What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Mukesh]

With Watto injured again, the question must be asked what do you do with him. Obviously what has been done in the past does not work as he spends as much time out injured as playing.

I beleive that we need to overhaul the fitness staff completely and instead of them doing a fitness plan for bowlers and batsmen learn to manage players a lot better. For instance Geelong FC seems to of got the balance right and had all their senior players fit when they needed them by nursing them at various times through the year and designing training programs for each player to help keep them fit & fresh whilst minimising the risk of injury. I accept that fast bowlers are more prone to injury but what is happening at the moment is beyond a joke we have a perfectly good pace attack sitting in the stands injured this test with Watson, Harris, Cummins (all automatic slections) out with Johnson and Bollinger (you'd pick one of these two) also out.

Give him an assistant coaches job at North ?? Oh...sorry...wrong sport...

Seriously tho, bat him at 6 and stop him from bowling is my take...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

For a while there Kallis could have been picked easily as a bowler only.

I don't think that's true. Which period are you talking about?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Can Henriques or Marsh bat at 3 though?

Can Watson?

Disagree but only because I don't want disruptions when we go over to England.

So let's keep picking guys who aren't performing?

This is professional sport. If a guy isn't doing the job, you don't keep picking him just to avoid disruptions.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

He also opened the batting to start the 2013 Ashes and was useless.

If he was such a great opening batsman, why was he so shit in that series?

Basically, you've got a guy who has been given a ton of opportunities in a range of different positions and hasn't performed. It's remarkable that people keep trying to find excuses for his sustained lack of runs.

What clouds the Watson discussion is that he averages 40 batting in the Top 3, and under 30 everywhere else.

The issue is that he's been short of runs for four years.

 

[Slax]

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

Comparing anyone to Kallis is completely unfair, Kallis is for mine is in the top 10 players of all time so even thinking that we will find someone like him is stupid, it like saying the next leg spinner to come along with be our new Shane Warne.

Australia just doesn't produce allrounders for some reason, we've tried heaps but the reality is we've produced one great allrounder ever in Keith Miller (sorry Benaud but a batting average of below 25 means you just miss out for mine).

There is a group below that of good solid allrounders but not greats, Watson would probably be in that group if he batted at 6, but because he is at 3 it hurts him because he just simply isn't a test 3.

 

[The Passenger]

I don't think Watson having his best performances as an opener points to his best position being an opener. I reckon it's more that it just coincided with his career best form. He would have been scoring runs anywhere during those two years. Despite a lack of conversions he was batting very well.

He'll go to the Ashes, which I agree with, but he'll be in a battle throughout the Windies and England to hold onto his spot in the XI. Unless his performances improve dramatically I can't see him being part of the 15/16 test team. In that case Marsh will be lining up at six at the stage. If Marsh gets an extended run during the Windies and Ashes and fails, he might find himself on the outer for a year or so whilst he develops (pretty standard for young fellas), and they might go for a Wade/Nevill at 6, Faulkner 7, or maybe Henrqiues 6 and Wade/Nevill 7. I'm really hoping it's Nevill they go for.

Of course this is assuming that Haddin will retire (or get dropped) after the Ashes, which I think is a given at this stage. Like Watson he'll go to the Ashes, but if he averages in the 20 in the West Indies then I think they'll have to bite the bullet for the Ashes.

A lot of the preferred Ashes XI depends on Michael Clarke. If he is unfit, at least one of Watson or Haddin will be kept in the XI I reckon. I tend to agree with that thinking as well. If Clarke is fit, unless the other two improve dramatically in the West Indies then at least one will get the chop, and potentially both. I would be shocked if both miss on the tour completely.

 

[Hellgood]

I've seen a bit of him for WA over the years and I think you're overplaying the problems with his fielding. He's fine. Probably a confidence thing, just like his batting. More mental than physical/skill based.

That's my impression of his fielding from domestic cricket as well.

 

[The Passenger]

Comparing anyone to Kallis is completely unfair, Kallis is for mine is in the top 10 players of all time so even thinking that we will find someone like him is stupid, it like saying the next leg spinner to come along with be our new Shane Warne.

