What do you do with Shane Watson?

[BarneyBent]

You think Robot has been better than mediocre in Test cricket, when?

When he was first picked as an opener around 2009, from memory he was averaging 45+ with the bat and less than 30 with the ball for a good couple of years, and was one of our few consistent players at that time.

Edit: Looked up the stats. From the 30th July 2009 (first match he was picked as opener) to the 30th July 2011, over 19 matches he averaged 49.88 with the bat, and 29.41 with the ball (including two 5 wicket hauls). Throw in his work as a slip (21 catches) and those are terrific stats.

Yes, he's shit now. That's no secret. But that doesn't mean you can discount his form when it was good.

Edit 2: It's also interesting, his form outside of those 2 years is absolutely shocking. Batting average of 28.4, bowling average of 35.86, taking just 46 wickets in 40 games.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

He's played 8 matches at 6 and averages 26. But he'll probably play the whole series as if Johnson bowls poorly, as they'll drop MJ and so Watson will be wanted for his experience.

 

[to1994]

Best kept in mind that even during his good couple of years he was more a case of best of a bad lot rather then a fantastic player. Despite consistent 50s he still only hit 2 tons in that 2 year period which is poor.

 

[Fat Nyfe]

Here is why watson should be in the team:

• He's scored more test runs in the past year than all the batsman from Afghanistan, Ireland and the UAE, and Chris Martin combined
• He has nearly as many test centuries as Marcus North
• He hasn't been injured in weeks
• He was in pretty good form five or six years ago
• This sub seems to like benchods, and he kind of looks like Jaime Lannister (and bats like he sword fights from the third book), and he's played for Tasmania
• He tries hard, and has even started doing his homework
• A lot people point out that he doesn't take a lot of ODI wickets. This is unfair, as he also doesn't take a lot of test wickets. Also, his role in ODI's is to be economical rather than take wickets, and in the last two years the only Australian bowlers to have a better ODI economy rate than Watson are Johnson, Starc, Pattinson, Cummins, Doherty, Faulkner, Marsh, Hazlewood, Smith, Maxwell and probably a few others.
• He seems as likeable and articulate as David Warner, and he doesn't assault lesbians
• He has all the foundations of a world class allrounder, and soon he's going to hit his peak. I know people have been saying that for ten years, but this year it's totally true.
• He has incriminating photos of the selectors, I assume
• He has previously captained the side, and seems the obvious choice for captain in all formats once they finally drop Steve Smith
• He scores runs when the team's under pressure. Several of them.
• He's batting is constantly improving. Early in his career he would get out bowled quite often. After a few years, he worked out you can block the stumps with your legs, unfortunately, he started getting a lot of LBWs. Then he worked out if you use the wooden thing in your hands, you can't get LBW. Unfortunately, sometimes the ball flies off that and goes into a fielder's hands. But wait until he works out you can hit the ball into the ground. He will be unstoppable.

And finally, the biggest, strongest argument I have for keeping Shane Watson in the team:

• If he got dropped now he'll probably retire and become Channel Nine's new top commentator

Just to supplement this:

- If you double all of Watson's innings in the tour matches, he almost scored as much as Mitch Marsh
- Those look backs to the batsman after a stern 125km bouncer can be quite intimidating
- He hit a really sweet cover drive in the nets against Johnson in just November last year
- Remember that infamous end of season trip with Boof and the boys in late 2013 when they stumbled into a gay bar in Sydney 'for a laugh'? No? Well Shane Watson's phone camera remembers.

 

[BarneyBent]

Best kept in mind that even during his good couple of years he was more a case of best of a bad lot rather then a fantastic player. Despite consistent 50s he still only hit 2 tons in that 2 year period which is poor.

Eh, personally I like that in an opener. Consistently gave his middle-lower order a good base to work from, navigating the difficult early overs and taking the shine off the ball.

 

[to1994]

Eh, personally I like that in an opener. Consistently gave his middle-lower order a good base to work from, navigating the difficult early overs and taking the shine off the ball.

Don't get my wrong, he was still in good form and was one of the first picked in that period, rightly so. But it certainly wasn't enough to justify flogging a dead horse for the last 4 years in hopes he'd do something.

 

[Scotland]

Edit: Looked up the stats. From the 30th July 2009 (first match he was picked as opener) to the 30th July 2011, over 19 matches he averaged 49.88 with the bat, and 29.41 with the ball (including two 5 wicket hauls). Throw in his work as a slip (21 catches) and those are terrific stats.

