What do you do with Shane Watson?

[The Swans Blog]

Is he picked as a batter or bowler? He needs to be picked as one or the other going forward. He simply isn't good enough bowler for this format, not since the rule changes essentially turned it into an extended 20-20 match.

He's not a good enough batsman to play high up the order, maybe he was 4-5 years ago, but he definitely isn't now. He isn't a good enough bowler in this format to even warrant a selection for his bowling. His bowling last night was ordinary at best, bowling it in perfect areas to get slapped around the ground. People talk about Faulkner not being able to win games - his bowling pretty much won it for us. He came on and got a wicket almost straight away and it lead to a few more wickets. Watson needs to take a leaf from his book on how to bowl in the modern day and age, because bowling slow meat pies are going to get devoured.

Player: O M R W E 0s 4s 6s
Watson: 7 0 71 1 10.14 10 9 1
Faulkner: 9 0 48 3 5.33 23 4 0

 

[geelong_boy]

And downplaying the success is as stupid as claiming it as proof we were right selecting him all along.

People demand he perform. You can't then downplay it when he does. You can't have it both ways.

It's good that he made those runs but he needs to do it far more consistently than he has of late. I don't think that's asking too much.

 

[Kram]

He's not a good enough batsman to play high up the order, maybe he was 4-5 years ago, but he definitely isn't now.

He averaged 43 batting in the top order in 2013 with 3 centuries. Honestly so much hyperbole to flat out making stuff up in this thread.

 

[CountryRace]

what about 2014 2015?

 

[Kram]

7 innings at 24 and 5 innings at 29.

 

[CountryRace]

and 7 over for 71 runs last night

carrying him imo

the other 10 are still good enough to win the WC if it goes there way, but

 

[Art Vandelay_]

7 innings at 24 and 5 innings at 29.

Which is the point many have been making.

Not good enough for a number 3, if at 6 combined with bowling (as long as that's up to scratch) then there's no problem.

He's got 2 spots he can fit into atm 3 or 6. 1-2 are for Warner and Finch, if he's at 3 then Clarke/Smith take 4-5. If at 6 they take 3-4.

Have no problem with him at 6 tbh if he can bowl and provide late innings impetus, like yesterday alongside Maxy.

I was just fed up with him failing at 3 all summer.

 

[CountryRace]

I don't like him at 3

Smith should be at 3 as u want best batsman out there for long time

Not the alrrounder that average mid 20s

Unless its an AB superfreak

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Which is the point many have been making.

Not good enough for a number 3, if at 6 combined with bowling (as long as that's up to scratch) then there's no problem.

He's got 2 spots he can fit into atm 3 or 6. 1-2 are for Warner and Finch, if he's at 3 then Clarke/Smith take 4-5. If at 6 they take 3-4.

Have no problem with him at 6 tbh if he can bowl and provide late innings impetus, like yesterday alongside Maxy.

I was just fed up with him failing at 3 all summer.

Watson struggled through the Test summer and his position in that format should be seriously looked at.

But when it comes to ODI cricket, he's still got an excellent record. Granted, he's had a bit of a lean trot, but there's a much stronger argument to be made on his behalf in the 50-over game. After Mitch Marsh ran through England in the opening match, it looked like the wheel might have turned but I now think they'll stick with Watson at 5 or 6.

That said, bear in mind these numbers since the start of 2014:

Watson: 312 runs at 26; three wickets at 114.
Marsh: 412 runs at 37; 10 wickets at 31.

Watson is being picked on his record, which is fair enough to an extent. But I reckon he's gonski after the World Cup.

 

[CountryRace]

Watson struggled through the Test summer and his position in that format should be seriously looked at.

But when it comes to ODI cricket, he's still got an excellent record. Granted, he's had a bit of a lean trot, but there's a much stronger argument to be made on his behalf in the 50-over game. After Mitch Marsh ran through England in the opening match, it looked like the wheel might have turned but I now think they'll stick with Watson at 5 or 6.