The problem a lot of people are failing to realise is the selectors can only pick who is in front of them. Just selecting a bloke and sticking with them doesn't mean they are going to do a Steve Waugh or a Shane Warne, and eventually come good (although Warne was pretty quick). More likely to end up with a Greg Blewett or a Geoff Marsh.

It's all well and good saying Watson should be dropped, and averaging 31 over the last 4 years is poor. But the reality is (and this has been underlined by all the guys who have come into the team over that period) any potential replacement is most likely to max out at about 35 anyway, and we lose Watson's bowling which has been handy, even though it's also on the decline. At an absolute stretch the most we could expect out of someone is to average 40, but could you be confident in anyone doing that? We all have different guys we prefer but ultimately they're all likely to come into and do a similar job in the short term.

The only guy who will replace Watson is Marsh, and I don't think Watson will in the team this time next year. We've got a great opportunity to rebuild post Ashes. It would be mad not to take it, and persist with some of the older struggling top 7 players.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Can Watson?

So let's keep picking guys who aren't performing?

This is professional sport. If a guy isn't doing the job, you don't keep picking him just to avoid disruptions.

We don't have a better option. You don't just bring in someone if your not convinced he will do a better job then the guy he's replacing.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

He also opened the batting to start the 2013 Ashes and was useless.

If he was such a great opening batsman, why was he so shit in that series?

Watto opened in the first 2 tests of the 2013 Ashes series with Rogers.

Watson went 13, 46, 30 & 20
Rogers went 16, 52, 15 & 6

Now, I don't disagree that Watson wasn't setting the world on fire - but why does he have to move away from his preferred position, when he has out performed the bloke he bats with head to head? It's only 2 tests, but they were Rogers first 2 tests in 5 years - Watson had an average of over 45 opening the batting vs England going into the series.

Just points to the fact, that he is always the one that is moved to accommodate someone else who is less versatile.

Watson was shunted to 4, to bring Warner back in. Then he was moved to 6 in the next test, then he batted at 3 in the 5th test. In 5 tests he opened, batted 3,4 and 6. He also happened to outscore all of his teammates for the series, despite batting in 4 different positions, bowled 88 overs, removed Bell and Cook at important times and 45 of his 88 overs were maidens!

The issue is that he's been short of runs for four years.

He's not Robinson Crusoe in the Australian XI there.

They tried Hughes, Khawaja, Quiney, Cowan, Doolan & Marsh all during the last 4 years, and none of them have offered anything better than Watson with the bat, and all offer little in the field and don't bowl.

We don't have a better option. You don't just bring in someone if your not convinced he will do a better job then the guy he's replacing.

Exactly.

It's precisely why Watson, Shaun Marsh and Rogers have been playing regular test cricket despite averaging mid 30's for most of that period.

It's also why Ponting held on for so long, despite being in a slump by his own standards - he was confident he was still doing a better job than any replacements could have.

Given he went back to shield cricket after retiring and averaging 38 in his last 4 years in Test cricket, he promptly averaged 100 playing for Tassie and dominated. Which just showed the huge gulf between test cricket and shield cricket.

Which is why you don't drop a guy averaging 35 in test cricket, for a guy averaging 35 in shield cricket....

 

[KissKiss]

I don't think that's true. Which period are you talking about?

From memory it was about that 01-03 period. Was averaging mid 20's with the ball and with a fair bit more pace than he has now. In all honesty he probably couldn't have taken the work load of a full time bowler but he was matching them with his performance

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Watto opened in the first 2 tests of the 2013 Ashes series with Rogers.

Watson went 13, 46, 30 & 20
Rogers went 16, 52, 15 & 6

Now, I don't disagree that Watson wasn't setting the world on fire - but why does he have to move away from his preferred position, when he has out performed the bloke he bats with head to head? It's only 2 tests, but they were Rogers first 2 tests in 5 years - Watson had an average of over 45 opening the batting vs England going into the series.

Just points to the fact, that he is always the one that is moved to accommodate someone else who is less versatile.

Watson was shunted to 4, to bring Warner back in. Then he was moved to 6 in the next test, then he batted at 3 in the 5th test. In 5 tests he opened, batted 3,4 and 6. He also happened to outscore all of his teammates for the series, despite batting in 4 different positions, bowled 88 overs, removed Bell and Cook at important times and 45 of his 88 overs were maidens!



