Shane Watson, is he unlucky or what?

[Richard]

As I commented in the other thread, most people perform worse when you removed their best figures.

As I said, this is so obvious it barely needs saying. Sometimes removing the best sets of figures is not appropriate; sometimes it is.

If the difference is considerable between the best and the rest, it is. If it's not, it isn't.

Fact is, Watson was ineffective very often this just-gone series but had a couple of bursts when he was deadly. No amount of looking at his bowling-average will make him have been effective throughout the series, because he simply wasn't.

Yes, his economy-rates were a pretty decent effort though. Surprising, too, given that accuracy has rarely been a strength of his.

 

[Richard]

EDIT: showing now.

 

[Goughy]

Noone takes a wicket conveniently every 7 or 8 overs. They come in bunches and then quiet spells.

It has to be judged as a collective otherwise it loses all context.

 

[Richard]

Where do you start and where do you stop though?

Obviously no-one's going to take wickets at a constant rate, but I'd have thought being anodyne for 6\8ths of a series and effective for 2\8ths wasn't something many people would consider that good a performance, even if it wasn't disgraceful given the conditions on offer.

 

[Prince EWS]

Noone takes a wicket conveniently every 7 or 8 overs. They come in bunches and then quiet spells.

It has to be judged as a collective otherwise it loses all context.

Yeah, couldn't agree more. The better your "deadly" periods are, the the longer you can afford to go between them. The same goes for one's Test career - no-one conveniently performs exactly the same in every match: you'll have your good games and your bad games. The better your good games actually are, the worse you can afford your bad games to be and the more average games you can afford to have.

In reality, Watson bowled to a similar standard all series - he was just rewarded more at certain times for his effort. That's cricket. It's also the point of calculating averages rather than just looking at sets of figures...

 

[four_or_six]

Yes, his economy-rates were a pretty decent effort though. Surprising, too, given that accuracy has rarely been a strength of his.

Really? I would say over the last while since he got back fit, and certainly in this series when you've seen his pitch maps you can surely agree with this, accuracy has been very much been one of his strengths.

 

[Prince EWS]

Really? I would say over the last while since he got back fit, and certainly in this series when you've seen his pitch maps you can surely agree with this, accuracy has been very much been one of his strengths.

He meant over the course of his career. Basically, it'd be best to interpret the end of his post as "Surprising, too, given that his First Class economy rate isn't particularly good".

 

[four_or_six]

He meant over the course of his career. Basically, it'd be best to interpret the end of his post as "Surprising, too, given that his First Class economy rate isn't particularly good".

Ah right... I didn't realise. I thought we were more talking recent performances which would be IPL and ODIs I suppose.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, between his "bursts" Watson often bowled as well as anyone on either side with absolutely no luck - whereas Johnson fell ass-backwards into wickets a few times. He was the pick of our seamers IMO - admittedly that means he was the best of a bad lot, but given he's the allrounder/fourth seamer in theory and played a couple of decent innings, that's an encouraging return for his first full series.

 

[Precambrian]

Watto, you just got a fan in me. Dammit, loved the guy's effort and time after time tirelessly bowl in there and he was accurate and swung the ball (though conventional, not reverse). He knew someone had to attack the stumps given Johnson's outside-off stump defensive line, and Lee's lack of accuracy. And he did a great job imho, though a below 30 avg would do him great justice.

And his batting also was quite applied. Even though the chinks are there. Gun guy to have at No.6.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think the fact that he performed better with the ball than the bat is one of the most encouraging things about this series actually. Essentially, I think most people looked at this as being a situation where his batting would determine his worth, and his bowling was something you'd hope would be relatively economical. In reality, his bowling was very good and his batting left a bit to be desired, but given he has generally a fair bit more ability with the bat, I'd back that to correct itself.

And Richard, it is worth considering the pitches and the performance of the other bowlers. I mean, Zaheer Khan for example bowled fairly well as a whole in the series and took 11 wickets @ 43, including just one wicket in the last two tests. Sharma took 15 @ 27, Johnson bowled pretty well in patches and took 13 wickets @ 40, and Lee and Clark generally struggled, albeit with some form of injury excuse.

In that light, Watson's "well he was only good at the beginning and the end of the series" performance looks a bit better, especially given that he was threatening and accurate in general the rest of the time. Threatening and accurate with a couple of nice bursts of wicket taking is more than you can say about most other seamers in the series. For a guy who was generally considered a batsman who can send down some useful overs, that's a bit more impressive than you're giving credit for, IMO.

 

[Richard]

I don't think I was saying Watson's bowling was a heap of crap, was I? That he was able to be as effective as he was on those couple of occasions is certainly a credible performance.

Zaheer Khan, BTW, was actually fairly similar. He was pretty anodyne on several occasions and also bowled quite brilliantly on others. Never better illustrated than in the First Test where he was poor for most of the Australia first-innings then suddenly turned it up several notches and knocked-over the last few wickets with some superb bowling.

 

[Richard]

Ah right... I didn't realise. I thought we were more talking recent performances which would be IPL and ODIs I suppose.

As you know I couldn't care less about Twenty20 and bowling well in it is a completely different matter to bowling well in a Test or ODI.

