By Alec Swann
February 6th 2010 @ 2:45am
Watson could prove the difference in Ashes battle
Australia's Shane Watson plays a shot off the bowling of England's Graeme Swann on the first day of the third cricket test match between England and Australia at Edgbaston cricket ground in Birmingham, England, Thursday, July 30, 2009. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth
I might be English, related to a member of the Ashes winning team and a patriotic supporter of my national side, but I’m worried. With the next instalment of the Anglo-Australian rivalry just nine months away – I know there is plenty of other cricket before then, but it is an Ashes year so nothing else really matters – it is worth getting on the bandwagon early, so here goes.
The cause of my concern – Shane Watson.
Yes, the injury-prone, poltergeist-fearing all-rounder who just a few months ago was just a support member of the Australian team at best and far from a potential pivot in Ricky Ponting’s side.
Before the Cardiff Test last July, you could’ve got decent odds on Watson opening the batting for his country, especially ahead of Philip Hughes, and even longer ones on him making a pretty good fist of it.
So good a fist, in fact, that he’s probably one of the first names on the teamsheet.
But such a success he has been, he now constitutes the main difference between Australia and Andrew Strauss’ England. Watson could well be the decisive factor in next summer’s Ashes because he provides that elusive factor – balance.
Although he is opening the batting, Watson is both the sixth batsman and fifth bowler. In contrast, Ian Bell is England’s sixth batsman, but there isn’t a fifth bowler.
Spot the difference?
The Australian team who have just beaten both the West Indies and Pakistan looked like a unit who are heading in the right direction and with one target in their sights.
On the other hand, England, while far from a carbon copy of the team that lost direction in the aftermath of the 2005 Ashes victory, don’t quite seem to know which direction to take.
Andrew Flintoff may have had his critics, but Strauss would’ve given his right arm for an all-rounder in South Africa recently, particulary after taking the lead in Durban.
The problem is that England feel that they need six batsmen so they have to sacrifice a fifth bowler.
The reality, as proved in Cape Town and Johannesburg, is that they need a fifth bowler, but aren’t willing to sacrifice a sixth batsman.
The result is a spinner who carries an enormous workload and a bowling attack that can quickly look thin when conditions aren’t in their favour.
Australia isn’t renowned for providing the most forgiving of conditions and a constricted series with little respite between games will place a significant amount of strain on the bowlers.
Which leads us back to Watson.
A few decent overs here and a few decent overs there, combined with the runs he should score give Australia, at this early stage, one over the old enemy.
But what am I worried about? With his history, he’ll probably be injured come November.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(11)
vinay verma said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Alec, the difference is not any one player. It is the mindset that is important. England are proving masters of the rearguard. But they suffer from stage fright when leading. They seem to be saying “Are we really in front” They should have won the series in South Africa.
Australia is prepared to risk losing to win and this will be the difference. Unless England believe they can win they may well face another drubbing in Australia. The lack of an express bowler will hurt England. Their attack on Australian pitches looks,at best,serviceable.
The battle lines are drawn.
vas said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I’m not sure Watson will have as big an impact as you think Alec.
For me, he has hit his first real crest of form since avoiding injury. But form is temporary though. I would not be surprised if he is pulled down several pegs before Ashes hostilities resume.
I still think the selectors are tempted to get Phillip Hughes back in the mix, so that Watson can shift down the order to provide some more bowling. Marcus North may be the guy to make way.
As for England, their biggest concern is finding a number 3. It was way too soon to ask Jonathan Trott to do it, and he looked all at sea in South Africa. If I were England, I’d get Collingwood there. He is now the senior batsman in the lineup, and with Pietersen unfocused and dishevelled, Collingwood has to take responsibility.
The other concern is to make sure England’s quicks have a plan B if their swing bowling operation doesn’t work. As the last tour showed, it’s not easy to extract swing with the Kookaburra.
The most secure bloke on your team is Graeme Swann, so the family can feel proud…
Spiro Zavos said | February 6th 2010 @ 10:07am | Report comment
What Shane Watson does is give the selectors some flexibility (if they are capable of taking it) in the shape of their side. Watson is a batting all-rounder who gives the selectors their fourth seam bowler, capable of taking wickets and keeping things tight.
His selection means the selectors should make a couple of adjustments to the batting order, with Michael Clarke going in ahead of Michael Hussey and Brad Haddin replacing Marcus North at number 6.
This would allow for Steve Smith to come into the side batting at seven or eight and adding his leg-spinners to the off-spin of Nathan Hauritz.
Smith showed last night in the T20 match against Pakistan that his leg-spin is of international class, despite his figures in Shield cricket.
