• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Shane Watson- massively overrated test cricketer

vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
His bowling average will always be somewhat inflated (EDIT: by inflated, I mean better than maybe what it should be), because playing the role he does, if he's not succeeding he'll be pulled out of the attack and not returned. As opposed to pure bowlers, who will have to do their job whether or not they are reaching the team's expectations.
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
cbf checking but I'd be interested in looking at his Test bowling record once England are removed from the equation. For whatever reason, England seem to be able to play Watson as if he's a useless plodder.
 
Jacknife

Jacknife

International Captain
GingerFurball said:
cbf checking but I'd be interested in looking at his Test bowling record once England are removed from the equation. For whatever reason, England seem to be able to play Watson as if he's a useless plodder.
Click to expand...
He averages 25 when you remove England, only ever got 3 wickets against us in 7 innings at a average of 90
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
At Edgbaston in 09, and Adelaide 10, he bowled some utter filth. Always remember him being okay without being amazing in all the other games.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Stapel said:
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!
Click to expand...
No. Australian selection over the last however many decades has been:

Pick the 2 best openers
Pick the best number 3
Pick the 3 best middle order batsmen
Pick the best keeper who isn't a complete dud with the bat
Pick the 3 best quicks
Pick the best spinner

And it's been very, very successful. We've rarely deviated from that, and when we have, it has rarely worked.

Watson's never been selected/recalled because he fitted the above criteria.

Initially, he was selected so we could play both Warne and MacGill in the same team and still have three seamers-

3rd Test: Australia v Pakistan at Sydney, Jan 2-5, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Fortunately, when you have McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, Langer, Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist in a side, you can select a player like Watson and he'll be ok.

I don't think we have that luxury any more. And if Watson is not being a significant contributor with the ball (which he isn't), then I think we should select a better batsman than him, particularly now our bowling attack (with Johnson out) is looking decent and at times threatening.

I remember reading a few years ago that Watson was reading Keith Miller's bio to try and become more like him (and maybe stop being a sooky nancy). Bah! Miller is the only genuine post war all-rounder Australia have had.
 
Last edited:
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GingerFurball said:
cbf checking but I'd be interested in looking at his Test bowling record once England are removed from the equation. For whatever reason, England seem to be able to play Watson as if he's a useless plodder.
Click to expand...
Lots more experience against med-quick plodders.
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Monk said:
Yes we do.

Hughes, Khawaja, Peter Nevill, Tim Paine and George Bailey would all be better test batting options both now and for long term.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Bailey and Khawaja are my two great batting hopes so I'll exclude them, but what makes Hughes, Nevill or Paine more deserving of a Test place?

Paine for instance still has one first class century in 84 innings which makes Watson looks like Bradman in comparison.

I call bull**** on Nevill and Hughes has obviously had technical problems which he is trying to address and the selectors will bring him in eventually, but it most likely wont be for Watson.

I know Watson's last few series with the bat have been poor, but overall his batting has been reasonable on pitches that have offered a fair bit to the bowlers. He just gets out it annoying ways at crucial times which makes it even more frustrating.

Its the shortcomings of some/most of the other batsman though that makes his failure to convert his starts appear worse.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
NUFAN said:
Interesting. Bailey and Khawaja are my two great batting hopes so I'll exclude them, but what makes Hughes, Nevill or Paine more deserving of a Test place?

Paine for instance still has one first class century in 84 innings which makes Watson looks like Bradman in comparison.

I call bull**** on Nevill and Hughes has obviously had technical problems which he is trying to address and the selectors will bring him in eventually, but it most likely wont be for Watson.

I know Watson's last few series with the bat have been poor, but overall his batting has been reasonable on pitches that have offered a fair bit to the bowlers. He just gets out it annoying ways at crucial times which makes it even more frustrating.

Its the shortcomings of some/most of the other batsman though that makes his failure to convert his starts appear worse.
Click to expand...
Khawaja is the one most likely. Could open or bat at 3 for Australia in tests. I'd prefer to see him forging a long term opening combo with Warner rather than us rotating through players in the opening spot. They could open for Aust for the next 8 plus years, with complimentary styles.

Bailey to me looks to have a really nice technique, and it looks like it'd cope with test match cricket. I'd imagine he'll replace either Ponting or Hussey when the time comes.

I understand that Paine's FC stats are ordinary, but I think in the ODIs he's played in he's looked assured at that level.

Interested why you call bull**** on Nevill, the guy is a very accomplished batsman, who would be comfortable at 5 or 6 in the test team if given a chance.
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That one FC ton is one of my favourite current stats, and I'm gonna be so heart broken if he gets a 2nd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top