Shane Watson- massively overrated test cricketer

[Ruckus]

yeah I don't like overuse of the phrase "rebuilding" either, because what's often really meant is that "the team isn't performing as well as before, therefore until that level is reached again the team must be rebuilding". Which is nonsense, especially in the case of Australia where the previous level of performance is basically going to be unattainable. I do think, though, that the Australian team is genuinely rebuilding at the moment, just by the fact so many players have come in and out and the basic team make-up is uncertain. Reckon there was a decent length period a year or so ago where phrases like "transition phase" were still being thrown around, when, in fact, the team was actually pretty stable (not necessarily good by any means, but at least settled).

 

[Valer]

Poor quality of wicket. Poor stats (both recent and career long). Obviously Cummins has Sample size issues -- But this wasn't the comparison. From this it tells me it must be all his "match winning performances" -- not that I've seen... Feel free to point them out tho.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Spark]

OK if you're seriously arguing that his recent stats suggest he's not bowling well then I question how much of his bowling you actually saw - was easily the pick of our bowlers last summer.

 

[Flem274*]

yeah I don't like overuse of the phrase "rebuilding" either, because what's often really meant is that "the team isn't performing as well as before, therefore until that level is reached again the team must be rebuilding". Which is nonsense, especially in the case of Australia where the previous level of performance is basically going to be unattainable. I do think, though, that the Australian team is genuinely rebuilding at the moment, just by the fact so many players have come in and out and the basic team make-up is uncertain. Reckon there was a decent length period a year or so ago where phrases like "transition phase" were still being thrown around, when, in fact, the team was actually pretty stable (not necessarily good by any means, but at least settled).

Never believed rebuilding has much merit tbf. Picking a bunch of 20 year olds and taking them to number one in seven years makes a good movie script, but it's terrible cricket tactics. Even Australia's golden nineties/noughties age didn't follow that script, because half the buggers got smoked then dropped before returning when they were ready.

You pick the best players you can find in the darkest nooks and crannies of the Aussie domestic circuit and get the best you can out of them. There is always room for bolter selections like Cummins when a player is obviously a class above his peers even if they haven't put it on paper yet (but you need a selector who actually has an eye for this to work obvz), but usually the cream rises to the top of the domestic circuit and Australia picking on merit will always ensure a competent side anyway.

Australia hasn't really gone down that road in tests yet, but if the poop batting performance continues in tests beyond Ponting/Hussey then I worry (well okay, I hope) Aussie will do what England did in the 90s and start throwing things until something sticks to the wall.

/recall Katich

 

[Valer]

OK if you're seriously arguing that his recent stats suggest he's not bowling well then I question how much of his bowling you actually saw - was easily the pick of our bowlers last summer.

Firstly just to nitpick but stats =!= watching, secondly good =!= best.

Now to the actual content (from what I can tell). Siddle to me has always looked good in patches and he certainly looked it at times last summer, however so did Pattison / Hilf (as much if not more), both of whom had better stats.

Harris was off sure and if you want to pick siddle before him on that fair enough. Cummins is a once again over to you proposition.

Watson didn't play obviously.

Fwiw I saw most (say average of 4/5ths) of tests.

 

[uvelocity]

it better not take 7 years

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah I basically agree with what you're saying Flem, but I don't see why rebuilding has to be age-biased? I mean surely you could still say our team was in a stage of rebuilding even if the replacement players were e.g. Chris Rogers and Dussey, simply because the side is a going to have the feeling of a new one, and will still be inexperienced at test level.

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

This. He's not as free flowing and doesn't use his feet as well as the likes of Clarke, which give the impression he's a poor player of spin. But I don't think he's that bad. He could do with rotating the strike better, however.

 

[Jager]

Firstly just to nitpick but stats =!= watching, secondly good =!= best.

Now to the actual content (from what I can tell). Siddle to me has always looked good in patches and he certainly looked it at times last summer, however so did Pattison / Hilf (as much if not more), both of whom had better stats.

Harris was off sure and if you want to pick siddle before him on that fair enough. Cummins is a once again over to you proposition.

Watson didn't play obviously.

Fwiw I saw most (say average of 4/5ths) of tests.

This stat-picky crap is annoying me now. Did you not see Siddle take the breakthrough wicket when he was brought on to bowl very, very often?

Siddle and Hilfenhaus are the two automatic picks in my eyes. Siddle first though, adds more to the team because he charges in hard, never stops trying, keeps the young guns (Pattinson) in check and can be relied on for the breakthrough. Plus he's not too shabby with bat in hand

 

[Valer]

Firstly, what is stat-picky in this case?

No, I saw Hilf getting them out before they could get in (hence averaging ~25% less) and keeping it tighter. Pattison bowls noticable more dagerous balls (this all plays out in the stats fwiw) ... Why can't HH keep Pattinson in check? Charging in hard is taken into account both by stats and performances ... it shouldn't be a plus imo.

Btw on partnership breaking, here are the breakers for all big (100+) partnerships from the start of the clarke's captaincy (the SL series)

Siddle
Harris (x2)
Clarke
Watson (x2)
Lyon (x2)
Warner
Runout (Hussey)
Cummins
Johnson
Copeland

All this says to me is breaking a paternship is somewhat random or we have sample size issues.