This really isn't all that impressive. I don't know why people think it is.

As a test batsman, you're expected to average around 40-50. Yes Watson is an all rounder so he gets some leeway but his run of form came when he was opening. You don't get to open the batting and claim all rounder points when you average 35 and never make centuries.

Rogers averages 40, Warner 47, Smith 56, Clarke 50, Voges 180 . Even the top batsman don't average 50+ all the time, but the top batsman average 80 or 100 over a series or a year which makes up for the times when they only average 20 or 30. Except Watson.

Edit 2: It's also interesting, his form outside of those 2 years is absolutely shocking. Batting average of 28.4, bowling average of 35.86, taking just 46 wickets in 40 games.

A ha! You're onto something now.

Watson's peak as a batsman is where you want a batsman's career average to be - which is why his career record is so ordinary.

If someone could point to a time in history when Watson averaged 80 or couldn't stop making 100s or carried the batting order etc. then I'd maybe go along with the 'he's got potential' thing but given he's 34 and has made four 100s in over 100 innings I reckon he's had a decent go. Since Watson debuted we're into double figures of batsmen/all rounders that CA have tried that have either had their papers stamped or been left to bide their time in Shield cricket.

His bowling record is OK but needs to be read in context. He strikes at 72 and averages less than a wicket per innings. It's not like he bowls 20 overs every innings when the pitch is flat and the ball has lost its shine.

 

[BarneyBent]

This really isn't all that impressive. I don't know why people think it is.

As a test batsman, you're expected to average around 40-50. Yes Watson is an all rounder so he gets some leeway but his run of form came when he was opening. You don't get to open the batting and claim all rounder points when you average 35 and never make centuries.

Rogers averages 40, Warner 47, Smith 56, Clarke 50, Voges 180 . Even the top batsman don't average 50+ all the time, but the top batsman average 80 or 100 over a series or a year which makes up for the times when they only average 20 or 30. Except Watson.



A ha! You're onto something now.

Watson's peak as a batsman is where you want a batsman's career average to be - which is why his career record is so ordinary.

If someone could point to a time in history when Watson averaged 80 or couldn't stop making 100s or carried the batting order etc. then I'd maybe go along with the 'he's got potential' thing but given he's 34 and has made four 100s in over 100 innings I reckon he's had a decent go. Since Watson debuted we're into double figures of batsmen/all rounders that CA have tried that have either had their papers stamped or been left to bide their time in Shield cricket.

His bowling record is OK but needs to be read in context. He strikes at 72 and averages less than a wicket per innings. It's not like he bowls 20 overs every innings when the pitch is flat and the ball has lost its shine.

Umm, your standard opener averages around 40. New ball tends to lower averages. We were truly spoilt having Mathew Hayden average around 50, Langer 45. Hayden/Langer was one of the best opening combos of all time, an average of 40 is a high credit for your standard opening batsman.

Watson averaging 50 with the bat and 29 with the ball for two years was remarkable, especially given he was performing in an otherwise very inconsistent and frankly rubbish (by Australian standards, at least) side.

Do his performances then justify his continued selection now? Of course not, I've been as vocal as anyone in favour of Marsh. But it is just petty to suggest his first couple of years in the team weren't excellent. He was literally our best, most reliable Test cricketer in that period.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

What you do with Watson RIGHT NOW is pray like hell that he can play above himself tomorrow. And I mean really above himself as his average in the first match of series is a bit shit.

 

[Scotland]

Umm, your standard opener averages around 40. New ball tends to lower averages. We were truly spoilt having Mathew Hayden average around 50, Langer 45. Hayden/Langer was one of the best opening combos of all time, an average of 40 is a high credit for your standard opening batsman.

Well Watson averages 35, so that still puts him below a 'standard' opener. He had a purple patch. If one's record could be judged on a purple patch then we've got someone better than Bradman batting at 3. Watson's record batting in other positions and/or other years is very ordinary.

Watson averaging 50 with the bat and 29 with the ball for two years was remarkable, especially given he was performing in an otherwise very inconsistent and frankly rubbish (by Australian standards, at least) side.

Nope, still not remarkable. Steve Smith scoring 1600+ runs in 24 innings? That's remarkable. Johnson in the 2013/14 Ashes, Warne in the 2005 Ashes? They are remarkable.

