Shane Watson- massively overrated test cricketer

[Red]

I struggle to see why this guy is an seemingly automatic selection in Australia's test team. I know he's a good limited overs player.

Look at his raw stats.

He has now played 35 tests.

His batting average is only 37. Only 2 hundreds.

His bowling average is ok at 28, but his SR is 59 and he's only taken 59 wickets in 35 tests (less than one per innings). He is continually injured.

And now he's our vice captain. He's the most petulant, sulky Australian cricketer I've ever seen. I do not understand.

 

[fredfertang]

Presumably he's the best you've got?

 

[Viscount Tom]

His bowling has improved a lot tbf to him.

Can see him been a pretty useful all-rounder moreso these days. Problem is that he doesn't bat with enough freedom in test matches or if I'm honest does he bat in the right spot.

If you want to know why he's an automatic selection then look at the possible alternatives.

 

[Furball]

He is ****.

He's made a Test career of having pretty acceptable batting stats without ever really turning in a performance that's made a difference for Australia.

 

[Prince EWS]

I struggle to see why this guy is an seemingly automatic selection in Australia's test team.

Given Cowan is in the team and Forrest is first reserve top order batsman, Watson is the least of Australia's worries. He's a frustrating cricketer because by all rights he should be averaging 45 with the bat and be fit enough to bowl in every innings but even though that isn't happening, to be an automatic pick in Australia's top order at the moment does not require a lot. It's a sad fact but it's true.

His batting average is deflated by games earlier in his career when he batted six or seven which was highly unsuited to him - in the top three he averages 42. He only has two hundreds but it's an artificial landmark that makes his ability to contribute big scores look worse than it is; he has eight scores of 88 or more. I can't think of any situation in which 88 is not a significant score but 100 is - it's a shame for him personally but in terms of the team end goal, he's made eight big scores in the top order.

His bowling just gives Australia tremendous balance, particularly given the changing dynamic of the bowling group. Whenever he's not in the runs he seems to be in the wickets; Pakistan in England and Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka being prime examples. He always finds a way to contribute and even if it hasn't quite been in the match-winning capacity he's capable of, Australian cricket would be far poorer without him at the moment. There's a big difference between disappointing relative to his own ability and disappointing relative to what it'd be like without him.

 

[Jager]

He showed his value in SA with the ball- 21 deliveries to get his five-for. If he cut loose in tests he might be more useful, but a batting average of 37 in tests is still decent, especially since the next option was Forrest

 

[benchmark00]

Stopped reading after the second line.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

I really don't think he's a bonafide opener. I reckon Aus should bat him at 6, he can be quite aggressive and is decent enough against spin bowling. Don't really rate his bowling much, flashes of brilliance which paper over the cracks.

 

[theegyptian]

love to have watto batting at 6 for England.

 

[Furball]

I really don't think he's a bonafide opener. I reckon Aus should bat him at 6, he can be quite aggressive and is decent enough against spin bowling. Don't really rate his bowling much, flashes of brilliance which paper over the cracks.

Watson at 6 is a terrible idea. He's rubbish against spin.

 

[Red]

There are quite a few guys who averaged just under or well over 50 in FC cricket in Australia last summer. I don't think the situation is as dire as it's made out to be regarding Australian batting stocks.

You could make a decent A team of the following non test players...

Rob Quiney (2011/12 avg- 49)
Liam Davis (2011/12 avg- 65)
George Bailey (2011/12 avg- 58)
Peter Neville (2011/12 avg- 51)
Dan Christian (2011/12 avg- 59)
Peter Forrest (2011/12 avg- 58)

I know FC figures don't mean test success by any means, but the common line going around now is "there are no batting reserves in Australia". In actual fact, there are a few, and all are around the right age.

I know Watson won't be dropped. I know that "on his day" he can be a devastating bat, and take a few key wickets. But seriously, I wonder how long we can carry him as an inconsistent and/or mediocre performer in both disciplines.

imo, in the series against India last summer when Watson (and Johnson) were both out, we played that much better as a team, in spite of the fact that we carried a number 3 who did nothing all series. I thought the team really started to have Clarke's stamp on it then.

India series----Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Burgey]

Watson at 6 is a terrible idea. He's rubbish against spin.

Is he really that bad? I know he looks far from free-flowing but Ican't say I've seen him consistently knocked over by spinners. Principally because the **** usually gets out before the spinners bowl. Unless they're playing on the SC, is he likely to be faced with spin from both ends?