He's not Robinson Crusoe in the Australian XI there.

They tried Hughes, Khawaja, Quiney, Cowan, Doolan & Marsh all during the last 4 years, and none of them have offered anything better than Watson with the bat, and all offer little in the field and don't bowl.



Exactly.

It's precisely why Watson, Shaun Marsh and Rogers have been playing regular test cricket despite averaging mid 30's for most of that period.

It's also why Ponting held on for so long, despite being in a slump by his own standards - he was confident he was still doing a better job than any replacements could have.

Given he went back to shield cricket after retiring and averaging 38 in his last 4 years in Test cricket, he promptly averaged 100 playing for Tassie and dominated. Which just showed the huge gulf between test cricket and shield cricket.

Which is why you don't drop a guy averaging 35 in test cricket, for a guy averaging 35 in shield cricket....

Exactly! And Watto hit the most runs of any Australian in the 2013 test series over in England, as much as I dislike him, there isn't an obvious replacement at the moment. Mitch Marsh can't bat at 3 and his bowling isn't as good as Watsons, Khawaja I think is a natural number 3 but has gone down with an ACL, Cowan is best suited as an opener, Shaun Marsh is a middle order player and I prefer Burns in the side over Mitch Marsh as the number 6.

 

[gbatman]

Watson's bowling is useful but nowhere near as good as it was when he bowled mid 130's a few years ago. Think he just scrapes into the side.

 

[The Passenger]

I wouldn't put to much weight into Watson topping the run scoring in that Ashes series given about half his runs came in the dead rubber fifth test.

Was looking at his career summary and he averages over 50 in fifth tests (all dead rubbers and admittedly significantly inflated by that innings), and just over 40 in dead rubber fourth tests, whilst only averaging 31 in the first test of a series, it just serves to frustrate people more. I couldn't be bothered separating his live 3rd tests from his dead rubber 3rd tests. Someone else can if they're really bothered.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Kallis was a superior bowler to Andre Nel imo.

Andre Nel played a bit of test cricket for SA, and if he was getting a game as a specialist bowler - no doubt Kallis would have during the same period.

 

[The Passenger]

Kallis was a superior bowler to Andre Nel imo.

Andre Nel played a bit of test cricket for SA, and if he was getting a game as a specialist bowler - no doubt Kallis would have during the same period.

In 2001 and 2002 he took 66 wickets from 22 tests at about 26. He certainly had the ability to be a specialist bowler. 3 wickets a test is not far being a specialist bowler either. Pretty much not possible to keep that up for an entire career whilst batting in the top four with an average > 50. No one has.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Watson's bowling is useful but nowhere near as good as it was when he bowled mid 130's a few years ago. Think he just scrapes into the side.

Funny, I think as his pace has slowed he has become a better bowler.

In his youth be was quick, and very good at shield level blasting blokes out - but was found out at international level, as he bowled gun barrell straight and couldn't move it in the air or off the pitch.

As he has aged and learnt his craft, he can move the ball in the air and off the wicket - and is the best old ball bowler (except maybe Starc) going around for Australia. Which makes him a better 5th bowler than he used to be, because in his youth he was useless with the old ball, but thats when you want your 5th bowler bowling.

I wouldn't put to much weight into Watson topping the run scoring in that Ashes series given about half his runs came in the dead rubber fifth test.

Was looking at his career summary and he averages over 50 in fifth tests (all dead rubbers and admittedly significantly inflated by that innings), and just over 40 in dead rubber fourth tests, whilst only averaging 31 in the first test of a series, it just serves to frustrate people more. I couldn't be bothered separating his live 3rd tests from his dead rubber 3rd tests. Someone else can if they're really bothered.

I find that stat a bit strange, given Watson has only played in 4 x 5 test series, and only one of those series had a dead rubber 4th test and only 3 had a dead rubber 5th test.

In fact 2 out of his 4 hundreds have been in opening tests of series. 14 out of 24 fifties have been in the opening 2 tests of series, and 19 of his 50's and 3 of his 100's have been in the opening 3 tests of series.

 

[The Passenger]

I find that stat a bit strange, given Watson has only played in 4 x 5 test series, and only one of those series had a dead rubber 4th test and only 3 had a dead rubber 5th test.

