What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Caesar]

I know. Hence why I don't think he will even reach 100 Tests.

There's no "think" about it. He'd have to play until he was 40.

 

[Phone]

Let's hope Shane Watson can reach 100 "Oh nos"

 

[bird_man]

Faulker at no 8 is ideal. No need to fix it if not broken. 6 is too high for him. Will kill the goose that lay the late over golden eggs.

You can look at it that way, although the way I see it is he has proven he is a match winner and deserves a promotion, he often does not get a bat at 8 and that could cost us runs late in the innings.

I don't think his bowling warrants selection by it's own and I see him as a bigger match winner than M Marsh. I would not have both in the side.

 

[bird_man]

As I said in the one day thread though, I'd be happy to see Faulkner, Maxwell and Wade float between 6 and 8 depending on the game situation and form.

 

[The_Reaper]

Mitch Marsh is a better batsman than Faulkner. In both FC and ODI cricket.

 

[bird_man]

Mitch Marsh is a better batsman than Faulkner. In both FC and ODI cricket.

Definitely at FC level. Not so sure about odi's though. Faulkner has a terrific record and is a proven match winner.

 

[Fat Tony!]

I would persist with Watson at #3. Rationale:

I think way too much emphasis is placed on Watson’s spot in the batting order. As long as we don’t have batsmen being left stranded at the end of an innings, I feel it is best to order the batting line up in positions where players feel most comfortable batting.

Watson still averages around 40 when opening or at #3 in Test cricket.

Watson looks to be a high quality player with problems converting his starts.

Our best batsmen are Warner (best as an opener), Clarke (best at 4 or 5) and Smith (best at 4 or 5). We need someone else to bat at #3 and the competition is weak.

We need a decent fifth bowler to consistently take 20 wickets in an era of flat pitches and given Lyon is an ordinary spinner. Particularly also as Johnson prefers short spells and Harris is coming to the end of his career.

I would value Watson’s bowling at 6-12 runs per innings on top of his batting. Is there anyone outside the Australian team that would average 44+ with the bat? I doubt it.

 

[Scotland]

Marsh 12 ODIs, 3 50s, 360 runs @ 36, SR 89.8
Faulkner 33 ODIs, 1 100, 3 50s, 670 runs @ 44.6, SR 109.3

Faulkner aided by 10 not outs but I don't think you could have Marsh ahead at this point.

 

[bird_man]

Marsh 12 ODIs, 3 50s, 360 runs @ 36, SR 89.8
Faulkner 33 ODIs, 1 100, 3 50s, 670 runs @ 44.6, SR 109.3

Faulkner aided by 10 not outs but I don't think you could have Marsh ahead at this point.

Yep, very early days for Marsh I know but that's a fantastic record for Faulkner. What I like is the match winning performances though, he does it time and time again and that is worth more than stats.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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

We didn't like batting a keeper at 6 even when Gilchrist was around and we had a bunch of great batsmen.

What are the odds we'll take that route now that our batting is significantly weaker?

Marsh isn't quite ready yet, so Watson will have a few more years to contribute.

That's pretty generous.

A few more years? I'd say more like six months.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Watson interesting batting average to compare with Steve Waugh at around 50 Test mark in their careers.
At 52 Tests Steve Waugh had scored 2503 runs at average 36.28

Love seeing players turn career around when arm chair knockers simplify things and call them crap. Not saying by any means Watson would be able to replicate a change in destiny like Steve Waugh did but those that dismiss guys like Shane Watson and even Shaun Marsh so easily when they still got time in career to turn around almost make me laugh at simpleton thinking.

How much time does Watson really have?

He turns 34 in June and is injury-prone.

Steve Waugh clicked when he was about 27-28, same as Ponting and Clarke. Watson is already a mature cricketer who's meant to be in his prime.

Having said that. I seen guys make it that myself I doubted ever would. Damien Martyn I never wanted to see again after mid 90's but he came back and made a later return to Test cricket and did very well. Hayden I doubted too at times but eventually made it. Always backed Langer in myself because he was an amazing fighter as he showed in his first Test but never saw McGrath getting as many wickets as he did.

You're talking about guys in their mid-20s knuckling down and improving into mature batsmen, which is not uncommon.

Or McGrath, who at age 25 and with 10 Tests under his belt was leading the Australian attack in a famous victory against the West Indies in the Caribbean. It's not like people had to wait around very long for him to come good.

These are strange parallels to draw in support of Watson, a 30-something all-rounder who's had a shitload of opportunities despite being short of runs for four years.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think way too much emphasis is placed on Watson’s spot in the batting order.

The emphasis is on his lack of runs.

Watson still averages around 40 when opening or at #3 in Test cricket.

Since the start of 2011, he averages 31 in Test cricket. Surely that's not good enough, even taking his bowling into account.

I would value Watson’s bowling at 6-12 runs per innings on top of his batting. Is there anyone outside the Australian team that would average 44+ with the bat? I doubt it.