Watson averaging 65 in 2009 and 43 in 2010 is pretty good. 28 wickets in 18 tests is alright too. He's not Freddie Flintoff, who despite batting most of his career at 6/7 and having similar averages still made more centuries and took three times as many wickets. Flintoff was immense in the 2005 Ashes. Without him, England lose. 400 runs and their leading wicket taker with 24. Watson has never put together a series anything like that. He played a couple of good series where he made a few half centuries and took a few wickets. He was basically Chris Rogers who bowled a bit yet people talk about his run of form like he was Ponting with the bat and McGrath with the ball. Perhaps St Kilda FC can release a Shane Watson 2009/10 streak DVD for him.

Simon Katich played 33 tests as an opener. He scored 2928 runs @ 50. He was injured mid series then axed from the CA contract list at 35 for youth, finishing with a career total of 56 matches for 4188 runs @ 45 and 21 wickets @ 30. He is remembered as a good cricketer from an era when we had a team full of great ones. I'm sure he's smarting right now that guys like Voges and Rogers are in the side to give it experience. Was Simon Katich remarkable in his 33 tests as an opener? I'd say he was better and more consistent than Watson, but I wouldn't get carried away too much further.

Watson has played 29 and scored 2049 @ 41. He is 34 and has played 58 matches and counting for 3682 runs @ 35 and 75 wickets @ 33. Youth is making tons and taking wickets. And carrying drinks.

Do his performances then justify his continued selection now? Of course not, I've been as vocal as anyone in favour of Marsh. But it is just petty to suggest his first couple of years in the team weren't excellent. He was literally our best, most reliable Test cricketer in that period.

His first couple of years in the team weren't excellent. He debuted in 2005 and did nothing. Came back in 2008 and did nothing. Had a purple patch in 2009/10 and has done nothing since. His 2009/10 form should have bought him time into 2011, that's it. He should be judged on performance just like Cowan, Doolan, North, Marsh, Marsh, Burns... but he isn't and probably never will be.

 

[BarneyBent]

Well Watson averages 35, so that still puts him below a 'standard' opener. He had a purple patch. If one's record could be judged on a purple patch then we've got someone better than Bradman batting at 3. Watson's record batting in other positions and/or other years is very ordinary.



Nope, still not remarkable. Steve Smith scoring 1600+ runs in 24 innings? That's remarkable. Johnson in the 2013/14 Ashes, Warne in the 2005 Ashes? They are remarkable.

Watson averaging 65 in 2009 and 43 in 2010 is pretty good. 28 wickets in 18 tests is alright too. He's not Freddie Flintoff, who despite batting most of his career at 6/7 and having similar averages still made more centuries and took three times as many wickets. Flintoff was immense in the 2005 Ashes. Without him, England lose. 400 runs and their leading wicket taker with 24. Watson has never put together a series anything like that. He played a couple of good series where he made a few half centuries and took a few wickets. He was basically Chris Rogers who bowled a bit yet people talk about his run of form like he was Ponting with the bat and McGrath with the ball. Perhaps St Kilda FC can release a Shane Watson 2009/10 streak DVD for him.

Simon Katich played 33 tests as an opener. He scored 2928 runs @ 50. He was injured mid series then axed from the CA contract list at 35 for youth, finishing with a career total of 56 matches for 4188 runs @ 45 and 21 wickets @ 30. He is remembered as a good cricketer from an era when we had a team full of great ones. I'm sure he's smarting right now that guys like Voges and Rogers are in the side to give it experience. Was Simon Katich remarkable in his 33 tests as an opener? I'd say he was better and more consistent than Watson, but I wouldn't get carried away too much further.

Watson has played 29 and scored 2049 @ 41. He is 34 and has played 58 matches and counting for 3682 runs @ 35 and 75 wickets @ 33. Youth is making tons and taking wickets. And carrying drinks.



His first couple of years in the team weren't excellent. He debuted in 2005 and did nothing. Came back in 2008 and did nothing. Had a purple patch in 2009/10 and has done nothing since. His 2009/10 form should have bought him time into 2011, that's it. He should be judged on performance just like Cowan, Doolan, North, Marsh, Marsh, Burns... but he isn't and probably never will be.

You're missing my point. I didn't say Watson should still be in the side. I was just contradicting someone who said he's never been anything more than mediocre. There was a 2 year patch where he was great.

And I meant "first couple of years as an opener", sorry.

 

[Slax]

What you do with Watson RIGHT NOW is pray like hell that he can play above himself tomorrow. And I mean really above himself as his average in the first match of series is a bit shit.