 

[Cabinet96]

Watson isn't a brilliant player of spin, but he's far from terrible IMO. He's a bit block or bash, which is why he gets stuck a bit in the middle overs of ODI's, but in test matches that isn't a major issue. He did well in India before the Ashes and he faced a lot of spin then, from both ends a lot as well.

 

[Burgey]

It would be ideal if he could bat in the middle order. It would allow him to bowl more overs, and he's been a pretty effective bowler for us over the past year or two.

 

[Dan]

Stopped reading after the second line.

This. Never just look at raw stats.

I really don't think he's a bonafide opener. I reckon Aus should bat him at 6, he can be quite aggressive and is decent enough against spin bowling. Don't really rate his bowling much, flashes of brilliance which paper over the cracks.

The problem we have with Watson is that, as a batsman, he's a good enough opener - but it limits his bowling. If we put him at 6, he'll be less effective as a batsman - but his bowling would benefit. So we have an all-rounder who can never do both 'at once', so to speak. And in this Australian team, it's best if he focusses on his batting and chips in with the ball - our top order is brittle; our bowling stocks are good.

There are quite a few guys who averaged just under or well over 50 in FC cricket in Australia last summer. I don't think the situation is as dire as it's made out to be regarding Australian batting stocks.

You could make a decent A team of the following non test players...

Rob Quiney (2011/12 avg- 49)
Liam Davis (2011/12 avg- 65)
George Bailey (2011/12 avg- 58)
Peter Neville (2011/12 avg- 51)
Dan Christian (2011/12 avg- 59)
Peter Forrest (2011/12 avg- 58)

I know FC figures don't mean test success by any means, but the common line going around now is "there are no batting reserves in Australia". In actual fact, there are a few, and all are around the right age.
[/url]

Liam Davis and Daniel Christian are definitely not Test-quality batsmen. Christian would only play (and bat at 6), if Watson didn't. Davis should never come near a baggy green. A 303 against a poor NSW side doesn't mean he can face the Andersons and Steyns of the world.

We have two reserve batsmen and one reserve opener in the country - Bailey, Forrest and Quiney. Quiney is too much like Warner to open with him, anyway (also why I wouldn't open with Watson & Warner). So we're back to Phil Hughes as the next cab off the rank. Which is one hell of a problem, given his recent form. Seriously, if we lose the Hussey-Clarke-Ponting triumvirate, we'd have very little choice (on form) but to pick Steve Smith as a batsman. Or bring in Dussey, but that's another argument altogether.

In Australia ATM, we have depth in fast bowlers and wicketkeepers. That, seemingly, is it.

 

[Ruckus]

There are quite a few guys who averaged just under or well over 50 in FC cricket in Australia last summer. I don't think the situation is as dire as it's made out to be regarding Australian batting stocks.

You could make a decent A team of the following non test players...

Rob Quiney (2011/12 avg- 49)
Liam Davis (2011/12 avg- 65)
George Bailey (2011/12 avg- 58)
Peter Neville (2011/12 avg- 51)
Dan Christian (2011/12 avg- 59)
Peter Forrest (2011/12 avg- 58)

I know FC figures don't mean test success by any means, but the common line going around now is "there are no batting reserves in Australia". In actual fact, there are a few, and all are around the right age.

I know Watson won't be dropped. I know that "on his day" he can be a devastating bat, and take a few key wickets. But seriously, I wonder how long we can carry him as an inconsistent and/or mediocre performer in both disciplines.

imo, in the series against India last summer when Watson (and Johnson) were both out, we played that much better as a team, in spite of the fact that we carried a number 3 who did nothing all series. I thought the team really started to have Clarke's stamp on it then.

India series----Results | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

Come off it, we played well against India because our bowling attack was the best it has been in ages, plus certain key players like Ponting finally stepped up. I really don't see how that is anyway related to Watson being not in the side. Hell against England in the most recent ashes he averaged high 40's in the series...think he could have done a bit better than that against India's attack. It's a pretty big shame that he didn't get to play, cause I reckon it could well have been the breakthrough series he needed.

 

[Prince EWS]

Dan WAG. Even if he did copy/paste part of his post from an earlier post.

 

[Top_Cat]

Can't help but feel Watson being unfairly pillored here but he should stay high in the order. Helpfully, someone on the internet has provided a reconstruction of the likely scenario of Watson starting his innings against spin, especially against India.

 

[Prince EWS]

As soon as I saw you had the last post in this thread, I knew it'd be that image.

 

[Top_Cat]

Rubbish. Completely different image to the one I usually use.

Couldn't find it.