There are other players who could contribute with the ball while likely improving on Watson's recent output with the bat. And they're 10 years younger.

 

[footyfan1978]

These are strange parallels to draw in support of Watson, a 30-something all-rounder who's had a shitload of opportunities despite being short of runs for four years.

Your comprehension skills are SERIOUSLY lacking. You make so many assumptions from majority of replies I've read and do not understand everything is not black or white. I am not drawing any parallels to support Watson at all. I actually do not really support Watson. I'm also not against him. Apparently some people cannnot understand that. I simply pointing out interesting things to me I observe than others seem to miss (like Steve Waugh failed to secue his place as an allrounder, many seem to think he was in side as a batsman from start or was always seen as a legend) and try to make everything look black and white with narrow minded thinking.
I find that things are not black and white more interesting. What I do not find interesting is people that want to argue with me assuming I like them, have to pick a certain view that is simplistic and either support or be against. In this case I do not fit either but you have assumed I have.

The fact you assume I support Watson shows you cannot comprehend that some people do not pick sides and argue in such manner. It seems you like to argue here than discuss. Least in the few posts I come across you. I think for myself and do not have a strong view on him either way. I am not surprised he is still in team or if he was dropped. Can you actually understand that ?
My own surprise is he still bats top order. I just find it interesting that others want to be strong on the view either for certain players or against. He is a real enigma. I find the allrounding status of him interesting. That is only reason I posted here because I find it more interesting than the black and white view that many have. It is interesting to put a value on their contributions to a team. Oh well. Guess I give up expecting some people to not see everything is black or white. We are not all for and against certain things but seems you ASSUME that is how I think when I am far from being for or against him.

 

[1892]

We didn't like batting a keeper at 6 even when Gilchrist was around and we had a bunch of great batsmen.

What are the odds we'll take that route now that our batting is significantly weaker?

Not saying it will happen and if the inclusion of M. Marsh is any indication to won't, but for mine besides limiting the exposure of the lesser experienced S. Marsh or Burns to the number 3 position, what Watson is currently offering with the bat could be covered with an additional bowler averaging around 30 with the bat and bowling significantly more overs. It would be a different story if Watson made the most of his starts and converted more 50s into hundreds, he certainly has the talent to average closer to 45 than 35 with the bat and given the number of overs bowled throughout his career he needs to do this to maintain his place as a batsman whether that be as an opener, at 3 or 6. I half suspect that if S. Marsh or Burns establish themselves before Rogers retires, after his retirement the order maybe shuffled with Watson opening and S. Marsh/Burns moving to 3.

In terms of Gilchrist and our line up not only did we have great bats we also had a 2 all time great bowlers in Warne and McGrath and backups of Lee and Gillespie throughout most of his career, with our batsmen arguably also more capable of rolling the arm over than the current side. Unless it was a raging turner there wasn't really the need for an extra bowler or to play with the sides balance.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your comprehension skills are SERIOUSLY lacking. You make so many assumptions from majority of replies I've read and do not understand everything is not black or white. I am not drawing any parallels to support Watson at all. I actually do not really support Watson. I'm also not against him. Apparently some people cannnot understand that. I simply pointing out interesting things to me I observe than others seem to miss (like Steve Waugh failed to secue his place as an allrounder, many seem to think he was in side as a batsman from start or was always seen as a legend) and try to make everything look black and white with narrow minded thinking.

You suggested that Watson still has time to turn it around. But he's already 33. How much time does he really have?

You keeping talking about Steve Waugh, like that's some kind of relevant precedent. But Waugh was in his mid-20s. Watson is not.

That's what I mean when I say it's a strange parallel to draw.

The fact you assume I support Watson shows you cannot comprehend that some people do not pick sides and argue in such manner. It seems you like to argue here than discuss. Least in the few posts I come across you. I think for myself and do not have a strong view on him either way. I am not surprised he is still in team or if he was dropped. Can you actually understand that ?

I'm just responding to your suggestion that Watson still has time to turn it around. That's pretty generous given he's 33, injury-prone and has had a shitload of opportunities already.

In light of that, isn't it more realistic to assume that he's running out of time?

 

[Tulip]

Leave him in the side until someone else is good enough. We're already about to lose Rogers, Clarke and Haddin from the top 7 in the next calendar year.

Ideally for me, Smith bats at 3 eventually. He bats so maturely, and is learning when to slow it down (see Melbourne, innings one) and when to pick up the pace (again, Melbourne).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Not saying it will happen and if the inclusion of M. Marsh is any indication to won't, but for mine besides limiting the exposure of the lesser experienced S. Marsh or Burns to the number 3 position, what Watson is currently offering with the bat could be covered with an additional bowler averaging around 30 with the bat and bowling significantly more overs.

I think they're more likely to pick a batsman who can bowl a bit - Marsh looks likely - than a bowler who can bat a bit.

 

[footyfan1978]

You just do not get it.
Never mentioned his age or expected or predicted anything. Simply showed interesting stats some may not realize to highlight allrounders not black and white.
Comprehension so lacking from you.

