Shane Watson, is he unlucky or what?

[pup11]

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.

Completely agree with this, the conditions that he bowled in India were hardly suited to fast bowling and they were definitely not suited to Watson' bowling, the way Watto bowled in India is the best i have ever seen him bowl, we all know Watson is a pretty talented cricketer and i don't think there was ever any real doubt about that, its just that his body always kept on letting him down and despite being on the international scene for almost 6-7 years he has hardly played any substantial number of international games, had he kept fit, i think he would have developed as an all-round cricketer with time, but post IPL he has been injury free and playing cricket regularly (*touch wood* ) and the results are also there for all to see.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Watson bowled well at times in the Malaysian series for example but he was hardly world class. He just had a good series with the ball. In the test series he showed a few things I've never seen from him before, mainly the ability to bowl long, accurate spells in unfriendly conditions, which is a huge thing for an all-rounder to be able to do in the current Australian team, as well as the ability to move the ball through the air and bowl really dangerous spells, especially with the older ball.

I thought he showed a lot of really strong qualities in the series recently finished, and it seems absurd that someone could watch that tour of India and come away thinking "too bad about Watson's bowling". It was possibly the biggest positive surprise to come out of the series for Australia, give or take Krezja's effort in the last test.

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah, and Watson was easily the best bowler in that series, he was consistent, attacking, and was sheer unlucky not to get more scalps. If he had put in a similar effort anywhere outside the subcontinent, I will not think twice on betting on him take another half dozen to half score wickets and with an average very near to the 20s.

 

[aussie]

Watson bowled well at times in the Malaysian series for example but he was hardly world class. He just had a good series with the ball.

That was the best Watson had ever bowled outside of the just concluded India series IMO, & as i said it was done when he was more of a side on, hit the deck bowler who really hurried batsmen. If injuries hadn't been his achillies heel & forced him to become so front on (although credit to him for maintaing his pace) although losing a lot of the bounce he used to generate naturally.

You add those bowling to what he displayed in India recently & I'd be much more confident in his bowling becoming a top-class wickettaking option in the coming years. But as i said its just going to be servicable, i.e i expecting to evolve more into a Kallis than a Flintoff.

In the test series he showed a few things I've never seen from him before, mainly the ability to bowl long, accurate spells in unfriendly conditions, which is a huge thing for an all-rounder to be able to do in the current Australian team, as well as the ability to move the ball through the air and bowl really dangerous spells, especially with the older ball.

Outside him getitng it to reverse swing, i don't neccessarily see the fact that he bowled as you said "ability to bowl long, accurate spells in unfriendly conditions" really that huge TBH. Thats what he really had to as an all-rounder in those conditions if not well we would have had to begin to question if his bowling could be test match quality.

I thought he showed a lot of really strong qualities in the series recently finished, and it seems absurd that someone could watch that tour of India and come away thinking "too bad about Watson's bowling". It was possibly the biggest positive surprise to come out of the series for Australia, give or take Krezja's effort in the last test.

No, his performances was very positive no doubt, especailly given it was with a remodelled action. But for me it does not hide the fact his bowling OVERALL in the future would not be more than servicable in most conditions. Which is disappointing given that if he he was still a side on bowler with his post 06 Ashes qualities, his bowling could have had a bigger future.

The Australian selectors need to realise that quick, no way should there be talk of him being a 3rd seamer in a test match, thats wack...

 

[grapedo]

I feel he isn't he is overated. He cannot swing the ball and has an average batting technique. He is nothing to cry over.

 

[Athlai]

Watson has an air tight technique doesn't he?

 

[Prince EWS]

Watson has an air tight technique doesn't he?

Used to. He's changed it a bit lately to open up his scoring opportunities a bit more. Still very, very good though - to the quicks anyway.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, uses a baseball stance now and moves his backfoot more.

 

[Athlai]

That's what I thought. No idea how he could be pegged as having an average technique.

 

[jondavluc]

I feel he isn't he is overated. He cannot swing the ball and has an average batting technique. He is nothing to cry over.

napier he swung the ball and at times during the whole series in india.His batting though not perfect is very good.personeally if it wasn't for symonds and watson's injuries i woulld put him in straight away.

 

[Richard]

napier he swung the ball

Even Chris Harris and Paul Collingwood (before he learnt to swing the ball elsewhere) swung the ball at Napier.

It might just be the most swing-friendly ground I've ever seen. I wish I could bowl there every week. It seems to be harder to make the ball not swing than make it swing.

 

[Precambrian]

Watson axed as Australia weigh up options

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ausvnz2008/content/current/story/379287.html

In the past ten years Australian teams have almost picked themselves, but as Ricky Ponting realises the damage caused by the loss of a clutch of greats he is changing his outlook and adopting a more flexible approach to selection. The method started in Brisbane, where the 12-wicket debutant Jason Krejza was dropped, and will continue in Adelaide as a way of discovering which men can be depended on in specific conditions.

So Australia fly south-west expecting the wicket to assist reverse-swing and the only thing they know is they don't have to worry about fitting in the allrounder Shane Watson, who was cut from the squad and replaced by Peter Siddle, the right-arm fast bowler. It eases the options for Ponting, who had spoken about picking only two pacemen for the second Test - or dropping a batsman - and supplementing the attack with Watson's improving bowling

Unlucky?

 

[Rant0r]

interesting, siddle is raw, don't think he will play, but funny they mention reverse swing then drop watson, who i thought got a little bit of it in india.

 

[pasag]

Watson axed as Australia weigh up options

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ausvnz2008/content/current/story/379287.html



Unlucky?

Could see it coming. Nothing much to worry about from a fan POV, he's obviously very close to getting back in.

 

[Rant0r]

he's closer now than he was 2 years ago, and he hasn't snapped those razor thin hammy's lately, importantly, he actually looks capable of getting a wicket and not trundling a little more often now

 

[Top_Cat]

Watson axed as Australia weigh up options

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ausvnz2008/content/current/story/379287.html



Unlucky?

Shouldn't have been picked in the first place for mine. Needs runs and getting them in a Test, even against NZ (on a pretty sporty deck, though) wasn't the place to do it.

 

[Richard]

If he were to be dropped for Siddle, that'd be unlucky, yeah.

 

[Johnners]

Not overly worried. He's obviously very close to selection, and getting some runs behind him in the Sheffield shield whilst Symonds falters is the best thing that can happen (y)

 

[four_or_six]

If you look at it that he's been dropped for Siddle, as in "In this test match, you were our fourth choice seamer and now you're not" then it seems unlucky, because he bowled fine. But in the long run, he's not scored enough runs so far and he'll be better off going and getting some form with the bat.

Really, he's played a bonus five tests that without the fishing saga he'd never have played. He's bowled way above expectation, his fitness has proved that it's going in the right direction and he's got some good experience under his belt. There's no reason why he won't play again in the long run.

On a side note... the Australian selectors do seem to have gone a bit bonkers.

 

[Richard]

They haven't gone it at all, they've always been poor (as have all selectors really). It's just that those who pointed-out their poor ways were often shouted down by the "WELL AUSTRALIA HAVE WON SO CLEARLY THE DECISION WAS RIGHT!!!!" bull****.