Shane Watson- massively overrated test cricketer

[Spark]

Still think he should bat 4 long-term.

@T_C

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think things might get better as he gets older - he can't keep a full "all-rounder" status deep into his 30s, but he can keep on batting for us. I think he needs to do a Steve Waugh, and should have done it years ago, not because of injury but because of focus and emphasis on his batting.

And PEWS, players don't make hundreds to get to 100, they do it to win games and keep on batting. Watson has rarely, if ever, taken the game from the opposition. The number of times he's gotten out at bad times after 50...

 

[watson]

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.

I've always assumed that he scored poorly at No6 and No7 because he was new to Test cricket and took a while to settle in. But, I have no way of proving that assumption of course.

However, it does seem a shame that he bowls less overs than he is capable of because Ponting and Clarke insist on him remaining fresh for opening the innings. Therefore, to get full value from his allround skills I can't help but think that he would be more useful at No 5 or No 6. And because he is now an experienced Test batsman I can't see his average heading south just because he slides down the order. It may even grow to 50 without the added pressure.

Unfortunately, the current shortage of good openers demands that any experimentation cannot be carried out.

 

[pup11]

More than calling him overrated I would call him an underachiever simply because he is too talented for him still to be feeling his way around international cricket like he is been doing for a long time now, he is 31 now and by now one would have thought he would have established himself as a reliable consistent player in the team.

The prospect of him giving up bowling and concentrating on his batting to become more consistent and less injury prone is a tempting one, but I think Watto probably realises that his all-rounder tag is what gives him an edge over others and allows him to take home a grade A contract every year basically for putting up half-assed performances and that too when he is not on the injury list which is basically the case half of the time.

 

[pup11]

I've always assumed that he scored poorly at No6 and No7 because he was new to Test cricket and took a while to settle in. But, I have no way of proving that assumption of course.

However, it does seem a shame that he bowls less overs than he is capable of because Ponting and Clarke insist on him remaining fresh for opening the innings. Therefore, to get full value from his allround skills I can't help but think that he would be more useful at No 5 or No 6. And because he is now an experienced Test batsman I can't see his average heading south just because he slides down the order. It may even grow to 50 without the added pressure.

Unfortunately, the current shortage of good openers demands that any experimentation cannot be carried out.

Watson isn't pushed down the middle order because he is just an awful player of spin bowling and that's one of the major reasons why he was tried at the top of the order.

 

[Cabinet96]

I probably rate Watson's bowling higher than most, but I definitely wouldn't be in favour of him giving up bowling to concentrate on batting. Why he's such a valuable player is because he solves the balance issue for his side.

 

[Red]

I might be wrong, but I think Watson's initial selection was to allow Warne and MacGill to play in the same team with two quicks as well?

Seems a long time ago!

I agree, I think he's a far better bowler than he is a batsman. Which is kind of the point of my initial post, I don't know if he's worth it as basically a specialist batsman if he hardly bowls.

 

[Strike!]

Play him against Pakistan so he can take more 6-fer's.

 

[Spikey]

And PEWS, players don't make hundreds to get to 100, they do it to win games and keep on batting. Watson has rarely, if ever, taken the game from the opposition. The number of times he's gotten out at bad times after 50...

2010 2nd test ashes says hi

a bowling average of 28 is more than ok, from your 5th bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

Play him against Pakistan so he can take more 6-fer's.

Okay.

 

[Spikey]

this reminds me about a thread i've been meaning to make, 'In Shane Watson's most recent innings, was he dismissed LBW, Bowled, by a Spinner, between 50-99, and/or caught in the gully/point region?'

 

[uvelocity]

no he chopped on trying to run it down to third man

 

[Spikey]

so he was bowled

 

[uvelocity]

ahh **** didnt realise you listed every possible mode of dismissal. i usually skim over your posts

I think predicting him causing runouts is more fun anyway

 

[Spikey]

i didn't list caught behind or caught in the slips. or indeed caught anywhere outside of gully/point from a fast bowler.

 

[uvelocity]

or hit wicket. but i missed that because i skim over your posts

 

[Burgey]

Watson isn't pushed down the middle order because he is just an awful player of spin bowling and that's one of the major reasons why he was tried at the top of the order.

But I don't think there's much evidence to suggest he is. He might look ungainly, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of being effective.

 

[uvelocity]

and in my defence it was a pretty confusing post. I mean why did you capitalise Spinner?

 

[Spikey]

nah you lose. good day sir

i'm pretty sure spin had nothing to do with being tried out at the top of the order

 

[uvelocity]

rainy itbt