 

[gbatman]

Watson didn't bat too badly towards the end of the tests, he seemed to stop planting down on the front foot which is his major problem. Stupidity and lack of awareness (where the field is and outfield is and playing at wide ones) always gets him out but he made a few runs and his technique looked better. He'll get into trouble in England if he goes back to doing that big stride down the wicket and planting on the front foot but otherwise looked ok at the end. Needs to bat high as he isn't the best player of spin.

 

[Slax]

Couldn't help but notice something in the most recent ICC player rankings, as a batsman sits 45th on the rankings list, he's also behind Johnson and Harris as an allrounder (being behind Johnson doesn't suprise me but Harris does), he's only 4 points ahead of Steyn!

5 M.G. Johnson AUS 291
6 R.J. Harris AUS 255
7 S.R. Watson AUS 223
8 D.W. Steyn SA 219

 

[The_Reaper]

Couldn't help but notice something in the most recent ICC player rankings, as a batsman sits 45th on the rankings list, he's also behind Johnson and Harris as an allrounder (being behind Johnson doesn't suprise me but Harris does), he's only 4 points ahead of Steyn!

5 M.G. Johnson AUS 291
6 R.J. Harris AUS 255
7 S.R. Watson AUS 223
8 D.W. Steyn SA 219

Isn't the allrounder ranking just done by averaging the batting and bowling points?

Edit: It obviously isn't but Johnson, Harris and Steyn obvious benefit from very high bowling points

 

[KissKiss]

Kallis' bowling is getting pretty underated on this thread.

When he was younger he was pretty good

Very much under rated as a bowler. There was a period I think around 2001-03 where he was ranked consistently in the top 15 or 10 in the world. Think he got ranked as high as 5th in the world as a bowler alone. For a while there he could have been picked easily as a bowler only. Just ignores the fact that he was averaging over 50 with the bat at the same time

 

[Slax]

Isn't the allrounder ranking just done by averaging the batting and bowling points?

Edit: It obviously isn't but Johnson, Harris and Steyn obvious benefit from very high bowling points

Yes, and the front line bowlers would benefit from it, but this should be more than offset by being a #3 test batsman, It should also be noted that Watson's bowling ranking of 38 is higher than his batting ranking.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

His place in the batting order is clouding the argument. He only bats at #3 because the better performed batsmen have been unwilling to bat in that position.

Watson undoubtedly had the most success of his career under Ponting when he was an opening batsman, who was used as a bowler sparingly in the right conditions. Averaging over 50 with the bat, under 30 with the ball over a 2 year period - while having an annoying habit of finding a strange way tog et out in the 90's. this lead him to back to back AB Medals and included a Test Cricketer of the year gong as well.

The Watson/Katich opening partnership was a very good one. Then Katich did his knee and was forced into early retirement, as the selectors probably felt Hughes was going to deliver and would form a long term partnership with Watson. Watto got injured, Hughes was discarded again and suddenly when Watson returned he had Ed Cowan in his seat, and Davey Warner commencing a fine career.

Hindsight is a bitch, but they probably should have just discarded Cowan at the time and Watto may still be the superb Test opening batsman he was before his calf injury in 2011.

Instead, Watson has batted at 3, 4, 5 & 6 since returning to the side - in all different conditions and continents and continually been shunted around the order to appease others in the side. Had he been successful in any of these positions, he would rightly be upset about the movements - but he's not in a position to complain, because he failed to secure any of them. Although, he really never got a long term go at #6 where is probably most suited.

What clouds the Watson discussion is that he averages 40 batting in the Top 3, and under 30 everywhere else. In my opinion, this is not because he is most suited to batting in the Top 3, but because he was in the best form of his career in 09/10, and happened to be opening. He arguably would have made even more runs down in the order. It's also where he has had the longest stints, whereas each time he has batted 4, 5 and 6 its only been for a handful of tests.

I agree with the sentiment that it will come down to MMarsh vs Watson in the medium term. Although MMarsh is just as injury prone as Watson, so they may end up just replacing each other every other series. I still lean towards Watson over Marsh at this point, as i feel he is superior as both a batsman and a bowler. Now Watto may average 50 compared to Marsh 28 in First Class cricket, but I think the batting gap is marginal. However, I believe he is a significantly better bowler at this point.

Having said all that, if our bowling attack includes 2 of Johnson, Pattinson & Starc in addition to Hazelwood. I don't mind the idea of batting the keeper at 6 (expecially if its someone like Handscome or Carters) and picking another bowling all-rounder like Faulkner. As I think, all of Pattinson, Johnson, Faulkner and Starc are capable of averaging somewhere between 28 and 32 with the bat at test level.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Watson is still a better batting all rounder then we have. His batting and Bowling is still ahead of Marsh's and Watto should realistically be batting at 6. But it sounds like the selectors like him at 3 and he does so he should stay there until Marsh is fit and knocking the door down.