Shane Watson: what's holding him back?

[Neil Pickup]

Every time I watch this bloke bat I like what I see (apart from the hair, and the nationality, but we'll let that slide for the moment).

Technically, he's balanced, well aligned, the bat is beautifully straight on such a regular basis - witness the power with which he hits the ball and the regularity with which it goes straight back past the bowler). The only technical question I'd have is his back-foot game, but I can't remember when I've seen him get out in this fashion - it's usually nicking off (or being run out). He's opened the batting and got to fifty 16 times in 36 innings, which shows he can leave appropriately... yet then he gets out so often when he's settled and the opposition heads are dropping: and he still averages 49.88 in that role.

Then you see an innings like yesterday, when the opposition are just ground into the dirt. Is it just maintaining his concentration over longer periods?

So is that the ultimate factor in defining a batsman's ultimate success?

 

[Jono]

Concentrated well in the first innings in the first test vs. India last year.

However his whole knock was pretty much contradictory to his natural game, and I'd imagine he won't average as much if he plays in such a way. It was terrific for the pitch, but he wasn't his dominating self.

At the end of the day he's generally no longer getting LBW at 40-50 like he was in the 2009 Ashes. He's getting caught at point or in the slips (sometimes wafting, sometimes poking). That suggests concentration.

To be fair, his knock yesterday consisted of awesome slog sweeps... the same shot which got him out at a crucial time vs. India in the World Cup quarter-final. He was successful yesterday because (as he said himself) the ball wasn't turning.

 

[Cevno]

Tbf in the 2009 Ashes he was done in by swing most of the time in English conditions and hence the high percentage of LBW's.

Don't think he has played in similar conditions since.

 

[Jono]

He'd get out in the 50s though. So he'd be fine vs swing early, and it wasn't reversing when he got out.

 

[four_or_six]

Do you mean holding him back from having a better test batting record?

Assuming so, I think he's actually played against some really high quality bowling attacks. Since his revival in 2009 he's played 19 tests - 8 against England (Jimmy ), 5 against Pakistan (Asif, Amir...) and 2 in India. Sure, two centuries isn't enough, but I reckon that perhaps the lol-worthy 90's problem before his first hundred is part of that stats-wise.

 

[Woodster]

Difficult one. My big problem with Watson has always a lack of ability (in the Test arena) of really going on making opposition pay when he is set, in the manner of what I would say more 'natural openers' would do. As a result of this I thought by now he would have had a poor patch and his average would sink to low 40's, high 30's. However, he's been so consistent that he's certainly doing something right. I agree that his technique looks pretty solid, not much of a back foot game, he even pulls off the front foot, but it hasn't hindered him too much.

Another observation made by many of late, is the number of times he hits the field. A real bowling machine nature in his play. If he develops a way of rotating the strike, dropping the ball at his feet to turn the strike over instead of constantly going hard at the ball, then maybe he can move his game on.

 

[Jono]

In before Top Cat...

Shane Watson's technique:

 

[Top_Cat]

The fact he has to bowl. He's very fit but he's a big unit so sending down 15 overs in a day (physical and attendant mental pressures) is going to affect how long he can bat for. How many runs per knock he's making is probably not coming under the microscope as much because opening batters traditionally aren't expected to get big tons (that and there are bigger problems to solve in the batting line-up). Really that simple for mine.

While he's in form, it probably won't change but I'm guessing as soon as he has a run of outs, he'll be thrown down the order. Personally, I'd like to see him at 3 and still bowl a bit less.

 

[TumTum]

He's a 1 dimensional player, in that he has the same front foot prod to most balls that are pitched up, which is his problem imo.

But for example in the last Ashes series, apart from the run outs he was dismissed by genuinely good balls. He doesn't really "throw away" good starts, just that he gets out.

IMO he needs to develop more of his back foot game as somebody mentioned here.

 

[tooextracool]

Hes a good player, just hasnt hit his prime yet. Amla went through a similar phase not too long ago. Just needs to learn from his mistakes.

 

[benchmark00]

Meh, you don't need a back foot game to succeed. Hardly anyone plays a tradition back foot pull shot these days (Watson is a very good puller... can play the shot too ) and although it's handy to have a quality cut shot it's hardly something that will see you suffer greatly if you don't have one (Hayden circa most of his career).

 

[robelinda]

True, Hayden shelved the cut for most of later career, quite an odd one for a lefty to not cut, just about the only one i can think of who wasnt a great cutter. Hayden got caught a lot on the cut too, i guess thats why he dropped it, used to play it on one dayers though, but not in tests.

 

[Top_Cat]

Meh, you don't need a back foot game to succeed. Hardly anyone plays a tradition back foot pull shot these days (Watson is a very good puller... can play the shot too ) and although it's handy to have a quality cut shot it's hardly something that will see you suffer greatly if you don't have one (Hayden circa most of his career).

Agree in general and the only wrinkle I'd suggest is if the trend toward more sporting decks continues. Having the ability to cut/back-foot drive is pretty damn useful when there's good swing or seam around. Nicks out and gets trapped on the crease a lot does our Watto.

 

[TumTum]

Meh, you don't need a back foot game to succeed. Hardly anyone plays a tradition back foot pull shot these days (Watson is a very good puller... can play the shot too ) and although it's handy to have a quality cut shot it's hardly something that will see you suffer greatly if you don't have one (Hayden circa most of his career).

I meant for playing good length balls, because sometimes i feel he commits himself too early without picking up the length correctly. Imo he's a fine puller and cutter.

 

[AlanJLegend]

He always seems to get out slogging.

Watson is one of the best batsmen we've seen in a long time, he has the technique and talent to score centuries for fun if he wants to. But the vast majority (and I mean the VAST majority) of his dismissals seem to come from him being caught trying to smash out of the ground, rather than being done by a good ball or a failure in technique.

If he can concentrate, play 'properly' and not get out trying big shots he would surely become one of the best players in world cricket, not that he isn't already...

 

[GotSpin]

Nah he's been dismissed in the 90s and so on LBW, not slogging, but simply misjudging the length. Down to concentration IMO

 

[Spark]

I think it's concentration as well. The balls he's been nicking are exactly the same as the ones he was leaving alone quite merrily for the rest of his innings.

 

[honestbharani]

I think it's concentration as well. The balls he's been nicking are exactly the same as the ones he was leaving alone quite merrily for the rest of his innings.

maybe he gets a bit over confident about defending balls outside off as he goes on with his innings.. But that is funny coz most batsmen do that and yet they generally ARE able to middle the ball with such defensive strokes...

 

[Prad100w]

Worth concentrating on the batting alone. Have all the potential to be a great player.

 

[Bun]

His mentality. Still is a kid. Soft. Cute.