No we don't, he does that and he'll secure his spot for the remainder of the series which is a disaster.

What we want is Watson out early, Haddin to find some form and build a big partnership with firstly Lyon and then Starc. This way we get to around England's score and it's up to the bowlers to pull their fingers out and bowl England out for under 275. Because honestly wouldn't want to be chasing much over 300 late on day 4 into day 5.

 

[Pugsley]

No we don't, he does that and he'll secure his spot for the remainder of the series which is a disaster.

What we want is Watson out early, Haddin to find some form and build a big partnership with firstly Lyon and then Starc. This way we get to around England's score and it's up to the bowlers to pull their fingers out and bowl England out for under 275. Because honestly wouldn't want to be chasing much over 300 late on day 4 into day 5.

Exactly. The selectors don't need an excuse to retain him.

 

[Slax]

Exactly. The selectors don't need an excuse to retain him.

For decades selectors have had their favourites who provided they perform on a semi-regular basis they will retain their spot or they justify inclusion in the test team by their performances in ODIs rather than FC & test cricket (I could list some great examples but it would end up derailing the thread). Shane Watson's figures for ODI cricekt are great and his batting and bowling averages are better in ODIs, hell his overall Twenty20 batting average isn't that far off his test average. Since the end of the 2013 Ashes series in England Watson has averaged just under 34, we have bowlers with averages almost that good over the same period of time, Johnson is averaging 25.6, Starc has a career average of 27 (only batted 4 times in that time), Harris was averaging 29.2, hell even Lyon has been averaging 18.2 over that time frame.

Watson = worst regular #6 in Australian cricekt history.

 

[The_Reaper]

If Watson is actually scoring runs under pressure (aka this innings if he does) I'm more than happy for him to be in the side

 

[gym4life]

The fact you guys want him to get out is disgraceful. Im not surprised that you all go for shit afl teams with that attitude.

 

[The_Eagles]

Yes I'd prefer Watson plays his career innings tonight and we can come through with a win on the cards

 

[Pugsley]

The fact you guys want him to get out is disgraceful. Im not surprised that you all go for shit afl teams with that attitude.

Repeated failures don't mean much to you then.

 

[big_sav]

Tonight is probably his most important innings of his career. If he can score ~100 and get us close to englands total or even pass it, it could set him up with a good series and have his later half of his career remembered for a good reason. If he can get himself in, the strong tail can bat with him. Hope he does well for australia state

 

[Belnakor]

The fact you guys want him to get out is disgraceful. Im not surprised that you all go for shit afl teams with that attitude.

oddly offensive to your own team...

 

[gym4life]

oddly offensive to your own team...

The eagles fans want him scoring runs from what I have seen.

 

[The_Reaper]

I can't imagine wanting Watson to fail tonight.

Yes it is the situation where he normally fails but we're going to go 1 down after 1 test in an overseas Ashes series if we don't scrape another 200-250 runs. And to do that we probably need someone to score a century and Watson is the best equipped player left to score that century.

I'd much rather a bloke who scored a century in the first test plays out the series than going 1 down after 1 test.

And if he does score runs under pressure - then the most pressing reason for him to be dropped is no longer there.

It would be pretty strange to want him to fail tonight.

 

[Underdog]

It's not really that simple and it's pretty short sighted.

IF someone believes that despite a good start, he can't maintain it and thus becomes a negative influence on the remaining 4 tests, then POTENTIALLY losing the first test to ensure a positive influence for the next 4 isn't so outlandish.

I'm not making a call one way or the other but there's perfectly reasonable logic to that stance.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

No we don't, he does that and he'll secure his spot for the remainder of the series which is a disaster.

What we want is Watson out early, Haddin to find some form and build a big partnership with firstly Lyon and then Starc. This way we get to around England's score and it's up to the bowlers to pull their fingers out and bowl England out for under 275. Because honestly wouldn't want to be chasing much over 300 late on day 4 into day 5.

Jeez, Hadds is less likely to do something useful than Watson. Either way, we need two of the remaining six players to play out of their skin. If we manage to draw or win this match, Watson ain't shifting so it really doesn't matter who scores the runs.

And he's already scored 31 runs which they'll probably see as 'not a failure'. It's what appears to pass as form for him most of the time, him being a young player with so much potential you can afford to carry him for a while as he develops.

 

[The_Reaper]

If they do drop a batsman it will be Voges (probably for Mitch Marsh because lol)