What do you do with Shane Watson?

[eth-dog]

Once Rogers retires they just need to put Silk there.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

that was my view 12 months ago, but Cowan bats with him for Tassie and has completely dominated him in every sense this shield season.

Have to reward performance.

 

[The Swans Blog]

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.

Too bad I never made it as a cricketer thanks to sports injuries. I could have been that all-rounder that you're all screaming out for! I could bowl fast, medium, finger and wrist spin, as well as bat and field reasonably well (mostly point or covers). I was even passable as a keeper.

But alas, we're stuck with a guy who can kind of bat, can kind of bowl and can kind of field and he's not that much older than I am

 

[gbatman]

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.

I like Cowan, he's in great form. I get a feeling that if an openers position comes up or even a number 3 position that Burns might get the gig. Opens for QLD and has already been introduced into the team and has looked reasonable. Just an option.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Burns has pretty much always batted 3 for QLD until this season.

Stuart Law stated that they moved him up to open, as they view that the most likely spot he would be selected for Australia in the next 12 months.

He then got picked at #6 !

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

That doesn't make sense.

If you have a player who isn't performing, you give another guy the opportunity.

Watson has been so short of runs in the past four years that he is no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

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.

You need to stop talking about the 2013 Ashes as though Watson was awesome.

He averaged 27 over the first four Tests and then cashed in with a big score in the dead rubber.

I assume you know this already.

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.

This is disingenuous.

Are you saying there's simply no alternative to having at Watson's at No.3?

The reality is that he's no longer one of the best five batsmen in the country and has real competition from Mitch Marsh as the preferred all-rounder. You have to really jump through some hoops to keep arguing that, in light of all this, there's simply no alternative.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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?

Looking at those numbers, it's hardly definitive. Both of them were pretty scratchy.

But Rogers was picked specifically to open the batting, both because of his experience in English conditions and because of his ability to provide a foil for Warner. And, frankly, his performance since then has vindicated that decision.

Also, that was statistically Watson's best series since the 2010-11 Ashes. So how much did it hurt him?

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

What about the fact that Watson has been short of runs for four years?

Since when does someone like Watson get to pick his spot in the batting order?

Watson was shunted to 4, to bring Warner back in.

That has also been vindicated, hasn't it?

What's Warner's record since he was recalled?

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!

Watson outscored his teammates because of one big knock in the dead rubber. Up until then, he had been averaging 27. So let's not oversell how good he was that series.

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.

Well, none of them are currently in the side either, apart from Marsh, who has been doing significantly better than Watson since he was recalled against South Africa.

Marsh has had two series in a row averaging 40-plus. By comparison, Watson has averaged 40-plus in two series in the past four years.

So, on form, Marsh is absolutely offering something better than Watson with the bat.

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.

In the past four years, Watson has averaged 31.

 

[rockypls]

Burns has pretty much always batted 3 for QLD until this season.

Stuart Law stated that they moved him up to open, as they view that the most likely spot he would be selected for Australia in the next 12 months.

He then got picked at #6 !

Burns never batted three. Seriously unaware where you got this from.

 

[The_Reaper]

Forrest and Khawaja have normally batted at 3 from memory.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

That doesn't make sense.

If you have a player who isn't performing, you give another guy the opportunity.

Watson has been so short of runs in the past four years that he is no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

You need to stop talking about the 2013 Ashes as though Watson was awesome.

He averaged 27 over the first four Tests and then cashed in with a big score in the dead rubber.

I assume you know this already.

This is disingenuous.

Are you saying there's simply no alternative to having at Watson's at No.3?

The reality is that he's no longer one of the best five batsmen in the country and has real competition from Mitch Marsh as the preferred all-rounder. You have to really jump through some hoops to keep arguing that, in light of all this, there's simply no alternative.

First point. I would argue that Watson did perform over the last 2 tests, his batting was a little scratchy but his bowling was far better then his figures suggest.

Second Point. I can bring up the 2013 Ashes as much as I want because that's where the next Ashes series is. We want players who have played in the conditions and although I don't like Watson, I don't see another option for number 3 knocking the door down.

Third Point. Watson is still the best all rounder we have. Marsh has impressed me with his batting, however from what I've seen of him I would much rather Watsons bowling over his. While we don't have someone knocking the door down, it would be stupid to replace him. It's all irelevent though because Watson will likely play in the Windies series and depending on his form will get a spot in the Ashes.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

First point. I would argue that Watson did perform over the last 2 tests, his batting was a little scratchy but his bowling was far better then his figures suggest.

His bowling remains useful. No one is disputing that. But he has been short of runs for a long time. Not just the last two Tests or the last series. But basically the entire second half of his career, which dates back four years to the start of 2011.