That said, bear in mind these numbers since the start of 2014:

Watson: 312 runs at 26; three wickets at 114.
Marsh: 412 runs at 37; 10 wickets at 31.

Watson is being picked on his record, which is fair enough to an extent. But I reckon he's gonski after the World Cup.

stiff on bailey

he made 1100 runs @ 65 the same year watson being talked up for

He averaged 43 batting in the top order in 2013 with 3 centuries. Honestly so much hyperbole to flat out making stuff up in this thread.

and about the same the last couple years

 

[Sweet Jesus]

stiff on bailey

Not really.

We need a way to bowl 50 overs. Should Maxwell bowl 10?

Also, Bailey's made 478 runs at 24 since the start of 2014. He was basically squeezed out by Smith.

he made 1100 runs @ 65 the same year watson being talked up for

That was two years ago.

 

[CountryRace]

Not really.

We need a way to bowl 50 overs and Bailey's made 478 runs at 24 since the start of 2014.

Watson made 258 runs 2014 ...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Watson made 258 runs 2014 ...

I don't know what that means.

It's true that Watson has been short of runs in ODIs but we need that sixth bowling option unless you want Maxwell bowling 10 overs every game.

You could make the argument for another all-rounder over Watson. But Bailey has been forced out by Clarke and Smith.

 

[CountryRace]

I don't know what that means.

It's true that Watson has been short of runs in ODIs but we need that sixth bowling option unless you want Maxwell bowling 10 overs every game.

You could make the argument for another all-rounder over Watson. But Bailey has been forced out by Clarke and Smith.

Johnson
Starc
Cummins/Hazlewood/Pattison

Faukner

Smith
Clarke
Maxwell

Marsh?

is enough bowling imo

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Johnson
Starc
Cummins/Hazlewood/Pattison

Faukner

Smith
Clarke
Maxwell

Marsh?

is enough bowling imo

Smith and Clarke are part-timers. Clarke, in particular, has bowled 16 overs in ODIs since the start of 2013.

Marsh is competing for the same spot as Watson or, in theory, Bailey.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Marsh or Watson is the argument. Bailey really doesn't get a look in with Clarke back. He is a good captain though.

 

[PaddyO]

Warner
Finch
Smith
Clarke
Watson
Maxwell
Faulkner
Haddin
Starc
Johnson
Cummins/Doherty/Hazelwood

As big a fan as I am of Marsh, the selectors might stick with Watto for this campaign.

As much of a critic as I am of Watto, his innings yesterday was solid.

 

[Fat Nyfe]

Marsh or Watson is the argument.

Agree but it shouldn't even be an argument. Marsh is a young guy with his career in front of him and has made a very good start, clearly improving all the time. Watson's career has almost passed by, without many even realising, fluctuating between an almost-but-not-quite star all rounder and for the past few years, the 'not really good enough, but he has huge potential so we'll give him another go' batsman/part time bowler.

We've the seen the Watson we saw yesterday before, a number of times. The Watson that looks like he's dropped the 100kg deadweight off his shoulders and vanquished the mental demons, playing with freedom and fluency. Unfortunately this means people assuming its a new beginning for him, turning a new page.
We saw this Watson in the last ashes test of the 2013 series in England, where he first played at number 3 with a huge century. All the experts were saying he's finally found his position, this is where he plays his best cricket.
How has that turned out?

Cricket is a numbers game, if you get 100 opportunities, it's incredibly improbable that you won't make the most of at least a couple. Given the oppurtunities Watson has received, I'm not surprised he finally made one count yesterday.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Warner
Finch
Smith
Clarke
Watson
Maxwell
Faulkner
Haddin
Starc
Johnson
Cummins/Doherty/Hazelwood

As big a fan as I am of Marsh, the selectors might stick with Watto for this campaign.

As much of a critic as I am of Watto, his innings yesterday was solid.

They want Watson's experience as much as anything. They brought him back for a particular reason yesterday, and that was due to him having experience and knowledge of how to bowl on certain types of wickets that someone like Marsh just doesn't have.

