What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Art Vandelay_]

The 3 vs 6 argument is nonsense.

Watson has played 122/183 ODIs as an opener or at #3. And he's scored 4,745 runs @ 41.3 doing so.

He's not a test #3, but that's an entirely different argument. As an ODI cricketer he has done his best work in the top order over an extended period. The last time he batted outside the top 3 was 2007.

The reason he hasn't been making any runs is that he has been out of form. It's as simple as that. Regardless of batting position, a great 2011 means **** all in 2015.

Yeah he's had one good innings coming in at 6 but that is no guarantee of anything. If he fails coming in at 4/50 rather than 4/170 odd then the same questions will come up again.

29.75 at #3 actually.

 

[Scotland]

He has always been a gun one day player that just had a form slump for a while.

Yep. You don't score 5,000+ runs @ 40 by accident.

The frustration is that amount of leeway he has been given for his 'form slump' in test and ODI formats.

 

[Scotland]

29.75 at #3 actually.

Watson has played 122/183 ODIs as an opener or at #3. And he's scored 4,745 runs @ 41.3 doing so.

 

[Kram]

Yep. You don't score 5,000+ runs @ 40 by accident.

The frustration is that amount of leeway he has been given for his 'form slump' in test and ODI formats.

He is well worth sticking with in the one day team but Tests is completely different where he hasn't really ever been any good anyway.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

You said the 3 v 6 debate then include opening as well.

 

[Phone]

selectors ****ed up by dropping him for mitch marsh, and if they bought him back for his bowling, they ****ed up bringing him back for mitch marsh, but thank god he's hopefully secured his place at 5/6 over mitch for the rest of the wc. (they also stuffed up by not moving him to 5 before the dropping anyway)

 

[Scotland]

You said the 3 v 6 debate then include opening as well.

If we're only going to look at 3 vs 6 then drop him for good and be done with it. His records at 3 and 6 are both meh.

If you can open then you can bat at 3 in ODI cricket. Watson has performed at 1/2/3. Just not recently.

 

[ManWithNoName]

LukeParkerno1 I knew you couldn't back up your shit talking.

The only shit thing about this thread is the is the person it's about. Deadset spud

Speaking of absolute spuds. You.

Yep Spurs fan. Next...

A true pinnacle of intellectual debate has been reached now.

 

[Coxy_]

Who cares what LukeParkerno1 has to say. Bloke changes which AFL side he supports FFS.

Well done Watto. Quality batting performance against quality opposition.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

The 3 vs 6 argument is nonsense.

Watson has played 122/183 ODIs as an opener or at #3. And he's scored 4,745 runs @ 41.3 doing so.

He's not a test #3, but that's an entirely different argument. As an ODI cricketer he has done his best work in the top order over an extended period. The last time he batted outside the top 3 was 2007.

The reason he hasn't been making any runs is that he has been out of form. It's as simple as that. Regardless of batting position, a great 2011 means **** all in 2015.

Yeah he's had one good innings coming in at 6 but that is no guarantee of anything. If he fails coming in at 4/50 rather than 4/170 odd then the same questions will come up again.

Well, he played at 6 or 7 in the 2007 World Cup and did well so it's not unknown for him to play there. You'd hope they'd keep him there now.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

selectors stuffed up by dropping him for mitch marsh, and if they bought him back for his bowling, they stuffed up bringing him back for mitch marsh, but thank god he's hopefully secured his place at 5/6 over mitch for the rest of the wc. (they also stuffed up by not moving him to 5 before the dropping anyway)

I felt that as soon as he was dropped for Afghanistan, it was only due to wanting to give him a rap over the knuckles. I just kniew they'd bring him back as soon as they could. Best they play these games during this round, that's about the best way you can put it.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

As I said earlier, if you're making the broader point about Watson having a lean run for an extended period, that's fair enough. But you can't single him out for this one match, when everyone sucked.

In the end, it was that extended lean period that cost him.

That's irrelevant.

t's a thread about Watson. Please look up the definition of relevant.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

t's a thread about Watson. Please look up the definition of relevant.

That doesn't mean that any and all criticism is reasonable.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

That doesn't mean that any and all criticism is reasonable.

Have you looked up my original point? What you are saying doesn't make sense.

 

[Underdog]

Watson averaged 1 run more than Marsh in the WC prior to this match despite having much more opportunity to build an innings. Marsh has also had significant input with the ball unlike Watson.

I don't see how this innings justifies anything. He jagged a good innings with no prior form.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Have you looked up my original point?

You didn't make one.

You offered the ridiculous banality that this thread 'isn't about Finch or Warner'. No shit. That doesn't mean they are somehow fenced off from the discussion. And it doesn't mean it is therefore reasonable to single out Watson for criticism when the entire batting order failed.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

You didn't make one.

You offered the ridiculous banality that this thread 'isn't about Finch or Warner'. No shit. That doesn't mean they are somehow fenced off from the discussion. And it doesn't mean it is therefore reasonable to single out Watson for criticism when the entire batting order failed.

How is that ridiculous? I've criticised Warner a lot in ODIs and was making a very specific point about Watson in a thread about Watson. You can answer this and I won't respond further. You are welcome to have the last say.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

How is that ridiculous? I've criticised Warner a lot in ODIs and was making a very specific point about Watson in a thread about Watson.

In view of the collective failure, it doesn't make sense to single out any one player. The fact the thread is 'about Watson' doesn't make it any less unreasonable.

 

[Scotland]

Well, he played at 6 or 7 in the 2007 World Cup and did well so it's not unknown for him to play there. You'd hope they'd keep him there now.

That was 8 years ago.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

That was 8 years ago.

Yes, but Steve Smith is making a bloody good fist of 3 and they want Watson in the team, that's obvious.

 

[bird_man]

Yes, but Steve Smith is making a bloody good fist of 3 and they want Watson in the team, that's obvious.

Smith is our best option at 3 so if Watson is to play it's down the order.

 

[Kram]

@Moderators - please ban whoever supports Watson from this thread... Just ban them from bigfooty altogether, or at least the cricket board. They must be doped up on quaaludes or something

How about we ban you

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Our great allrounder is bowling so well

 

[Art Vandelay_]

If we're only going to look at 3 vs 6 then drop him for good and be done with it. His records at 3 and 6 are both meh.

If you can open then you can bat at 3 in ODI cricket. Watson has performed at 1/2/3. Just not recently.

His performances at would suggest otherwise. He's never been good at 3

 

[Kram]

Oh the blind hatred is strong in this one