 

[Cricketismylife]

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.

Spot on.

 

[MW1304]

This stat-picky crap is annoying me now. Did you not see Siddle take the breakthrough wicket when he was brought on to bowl very, very often?

Siddle and Hilfenhaus are the two automatic picks in my eyes. Siddle first though, adds more to the team because he charges in hard, never stops trying, keeps the young guns (Pattinson) in check and can be relied on for the breakthrough. Plus he's not too shabby with bat in hand

Heart not big enough there.

 

[uvelocity]

definitely not to scale

 

[Burgey]

Firstly, what is stat-picky in this case?

No, I saw Hilf getting them out before they could get in (hence averaging ~25% less) and keeping it tighter. Pattison bowls noticable more dagerous balls (this all plays out in the stats fwiw) ... Why can't HH keep Pattinson in check? Charging in hard is taken into account both by stats and performances ... it shouldn't be a plus imo.

Btw on partnership breaking, here are the breakers for all big (100+) partnerships from the start of the clarke's captaincy (the SL series)

Siddle
Harris (x2)
Clarke
Watson (x2)
Lyon (x2)
Warner
Runout (Hussey)
Cummins
Johnson
Copeland

All this says to me is breaking a paternship is somewhat random or we have sample size issues.

If I was a front line Test bowler, I wouldn't be regarding it as a badge of honour that I managed to break a 100 run plus partnership. I'd rather get them out before they put on that many runs.

 

[Valer]

If I was a front line Test bowler, I wouldn't be regarding it as a badge of honour that I managed to break a 100 run plus partnership. I'd rather get them out before they put on that many runs.

I never claimed that it was... I was responding to Jager's erroneous reccollection that siddle took the "breakthrough wicket" all summer.

 

[Burgey]

I never claimed that it was... I was responding to Jager's erroneous reccollection that siddle took the "breakthrough wicket" all summer.

Yeah fair enough.

Barring injury, you would think Pattinson is a lock. He's taken **** loads of wickets in most every match he's played. Michael Holding apparently doesn't think much of him, but hten he doesn't have an English accent, so I wouldn't expect Holding to. If any of Harris, Siddle, Hilf, Cummins etc play and pitch it up, they'll do ok in English conditions.

Really not worried about the bowling tbh.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Interesting definition of "breakthrough wicket".

 

[pup11]

The positives of having Watto in the team that have been discussed would still have some merit if he wasn't going down with an injury every alternate series, the fact of the matter is that he just doesn't have a professional athlete's body and whether he bowls or not isn't going to change anything in that regard.

His body doesn't allow him to run around the field hence he has to be put in the slips where on an average he drops 2-3 catches every series, the standard of his running between the wickets is also very well know, all this could have been overlooked had his contribution with either bat or ball been substantial enough to make a difference to the team.

The selectors have shown plenty of patience with him over the years which was justified given his talent, but his numbers just don't merit him being treated as an automatic selection anymore.

 

[Stapel]

Watson is imho judged too often as an openings batsman that can bowl a bit, rather than what he actually is: an all-rounder.

I guess the way to build a test team (in Aus) is to pick your best keeper, pick your 3 best fast bowlers, pick the best spinner, pick the 5 best batsmen and see if it hangs in the balance. Most teams (not all) will then need a 5th bowler, but will also want to see a guy that can hold a bat. Hence an all-rounder is picked. If this all-rounder is of the type he would be in the team for either his bowling or batting alone, he would already have been picked for the first 10..... Hence, a typical all-rounder is someone who would NOT be picked for his batting alone, neither for his bowling alone. He will be selected because he has a fair chance to make an impact either way.

I think it makes sense for Australia to pick Watson. Others might disagree. But that's not the point.

If one has decided to pick Watson (or any all-rounder), the regular thing to do is to make him bat at 6. But Watson an extra! He's fine as an opener who consistently takes the shine of the new ball. I think it is a very good decision that, if you play Watson anyway, you play him as an opener. But then one has to understand he cannot be judged as a typical opener. He should be judged as an all-rounder. And as such, his test figures are really fine!

 

[social]

Watson is imho judged too often as an openings batsman that can bowl a bit, rather than what he actually is: an all-rounder.

I guess the way to build a test team (in Aus) is to pick your best keeper, pick your 3 best fast bowlers, pick the best spinner, pick the 5 best batsmen and see if it hangs in the balance. Most teams (not all) will then need a 5th bowler, but will also want to see a guy that can hold a bat. Hence an all-rounder is picked. If this all-rounder is of the type he would be in the team for either his bowling or batting alone, he would already have been picked for the first 10..... Hence, a typical all-rounder is someone who would NOT be picked for his batting alone, neither for his bowling alone. He will be selected because he has a fair chance to make an impact either way.

I think it makes sense for Australia to pick Watson. Others might disagree. But that's not the point.

If one has decided to pick Watson (or any all-rounder), the regular thing to do is to make him bat at 6. But Watson an extra! He's fine as an opener who consistently takes the shine of the new ball. I think it is a very good decision that, if you play Watson anyway, you play him as an opener. But then one has to understand he cannot be judged as a typical opener. He should be judged as an all-rounder. And as such, his test figures are really fine!

His batting average for the last 3 series in which he has played is 25 - if that is "fine" then we really are ****ed