has never come together as it could have.

Indeed the approach of "perfection" also played with Watson's mentality and possibly contributed to his seeming performance anxiety (90 and out).

Compare that to Smith (or Warner or Hughes for that matter) Incredible natural talent, unorthodox technique, flaws exposed early through higher levels, weaknesses worked on and now a far more dominant, free-flowing batsman.

Watson was the "completed product" when he arrived on the scene, such was his professionalism at junior/lower levels. Almost as if he had already completed a "finishing course" in coaching. Smith, Warner and Hughes either didn't have, or (more likely) didn't need that level of coaching at lower levels.

This combined, with the media/public fascination with the next big thing led to Watson's early performances being extrapolated out to expectations of a Sobers level career. In reality, he's not that far off Botham over his career, who has long been celebrated as a great all-rounder.

Great post and very perseptive. So much of the game of cricket, like golf, is between the ears ... particularly shot selection when batting.

As far as the development of nuance in his bowling is concerned, I believe that has been perfectly illustrated in his current bowling spell. Other than Lyon, he's been the only bowler to trouble the Indians today.

 

[Messenger]

In reality, he's not that far off Botham over his career, who has long been celebrated as a great all-rounder.

Not really, no. Botham's overall average is a match, but he had a five year stint where he was arguably the best cricketer in the world. Between 77 and 82 he averaged 37 with the bat and took more than 250 wickets.

Botham's batting slid towards the end even while his bowling held up. The mistake England never made was to push him up the order. Why they have persisted with Watson is a curiosity.

 

[Gough]

I suspect Watson's bowling could be quite useful in England. He can swing it and get some nip off the pitch, if his body's up to it he could be very handy.

 

[Scotland]

I suspect Watson's bowling could be quite useful in England. He can swing it and get some nip off the pitch, if his body's up to it he could be very handy.

He took two wickets in the last Ashes tour. I'd say he'd want to be more useful than that.

 

[Scotland]

I've been frustrated by Watson over the years. But he should be picked by the selectors as an all-rounder. Therefore I'd say it is only fair to critique Watson on his contributions as an all-rounder. When compared to the best all-rounders of the past 40 years, his stats are actually OK ...

Watson ... 3,549 runs @ 35.49, 71 wickets @ 33.36 (5,100 balls)

Imran (regarded more as a bowling all-rounder) ... 3,807 runs @ 37.69, 362 wickets @ 22.61 (19,000+ balls)
Botham (more a batting all-rounder) ... 5,200 runs @ 33.54, 383 wickets @ 28.40 (21,800 balls)
Kallis ... 13,000 runs @ 55 (wow!), 292 wickets @ 32.65 (20,100 balls)

Imran Khan took 362 wickets in 88 matches. That's enough to be picked as a bowler alone. His batting was a bonus and he made 6 100s and 18 50s.
Ian Botham took 383 in 102 matches. That's enough to be picked as a bowler alone. His batting was a bonus, and he made 14 100s and 22 50s.
Jacques Kallis took 292 wickets in 166 matches. That's not enough to be picked as a bowler alone, but the 13,000 runs @ 55 thing cancels that out.

Shane Watson has 71 wickets in 55 matches. That's not even close to enough to be picked as a bowler alone. He averages 35 with the bat having batted predominantly in the top order. That's not good enough to be picked as a batsman alone batting at 6, let alone opening or at 3.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Watson has been unable to bowl for much of his career. I daresay that if he is fit to bowl, it is definitely good enough to get him a game.

 

[Scotland]

An all rounder who is unable to bowl. Awesome.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

An all rounder who is unable to bowl. Awesome.

That's the frustration, because I think his bowling record could have been excellent had he been fit consistently.

Better than his batting could have been. That's how much I rate it.

 

[Scotland]

That's the frustration, because I think his bowling record could have been excellent had he been fit consistently.

Better than his batting could have been. That's how much I rate it.

Pat Cummins and James Pattinson could be pretty awesome bowlers too.

Should we bat them at 3?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Pat Cummins and James Pattinson could be pretty awesome bowlers too.

Should we bat them at 3?

I think Watson has done a serviceable job considering nobody else has put their hand up and made the spot their own.

He's been thrust up the order out of necessity and done his best. Ideally someone will take the spot and make him fight with Marsh for 6.

 

[1892]

When compared to the best all-rounders of the past 40 years, his stats are actually OK ...

Watson ... 3,549 runs (4x 100s, 23x 50s) @ 35.49, 71 wickets @ 33.36, SR 72.5 (5,100 balls)

Imran (regarded more as a bowling all-rounder) ... 3,807 runs @ 37.69, 362 wickets @ 22.61 (19,000+ balls)
Botham (more a batting all-rounder) ... 5,200 runs @ 33.54, 383 wickets @ 28.40 (21,800 balls)
Kallis ... 13,000 runs @ 55 (wow!), 292 wickets @ 32.65 (20,100 balls)

While a spinner and not considered one of the best ever all-rounders, someone who's often overlooked is

Daniel Vettori 4,531 runs @ 30.00 (6x 100s, 23x 50s), 362 wickets @ 34.36, SR 79.5 (28,814 balls). Very much a bowling all-rounder, who mainly batted at 8 or 9.


The difference between Watson and these guys is that we've got around 230 to 300 more wickets, from a hell of a lot more bowling. Really given how little Watson has bowled he can really only be considered a batsman, and at best a part time bowler.

A few other comparisons:

Andrew Flintoff 3,845 runs @ 31.77 (5x 100s, 26x 50s), 226 wickets @ 32.78, SR 66.1 (14,951)

Very similar stats batting wise, but again has bowled way more.

A couple of batsman of the top of my head:
Steve Waugh - started as an all-rounder and became a batting great,
Mark Waugh - under achieved as batsman as he never really went on to score big 100s (HS of 153* backs this up) and very much considered a part time bowler.

Steve Waugh 10,927 runs @ 51.06 (32x 100s, 50x 50s), 92 wickets @ 37.44, SR 84.8 (7,805 balls)
Mark Waugh 8,029 runs @ 41.81 (20x 100s, 47x 50s), 59 wickets @ 41.16, SR 82.2 (2,429 balls)

Bowling wise it's marginal, but Watson just has the Waugh's covered, but they're along way ahead with batting, Steve especially so.

So breaking it down, Watson as an all-rounder would stack up ok, although for this he needs to bowl considerably more often, admittedly a lack of overs could be attributed to a number of things including some which he has little control over (bowling strength, injuries/fitness or a lack of opportunity) or if his bowling continues to be part time Watson needs to convert his starts, most batsmen seem to go at around 1:2 or better in terms of 100:50, Watson currently sits at over 1:5. If Watson had 9x 100s and 18x 50s and an average between 40 and 45 I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

 

[Scotland]

I think Watson has done a serviceable job considering nobody else has put their hand up and made the spot their own.

He's been thrust up the order out of necessity and done his best. Ideally someone will take the spot and make him fight with Marsh for 6.

Watson's record at 6 is even more ordinary than his overall record. I'm sure the selectors will find some justification to keep him, though. After all he made a bunch of 50s 6 years ago as an opener and he could bowl at 140 km/h when he was 20.