Rickety Knees said | February 6th 2010 @ 11:07am | Report comment
I agree Spiro. Smith showed a maturity beyond his years in the pressure packed T20 cauldron last night. His two wickets were as a result of quality bowling. However I have no faith in the selectors to get this right. It seems to me that acceptance into the “Ricky’s club” brings greater and extended opportunity. Having three world class all rounders in Watson, Haddin and Jonson is a quirk of cricket history. Dropping North and bringing Steve Smith in – who also has the potential to be a genuine alrounder – should be a no brainer. That gives the side 4 guys to bowl at 140km+, an offie and a leggie and lose nothing in batting in th process.
In test cricket you need to get a side out twice and England are proving to be the masters of stonewalling. Havng a side with six bats (plus Smith, Johnson and Haurtitz) and six bowlers (plus Katich and Clarke) could do the job. But does Ricky’s Club see it that way?
preciouspress said | February 6th 2010 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
How after so few games, wickets and exposure to Test batsmen, can Spiro claim that Smith is an international class leg spinner. Apparently on the basis of 4 over bowled in 20/20 cricket. Lets hope he is correct but the evidence is not in yet.
As for Watson it could be a story of lbw Anderson/Broad/Onions for <10.
Rickety Knees said | February 7th 2010 @ 10:37am | Report comment
PP – Smith’s figures at this stage of his career are comparable to Warne’s.
Brett McKay said | February 6th 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I can see where you’re coming from Alec, and there’s no doubt Watson adds a nice symmetry to the Australian side. I know you’re not saying he’ll be the difference between the two sides per se, but he’s very quickly become a vital cog in Ponting’s Test XI.
It will be interesting to see what sort of side England bring out here next summer. What happened to all those “next Freddie Flintoff”s?!?
Viscount Crouchback said | February 6th 2010 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
I agree that England need a fifth bowler. Strauss and Flower didn’t realistically have the option in SA since so many of the top order batsmen were out of form. If England arrive in Oz with just one batsman out of form – instead of three or four – then they might take a punt on the fifth bowler.
I think they ought to – the Ashes schedule looks brutal. I’m all in favour of intense warm-ups but Perth-Adelaide-Hobart-then Brisbane looks extremely gruelling. Then the Tests themselves are all extremely condensed. I rather doubt that a four-man attack will make it past the 2nd Test at Adelaide before it keels over.
damos_x said | February 6th 2010 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
i think Rickety Knees has a good take on it as far as the lengths gone to when Ricky is in your corner ( Andrew Symonds for example ) & it has to be considered when examining the jostling for position or a chance to get in the team. This isn’t an abnormal situation, it happens in everyday life, we even have a cliche for it in it’s not what but who you know so Ricky shouldn’t be seen as a villain in terms of his influence but it is a factor & that Watson seems to be a favourite means he is going to get some leeway when it comes to the line-up & my bet is he will fight tooth & nail to hold the opening spot next to Katich. With runs on the board & wickets in the bag he will be in a strong position & despite the fact that I don’t think the selectors are doing much more than rubber stamping Ricky’s team it does point to the fact that it is Ponting that who axed Hughes & thus the young man will have a hell of a time getting back in the door let alone on the team sheet & if it seems outlandish then let us pause for moment to think of the recent international retirement of Brad Hodge as evidence that being one of the boys ( or more importantly one of Ricky’s boys ) is handier than being outstanding. Watson is going well & long may it last even if the better balance is him at number 6 after North is dropped,
Jameswm said | February 9th 2010 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Re Smith
I agree his career figures do not justify him being selected right now. But sometimes you get a young talent who you just think has the goods, and take a punt on. Is Smith that promising and worth the punt? I tend to think he is, though we wouldn’t know till he’s played a season or two of test cricket. They should have him in the one-day squad right now (forget about Marsh and open with watson and Haddin) to get used to the big stage.
I don’t like how Warnie has done a couple of sessions with him. Warnie should be seeing him every month, if possible, watching him on TV and calling him with observations. Maybe he does and we don’t hear about it.
As for picking Smith – don’t forget he is a precociously talented batsman too, so would you lose a lot of batting putting him in for North? Ferguson for Hussey and that’ll do for a squad.
Harris has done very well (fast and accurate and swings it) and can rightly be thrown into the mix with Johnson, Hilfy, Bolly etc. Ahead of (make that well ahead of, for tests) McKay too, thanks.
Jameswm said | February 9th 2010 @ 7:43am | Report comment
And forget about Hughes. I always assumed watson would move down to 6, but now I’m not so sure. He’s becoming the imposing opening presence that Haydos was, and is an interesting with the tough left hander Katich.