It worked out well with the bat, not so much with the ball but at least they know they can get a lot of overs in one innings out of him. I expected him to be brought back into the first 11 though not quite this soon.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Agree but it shouldn't even be an argument. Marsh is a young guy with his career in front of him and has made a very good start, clearly improving all the time. Watson's career has almost passed by, without many even realising, fluctuating between an almost-but-not-quite star all rounder and for the past few years, the 'not really good enough, but he has huge potential so we'll give him another go' batsman/part time bowler.

We've the seen the Watson we saw yesterday before, a number of times. The Watson that looks like he's dropped the 100kg deadweight off his shoulders and vanquished the mental demons, playing with freedom and fluency. Unfortunately this means people assuming its a new beginning for him, turning a new page.
We saw this Watson in the last ashes test of the 2013 series in England, where he first played at number 3 with a huge century. All the experts were saying he's finally found his position, this is where he plays his best cricket.
How has that turned out?

Cricket is a numbers game, if you get 100 opportunities, it's incredibly improbable that you won't make the most of at least a couple. Given the oppurtunities Watson has received, I'm not surprised he finally made one count yesterday.

It's a World Cup. We're not picking a kid because he might turn out okay in time. We pick a side to win the World Cup.

 

[Scotland]

Plus you'd back Watson to perform in a big game over Marsh if it was a lineball decision.

On what basis? Form from 2+ years ago?

 

[PaddyO]

Right now I think we look best with three quicks, plus Faulkner, Maxwell and Watto to share 20 overs.

 

[Scotland]

It's a World Cup. We're not picking a kid because he might turn out okay in time. We pick a side to win the World Cup.

A kid who since he came into the ODI fold has outperformed Shane Watson.

Mitch Marsh is OK now. He's probably not as good as he could be in time, but that's not relevant in a Marsh vs Watson debate.

If Watson was averaging 40 with the bat and going at 5 an over with the ball, you'd say 'bad luck Marsh, wait your turn' - but he's not. The goalposts in the arguments of the Watson devotees (whether it's test, ODI or T20) rarely laste more than about 5 minutes in the same place. Are we judging Marsh on potential or form? You say form. OK, fine. What are we judging Watson on? Form? Record? Potential at age 33?

Watson was dropped for an extended run of poor form and a half century coming in at 4/180 then going for 10 an over with the ball doesn't mean he's "back" by any means. I think the selectors will keep him in the side for the remainder of the WC, but I'm not expecting big things. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Scotland]

Right now I think we look best with three quicks, plus Faulkner, Maxwell and Watto to share 20 overs.

I agree with the make-up. Doherty didn't add much vs Sri Lanka compared to Maxwell who is in the side as a batting all rounder.

Johnson is bowling pies at the minute, Starc and Faulkner are holding the bowling line up together.

 

[Bradesmaen]

A kid who since he came into the ODI fold has outperformed Shane Watson.

Mitch Marsh is OK now. He's probably not as good as he could be in time, but that's not relevant in a Marsh vs Watson debate.

If Watson was averaging 40 with the bat and going at 5 an over with the ball, you'd say 'bad luck Marsh, wait your turn' - but he's not. The goalposts in the arguments of the Watson devotees (whether it's test, ODI or T20) rarely laste more than about 5 minutes in the same place. Are we judging Marsh on potential or form? You say form. OK, fine. What are we judging Watson on? Form? Record? Potential at age 33?

Watson was dropped for an extended run of poor form and a half century coming in at 4/180 then going for 10 an over with the ball doesn't mean he's "back" by any means. I think the selectors will keep him in the side for the remainder of the WC, but I'm not expecting big things. I hope I'm wrong.

But what has Marsh done with the bat and with the ball, other than that one game v England? His form with the bat has been woeful and his form with the ball bar that one game has been just as bad. When you look at it on balance both have been as bad as the other, Watson wins out due to his experience.

Ironically.. Shane Watson's best performances with the ball came under his own captaincy. In those 9 games he took 12 wickets at 18. Batting wise he sucked as captain.