Second Point. I can bring up the 2013 Ashes as much as I want because that's where the next Ashes series is.

Fair enough. But you should be honest about his performance in that series. He did bugger-all when the series was there to be won but cashed in with a big score during the dead rubber. So if you want to keep talking about that series, you should be honest enough to acknowledge that detail instead of omitting it.

We want players who have played in the conditions and although I don't like Watson, I don't see another option for number 3 knocking the door down.

Not sure why you keep circling back to this.

Watson is no longer among the best five batsmen in the country. So instead of shoehorning Watson into that position, even though he doesn't have the runs to justify it, why not just pick the five best batsmen and then figure out the most effective line-up, with the all-rounder at No.6. Why can't Smith bat No.3? Is he going to score fewer runs than Watson has lately?

Third Point. Watson is still the best all rounder we have.

You say that as though it is self-evidently true, as though the statement is its own proof.

Watson has had a shitload of opportunities but has been short of runs for ages. At the very least, he should be moved from No.3 to No.6 and it's then a head-to-head between him and Marsh. Watson is 33 and injury-prone so how long do you reckon he's going to keep his nose in front if we make it a clear-cut case of him v Marsh for the No.6 position?

Marsh has impressed me with his batting, however from what I've seen of him I would much rather Watsons bowling over his.

You're picking a guy to bat in the top six, right?

While we don't have someone knocking the door down, it would be stupid to replace him.

That's such a bizarre argument.

Watson isn't performing, so you have to look at the alternatives. And Marsh is actually a pretty good alternative. Watson has averaged 31 since the start of 2011 and Marsh looks a reasonable bet to improve on that – and runs are what really matter when picking someone to bat in the top six.

So stop going back to this claim that there are no alternatives and Watson therefore needs to be retained come what may. Marsh is a readymade alternative and Watson no longer demands selection because he hasn't scored enough runs. You really have to bend over backwards and deny the obvious to claim otherwise.

 

[eth-dog]

Last 2 seasons Burns hasn't batted at 3, but before that he did.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

He has batted at 3 in 26 of his 47 first class matches.

Not sure what the innings breakdown is, as QLD really stuffed around with their batting order there for a while

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Fair enough. But you should be honest about his performance in that series. He did bugger-all when the series was there to be won but cashed in with a big score during the dead rubber. So if you want to keep talking about that series, you should be honest enough to acknowledge that detail instead of omitting it.

There is no such thing as a dead rubber in Test cricket. Don't know why people fail to acknowledge this.

Rogers has made nearly all his runs in dead rubbers, particularly in the home Ashes last year, he made 2nd innings hundreds in the 4th and 5th tests when we were 3-0 and 4-0 up and had 200 run leads.

guess what? they are still test hundreds.

People called this sydney test a 'dead rubber' and make out Watson was under no pressure, and therefore would inevitably perform.

I would argue he was under more pressure than at any point in his career, as he was probably genuinely (and rightly so) playing for his test future.

Watson is no longer among the best five batsmen in the country.

Agreed, he most certainly isn't on recent evidence.

So instead of shoehorning Watson into that position, even though he doesn't have the runs to justify it, why not just pick the five best batsmen and then figure out the most effective line-up, with the all-rounder at No.6. Why can't Smith bat No.3? Is he going to score fewer runs than Watson has lately?

Why does it matter? The selectors picked 5 batsmen and an all-rounder for the last few tests, does it matter if the all-rounder opens, bats at 3,4,5 or 6?

The captain picks the batting order, and thats what he felt most appropriate. It doesn't matter if Watson bats at 3, and then 5 specialists bat around him does it? Why are we so focused on him batting at 3? Why would anyone be any happier, if you picked the exact same line up we had in the 4th test, but switched Watto and Burns around?

Maybe there is method to the madness? Smith, Clarke, S.Marsh, Rogers, Warner all don't want to bat 3. Watson as the least accomplished player, gets the boobie prize....

Burns may very well want to bat 3, but recent history shows that starting youngsters early in their career at 3 doesn't work.

therefore, you have picked 5 specialist batsmen. As the 5 best batsmen in the country, they get to bat where they want and the all-rounder gets the spot they don't want. In this case, it happens to be #3.

We need to get over where in the order he bats.

His selection is as an all-rounder. His competition for that spot is Mitch Marsh. Recent test form suggests Marsh might be in better nick with the bat, but there is overwhelming evidence that Watson is the superior batsman. Even with a test average of the last 4 years being 31, against Marsh having a first class average in the last 4 years of 28.