He's also played in quite a few four test series where the final test has been dead, such as the one just gone. It's a small sample size but he has done reasonably well in dead tests. Even his 100 in Perth was about as low pressure as it gets. 2-0 up in a series, a completely deflated opposition, coming in at 1/150 with a near 300 run lead. Granted the runs have still gotta be scored.

14/24 of his 50's in the first 2 tests is pretty standard. They also account for 60 of his 105 innings.

I'm no Watto basher but his career has been a major disappointment. Between injury and conquering the mental side of batting he just hasn't shown what he could do. I would take him to England, but unless he starts bashing down a bunch of 100's between now and then (which I can't see happening) I wouldn't have him in the first test team come 2015/16 and that would be the end of his career. Even now he's gonna hold of the challenge for his spot in the XI.

 

[Slax]

The problem a lot of people are failing to realise is the selectors can only pick who is in front of them. Just selecting a bloke and sticking with them doesn't mean they are going to do a Steve Waugh or a Shane Warne, and eventually come good (although Warne was pretty quick). More likely to end up with a Greg Blewett or a Geoff Marsh.

It's all well and good saying Watson should be dropped, and averaging 31 over the last 4 years is poor. But the reality is (and this has been underlined by all the guys who have come into the team over that period) any potential replacement is most likely to max out at about 35 anyway, and we lose Watson's bowling which has been handy, even though it's also on the decline. At an absolute stretch the most we could expect out of someone is to average 40, but could you be confident in anyone doing that? We all have different guys we prefer but ultimately they're all likely to come into and do a similar job in the short term.

The only guy who will replace Watson is Marsh, and I don't think Watson will in the team this time next year. We've got a great opportunity to rebuild post Ashes. It would be mad not to take it, and persist with some of the older struggling top 7 players.

I don't think that there is a position in the team for both Watson and Marsh. Both fill the same role, but come with a down side in that their batting is not that of a top order player, much more suited to being at #6, Watson is at his best when playing hsi strokes freely, playing at 3 you don't always get to do this and building an innings slowly is not something that Watson is good at. There are alternatives to Watson at #3 and honestly finding someone better shouldn't be too hard. I'd look at Burns to play at #3, Cowan is also a good prospect for a recall given his current form, Ferguson too comes to mind. I have little doubt all 3 could make a better fist of it than Watson.

 

[The Passenger]

Yeah I think the selectors preferred option is to place a batsmen at 3 with the all rounder at 6.

 

[gbatman]

Funny, I think as his pace has slowed he has become a better bowler.

In his youth be was quick, and very good at shield level blasting blokes out - but was found out at international level, as he bowled gun barrell straight and couldn't move it in the air or off the pitch.

As he has aged and learnt his craft, he can move the ball in the air and off the wicket - and is the best old ball bowler (except maybe Starc) going around for Australia. Which makes him a better 5th bowler than he used to be, because in his youth he was useless with the old ball, but thats when you want your 5th bowler bowling.



I find that stat a bit strange, given Watson has only played in 4 x 5 test series, and only one of those series had a dead rubber 4th test and only 3 had a dead rubber 5th test.

In fact 2 out of his 4 hundreds have been in opening tests of series. 14 out of 24 fifties have been in the opening 2 tests of series, and 19 of his 50's and 3 of his 100's have been in the opening 3 tests of series.

I think this two but the last couple of years it has slowed 5-10km and he isn't quite as dangerous as he was. Was at his best when he bowled 130-135km/hr rather than 125-133km/hr that he does now. Still gets the swing and seam but at a speed a little easier to play. I think it's important to have a seam bowler who bowls a little slower, accurate and can move it around because when things aren't working for the quicks they may work for a slower skillful bowler. Just gotta keep an eye on his pace though, doesn't want to get too slow.

In his youth he bowled 145km/hr and wasn't that dangerous with the ball.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

I'm no Watto basher but his career has been a major disappointment. Between injury and conquering the mental side of batting he just hasn't shown what he could do. I would take him to England, but unless he starts bashing down a bunch of 100's between now and then (which I can't see happening) I wouldn't have him in the first test team come 2015/16 and that would be the end of his career. Even now he's gonna hold of the challenge for his spot in the XI.