And it's been a fair while since I've actually seen Watson bowl in a ODI, and the last time I saw him (which would've been about 2006/07) he still wasn't all that good (though it's true that he was far, far better that season than he'd ever been before).

 

[Richard]

The better your "deadly" periods are, the the longer you can afford to go between them. The same goes for one's Test career - no-one conveniently performs exactly the same in every match: you'll have your good games and your bad games. The better your good games actually are, the worse you can afford your bad games to be and the more average games you can afford to have.

I don't know that I agree with this. If you take 13-90 in the opening Test of a series, rather than, say, 6-100, then you've still bowled well and given your side a good chance of a good result. The difference between these two sets of figures is more likely to depend on how well others have bowled than how well you have, in my experience - in a weak attack you're more likely to have to bowl a bit more and get more wickets, in a stronger one you're going to bowl less and your tally is going to be smaller.

However, if the 6-100 is followed by 5-80 in the next game and 3-100 in the one after that, whereas the 13-90 is followed by 1-100 and 2-66, then the latter set of series figures looks better, but in reality the former bowler is far more likely to have given his side a good chance of victory.

It's also the point of calculating averages rather than just looking at sets of figures...

This is the reason that I sometimes favour looking at figures rather than averages. Sometimes it's not even split by innings. For instance, Sajid Mahmood took 3-5 in his first few Test overs and in the rest of the game took 2 for plenty. The match figures looked pretty decent but the reality is he was spectacularly hot for a very very short burst and utter rubbish for the vast majority.

 

[four_or_six]

As you know I couldn't care less about Twenty20 and bowling well in it is a completely different matter to bowling well in a Test or ODI.

And it's been a fair while since I've actually seen Watson bowl in a ODI, and the last time I saw him (which would've been about 2006/07) he still wasn't all that good (though it's true that he was far, far better that season than he'd ever been before).

I think T20 bowling can certainly be indicative. Watson bowled an over to Gambhir in the IPL where Ghambir couldn't lay a bat on it and then finally got out. And Ghambir was (along with Marsh) basically the batsman of the tournament. I think that his form there certainly was reflected in ODI's. Tests are a different matter in some ways, I agree.

And I'd suggest if you're basing your opinion of Watson's bowling on 2006/07 I would catch another match or two... it is most certainly improved.

 

[Uppercut]

As you know I couldn't care less about Twenty20 and bowling well in it is a completely different matter to bowling well in a Test or ODI.

And it's been a fair while since I've actually seen Watson bowl in a ODI, and the last time I saw him (which would've been about 2006/07) he still wasn't all that good (though it's true that he was far, far better that season than he'd ever been before).

Being a good ODI bowler doesn't mean someone will be a good test bowler, but if you watch someone bowl in an ODI (or T20, although you only get 4 overs) you can make a reasonable judgement on how good they'd be as a test bowler. Of the bowlers that performed well in the IPL, Tanvir, Sreesanth, Maharoof and Yo mahesh had a great deal of success without ever really looking like good test bowlers. Players like Mishra, Gul, Steyn and to a lesser extent Watson all looked like they could be successful in tests. It isn't foolproof by any means, and you'd learn a lot more by watching FC games. But you can certainly learn something about a bowler's test ability by watching another form of the game.

 

[aussie]

Although Watson's bowling was encouraging in India, i honestly feel the remodelling of his action to become more front on, after his injury before the 2006 Ashes series, he has lost a lot of bounce in his bowling, so his chances of his bowling really top-class is gone IMO.

He will just be a handful if conditions suit though. If he plays 50 test he wouldn't have more than 60-70 wickets.

 

[Precambrian]

I guess you didn't catch his bowling in this series? On pitches where the average fast bowler had to pull his lungs out to get the ball bouncing to the shoulder level of the batsman, Watson did it quite often. He got Sharma (nightwatchman) and Vijay (last test, 1st innings) with peach of bouncers.

He's grown wiser to realise that to succeed in indian conditions, bouncer is not the stock, but the surprise ball.

 

[aussie]

Saw all of that, but doesn't hide the fact that since he remodelled his action just before the 2006 Ashes series, thus becoming a more front on bowler. He doesn't hurry batsmen like before & as lost allot of bounce in his bowling (see malaysia tri-series), hell the 07 WC was the first time Gilchrist ever stood up to the stumps to him, thats not the Shane Watson that got me excited back in the days.

So basically as his career progresses IMO, that change will be the difference in his bowling becoming a top-class wicket-taking option or just a servicable one, that would just be effective when conditions suite.

Based on the India series the latter seems to be his the likely end result.

 

[Precambrian]

Saw all of that, but doesn't hide the fact that since he remodelled his action just before the 2006 Ashes series, thus becoming a more front on bowler. He doesn't hurry batsmen like before & as lost allot of bounce in his bowling (see malaysia tri-series), hell the 07 WC was the first time Gilchrist ever stood up to the stumps to him, thats not the Shane Watson that got me excited back in the days.

So basically as his career progresses IMO, that change will be the difference in his bowling becoming a top-class wicket-taking option or just a servicable one, that would just be effective when conditions suite.

Based on the India series the latter seems to be his the likely end result.

India would be the last place to "suit" his style of bowling.

And I would not make my assessment of Watson based on WC or the period before that (Malaysian series). He was much unfit then as compared to today.