I don't think there is any doubt Watson is the better bowler, so on that basis - they directly compete for a spot and Watson wins. this could change, but where either of them bats in the order is irrelevant.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There is no such thing as a dead rubber in Test cricket.

Of course there is. It's when the result of a series – win, loss or draw – has already been decided with one or more Tests left to play.

If you don't believe that, why do you think Mitchell Johnson didn't play against India in Sydney?

Smith admitted Johnson probably would have played had the series still been up for grabs. Instead, he was rested. So even if you insist on denying the existence of dead rubbers, they influence selection policy. That's real enough for me.

Rogers has made nearly all his runs in dead rubbers, particularly in the home Ashes last year, he made 2nd innings hundreds in the 4th and 5th tests when we were 3-0 and 4-0 up and had 200 run leads.

I don't think Rogers has ever been more than one lean series away from being under pressure. Even this summer, people were saying he needed runs. It's only when he responded with six consecutive half-centuries that it became clear he was safe.

But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Rogers should be dropped? Either way, how does it relate to whether Watson is secure?

People called this sydney test a 'dead rubber' and make out Watson was under no pressure, and therefore would inevitably perform.

I would argue he was under more pressure than at any point in his career, as he was probably genuinely (and rightly so) playing for his test future.

You're talking about different types of pressure.

Watson was under pressure to perform because he's been so short of runs that he might be dropped. He needed to perform to keep his spot. That's different from the kind of pressure that comes from the series being on the line, when players need to perform to get the win.

Why does it matter? The selectors picked 5 batsmen and an all-rounder for the last few tests, does it matter if the all-rounder opens, bats at 3,4,5 or 6?

The captain picks the batting order, and thats what he felt most appropriate. It doesn't matter if Watson bats at 3, and then 5 specialists bat around him does it? Why are we so focused on him batting at 3?

It absolutely matters when he's been short of runs for four years. Or are you rejecting the idea that No.3 is a pivotal spot in the batting order?

The reality is that when the top order fails, it puts massive pressure on the guys who follow. Look at what happened in the home Ashes last summer. The top order failed over and over and it fell to the middle order, Haddin and the tail to bail Australia out over and over. That's not what you want. That's why you'd traditionally have the best batsmen at No.3 and No.4.

In his current form, Watson shouldn't be batting there. He should be batting at No.6, which is the traditional position for a batting all-rounder. He doesn't have the runs on the board to stay at No.3. He's become a liability in that position.

Maybe there is method to the madness? Smith, Clarke, S.Marsh, Rogers, Warner all don't want to bat 3. Watson as the least accomplished player, gets the boobie prize...

Has Smith specifically said he doesn't want to bat at No.3?

The reality is that Watson is barely hanging on to his place in the side. In a full-strength Australian side, he shouldn't be batting at first drop.

We need to get over where in the order he bats.

Are you basically saying that batting order doesn't matter?

I agree to an extent – there's no point getting wound up about the difference between No.4 and No.5 but I don't think it's unreasonable to say you shouldn't have a guy who's been short of runs for so long at No.3, which is a pivotal position.

His selection is as an all-rounder. His competition for that spot is Mitch Marsh. Recent test form suggests Marsh might be in better nick with the bat, but there is overwhelming evidence that Watson is the superior batsman.

Even with a test average of the last 4 years being 31, against Marsh having a first class average in the last 4 years of 28.

What about Marsh's performance to date at Test level? Have you left that out because it doesn't suit your argument?

I think Marsh looks like a reasonable bet to improve on Watson's recent output with the bat. That's why Watson is under pressure. He's no longer worth his spot as a specialist batsman and there's a young all-rounder who looks like he could do as good a job or better with the bat.

I don't think there is any doubt Watson is the better bowler, so on that basis - they directly compete for a spot and Watson wins. this could change, but where either of them bats in the order is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. No.3 is a pivotal position generally filled by one of the side's best batsmen. Watson is short of runs and shouldn't be batting there. If he moves to No.6 and scores runs, good luck to him.

As for Watson keeping Marsh at bay, he's been so short of runs for so long that it's no longer cut and dried. I think he'll get another opportunity but in a full-strength Australian side, it's him vs Marsh at No.6 and Watson is running out of time.

 

[Run n Spread]

In an article a while a go but Watson only now plays as an all rounder or not at all. While he hasn't set the world on fire no one is really banging down the door. He essentially plays as an all rounder now but bats at 3 because he is suited to the top of the order and has been stuffed about chronically. So who is missing out/would do better?