I think we pretty much agree on this.

Comparing the package he presented at 25 to the stats he has dished up at test level, this career has been a let down. Probably the person who is most disappointed person is Watson himself.

Having said that, if someone asked in 2005 if you could have a guy who bats anywhere in the top 6 for the next decade, average mid 30's with the bat and low 30's with the ball - many would have taken it. It's just that Watson has always seemed to rub people up the wrong way.

It's astonishing the crap he cops about injuries, when perhaps if it was someone else - they would be celebrated for repeatedly fighting back from such setbacks. Instead, he is admonished for getting injured.

I don't think that there is a position in the team for both Watson and Marsh. Both fill the same role, but come with a down side in that their batting is not that of a top order player, much more suited to being at #6, Watson is at his best when playing hsi strokes freely, playing at 3 you don't always get to do this and building an innings slowly is not something that Watson is good at. There are alternatives to Watson at #3 and honestly finding someone better shouldn't be too hard. I'd look at Burns to play at #3, Cowan is also a good prospect for a recall given his current form, Ferguson too comes to mind. I have little doubt all 3 could make a better fist of it than Watson.

The real reason Watson is currently batting 3 is because the selectors realised the mistakes of previous years when a string of young players were debuted at #3, while Clarke and Hussey batted at 5 and 6. This was a complete joke at the time, and remains one of the poorer periods in Australian cricket.

As a result, guys like Burns will follow the more traditional path and start at 6 (much like Clarke, Ponting, Martyn etc) and then move up as they establishm themselves. With this in mind, and the apparent unwillingness of Clarke to bat at 3 (I think Smith will, starting next series) Watson was essentially the last man standing and was put at #3.

Wouldn't surprise me if we saw the West Indies tour have a batting lineup something like this

Warner
Rogers
Smith
Clarke
Burns
Watson/M.Marsh

I still lean to Watson over M.Marsh, but if he doesn't have a very strong winter - he will be gone by next summer and replaced by M.Marsh (if he can stay fit, which is a big IF)

 

[Bingle_21]

Based on his fielding he shouldn't be anywhere near an international team. His catching technique is so, so bad. Couldn't slip it, couldn't mid wicket it, and sure as hell couldn't catch it anywhere on the offside. He put down sitters looking like he tripped on a banana peel.

Watching SMarsh in the field at the MCG test when walking in at cover he doesn't walk towards the batsman. Every ball he walks in towards the centre of the pitch and then at the point of the batsman playing the shot instead of doing a split step he steps/jumps to his right. A couple of time the ball was basically hit directly to him/his left and he couldn't stop it as he was going to his right. I think it contributed to the 2(?) catches he dropped in cover in the series as he was in no way balanced.

 

[Slax]

The real reason Watson is currently batting 3 is because the selectors realised the mistakes of previous years when a string of young players were debuted at #3, while Clarke and Hussey batted at 5 and 6. This was a complete joke at the time, and remains one of the poorer periods in Australian cricket.

As a result, guys like Burns will follow the more traditional path and start at 6 (much like Clarke, Ponting, Martyn etc) and then move up as they establishm themselves. With this in mind, and the apparent unwillingness of Clarke to bat at 3 (I think Smith will, starting next series) Watson was essentially the last man standing and was put at #3.

Wouldn't surprise me if we saw the West Indies tour have a batting lineup something like this

Warner
Rogers
Smith
Clarke
Burns
Watson/M.Marsh

I still lean to Watson over M.Marsh, but if he doesn't have a very strong winter - he will be gone by next summer and replaced by M.Marsh (if he can stay fit, which is a big IF)

This is the reason I don't mind the idea of Cowan at 3. He's scored enough runs this year to justify a touring spot, he has tet experience as an opener which makes for a good transition to 3, they did this with Boon and the indications were that they were seriously looking at Hughes to do the same thing. Watson has given much longer at the top of the order than he deserves and it is time for the selectors to admit that the experiment has failed.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Cowan played 17 consecutive tests in his preferred position as opener and averaged 31. (one test at number 3, where he made 0 and 10)

His form recently suggests he could possibly be given another go post Rogers if Silk or Maddinson or others don't come on, but he got an extended run and wasn't up to it.