To mine this is what I don't understand. There is an obvious candidate in Faulkner who brings more to the table in bowling and is passable with the bat but then people get all squeamish about making a change (when he did well in his sole test/was 12th man all last ashes) siting he hasn't made a 100 (while Watson has only made 4) is too slow etc. So the debate goes in a loop where it is better to pick the devil you know but then Watson doesn't hit a century and is inevitably pilloried. I mean it's not as if anyone is going to knock back a spot in the Test 11. Up to the selectors to make the call. That's what they're paid for.

(In fact a place like England where the game moves quicker, ball hoops about you probably don't need a 5th bowler, so you could play 6 batsman, leaving Watson out or play the 4 quick and a spinning all rounder (similar to what England did) which would open the door for Maxwell "again" (cue heart attack from Western Royboy), Agar or a smoky in Marcus North/Cam White. Personally I'd just go the 6 batsmen and best 4 bowlers may or may not include Lyon depending on conditions.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

In an article a while a go but Watson only now plays as an all rounder or not at all. While he hasn't set the world on fire no one is really banging down the door. He essentially plays as an all rounder now but bats at 3 because he is suited to the top of the order and has been stuffed about chronically. So who is missing out/would do better?

Watson is not in the five best batsmen. So it's currently between him and Mitch Marsh for the all-rounder's position. Based on his performances at Test level to date, Marsh would be a reasonable bet to improve on Watson's recent output with the bat – that bar has been set pretty low – and has the advantage of being 10 years younger.

As for the bit about Watson 'being stuffed around', that's a bit rich. He's still being picked, despite being short of runs for four years. Does he really have cause for complaint?

 

[Run n Spread]

Watson is not in the five best batsmen. So it's currently between him and Mitch Marsh for the all-rounder's position. Based on his performances at Test level to date, Marsh would be a reasonable bet to improve on Watson's recent output with the bat – that bar has been set pretty low – and has the decided advantage of being 10 years younger.

As for the bit about Watson 'being stuffed around', that's a bit rich. He's still being picked, despite being short of runs for four years. Does he really have cause for complaint?

You don't understand that Mitch Marsh is competing for the all-rounder's spot?

Yes. A genuine talent no doubt but is his bowling up to scratch? In time he could be a genuine top 6 but 1 wicket in 4 tests I'd say Faulkner offers more and while Marsh has had a few cameos with the bat he has hardly set the world on fire. Not against marsh playing but I reckon the only player I reckon (non bowler wise) who could have a legitimate gripe at not being given a go is Faulkner.

In saying that I'd go 6 batsmen in England. Failing that bat Wade at 6 (yes replacing Haddin) and Faulkner at 7 if you want an all rounder.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes. A genuine talent no doubt but is his bowling up to scratch?

FC average of 29. Same as Watson.

In time he could be a genuine top 6 but 1 wicket in 4 tests I'd say Faulkner offers more and while Marsh has had a few cameos he has hardly set the world on fire. Not against marsh playing but I reckon the only player I reckon (non bowler wise) who could have a legitimate gripe at not being given a go is Faulkner.

Well, then you've got two young all-rounders worth considering. Where does that leave Watson?

In saying that I'd go 6 batsmen in England. Failing that bat Wade at 6 (yes replacing Haddin) and Faulkner at 7 if you want an all rounder.

Both unlikely in my view.

 

[Run n Spread]

Well, then you've got two young all-rounders worth considering. Where does that leave Watson?

I'd say terrific career, good servant Border medals, versatile etc but performance over the last few years no longer justifies a place in the 11.

 

[Scotland]

Terrific is overselling it.

If you picked a best team of the Waugh/Ponting/Clarke eras Watson would probably make the 3rd XI.

 

[The_Reaper]

Watson had an okay test career with a good peak but didn't become the player everyone expected him to develop into and was a dominant limited overs player.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Watson had an okay test career with a good peak but didn't become the player everyone expected him to develop into and was a dominant limited overs player.

Think about the ratio of opportunity to performance.

 

[Scotland]

Watson's peak was averaging 65 from 7 matches in 2009. As far as peaks go that's a lot closer to Kosciusko than it is Everest.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Of course there is. It's when the result of a series – win, loss or draw – has already been decided with one or more Tests left to play.

There are Tests where the result will not influence a series result, but all players are under pressure in every test match. It's Test cricket, every run ins savoured and every wicket is celebrated.

I don't think Rogers has ever been more than one lean series away from being under pressure. Even this summer, people were saying he needed runs. It's only when he responded with six consecutive half-centuries that it became clear he was safe.

But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Rogers should be dropped? Either way, how does it relate to whether Watson is secure?

My point is that most of his runs have been made in what are considered 'dead rubbers' but he doesn't cop the same criticism for doing so. shows that it is more about personalities than actual facts.

I'm a strong supporter of Rogers being in the side, and have been since Hayden retired. It took far too long to get him in there.

It absolutely matters when he's been short of runs for four years. Or are you rejecting the idea that No.3 is a pivotal spot in the batting order?

I believe all spots are pivotal, particularly in the Top 7.

The reality is that when the top order fails, it puts massive pressure on the guys who follow. Look at what happened in the home Ashes last summer. The top order failed over and over and it fell to the middle order, Haddin and the tail to bail Australia out over and over. That's not what you want. That's why you'd traditionally have the best batsmen at No.3 and No.4.

But the best batsman has refused to move in the past, took 18 months to get him to move from 5. I imagine they love having Watto there, just like they did when he was opening. Rarely gets out early, usually soaks up at least 10-15 overs and then gets himself out for between 20 and 40 when the ball is softening and the front line bowlers are into 3rd and 4th spells.

In his current form, Watson shouldn't be batting there. He should be batting at No.6, which is the traditional position for a batting all-rounder. He doesn't have the runs on the board to stay at No.3. He's become a liability in that position.

Before the series started, we had Warner, Rogers, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Marsh as the Top 6. Of those 6, only Warner and Clarke averaged more than 39. Watson averaged 37, rogers 35 or so and Marsh had played 2 tests ans sported a shield average of 23. Smith was hovering between 38 and 40.

Thats a very very bare cupboard for batting talent, so if Clarke refused to move - the order pretty much picked itself.

Has Smith specifically said he doesn't want to bat at No.3?

Nope, but he was captain for 3 tests and the captain picks the batting order, he didn't put himself at 3.

The reality is that Watson is barely hanging on to his place in the side. In a full-strength Australian side, he shouldn't be batting at first drop.

I think he should be at 6, but I'm aware that coming into this series he averaged 34 for the past 3.5 years, but close to 40 at #3.

Are you basically saying that batting order doesn't matter?

I'm saying I want the best 5 batsmen picked, which they probably were. Those best 5 batsmen should then bat where they are most suited, and the 6th best should bat in the spot leftover. In this case, that is #3.

I agree to an extent – there's no point getting wound up about the difference between No.4 and No.5 but I don't think it's unreasonable to say you shouldn't have a guy who's been short of runs for so long at No.3, which is a pivotal position.

Preferably we wouldn't have people that are short on runs or form anywhere, but then we'd only pick 3 or 4 players.

What about Marsh's performance to date at Test level? Have you left that out because it doesn't suit your argument?

what exactly is my argument?

I think Marsh looks like a reasonable bet to improve on Watson's recent output with the bat. That's why Watson is under pressure. He's no longer worth his spot as a specialist batsman and there's a young all-rounder who looks like he could do as good a job or better with the bat.

I respectfully disagree at this point. I don't think he does look like he could do a better job so far.

It's not irrelevant. No.3 is a pivotal position generally filled by one of the side's best batsmen. Watson is short of runs and shouldn't be batting there. If he moves to No.6 and scores runs, good luck to him.

As far as selection goes, its irrelevant. We want the best 5 batsmen picked and then an all-rounder. While I prefer he bat at 6, if that alters the balance of the side and upsets the form of the better batsmen, then happy to leave him at 3.

As for Watson keeping Marsh at bay, he's been so short of runs for so long that it's no longer cut and dried. I think he'll get another opportunity but in a full-strength Australian side, it's him vs Marsh at No.6 and Watson is running out of time.

completely agree, but keep in mind Watson's dry patch with the bat of 31 in test cricket for 4 years is still better than Marsh averaging 28 for the same period at lower levels.

To mine this is what I don't understand. There is an obvious candidate in Faulkner who brings more to the table in bowling and is passable with the bat but then people get all squeamish about making a change (when he did well in his sole test/was 12th man all last ashes) siting he hasn't made a 100 (while Watson has only made 4) is too slow etc.

what do you mean Watson has made 4? Fasulkner is yet to register a first class hundred, not a single one. Watson has 20 of them.

They are simply not competing for a spot. Faulkner is a bowling all-rounder, he is not even as good a batsman as Johnson. Faulkner needs to seriously improve his bowling to come into test calculations, or needs to re-invent his batting, not just improve it.

(In fact a place like England where the game moves quicker, ball hoops about you probably don't need a 5th bowler, so you could play 6 batsman, leaving Watson out or play the 4 quick and a spinning all rounder (similar to what England did)

did you catch the 2013 Ashes? they produced dry slow pitches, and will do so again. We absolutely need 5 bowlers. Agree the 5th one could be a spinner though.