- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Oh great, another article about Shane Watson. Clearly not enough words have been dedicated to the enigmatic Australian all-rounder, so here is yet another piece with ‘Watto’ as the subject matter.
Though hopefully there is a slight twist on the narrative this time around.
Follow live scores of Day 5 in the Australia-India Test here
In the midst of another underwhelming series from Watson – in the eyes of many pundits – the calls have come thick and fast for him to be dropped from the Australian Test team.
This is nothing out of the ordinary, for the public blowtorch is seemingly applied to Watson on permanent rotation.
However, I must confess to wondering if it wasn’t time to apply the same heat to those demanding he be dropped – a group of which I myself have been a member of.
Most of the supposed validation for dropping Watson comes from his batting – a combination of his lack of Test hundreds, his low conversion rate, and his ‘poor’ average of 35.51.
Yet judging Watson on his batting alone entirely misses the point of why Watson is constantly selected, and why he is held in such high regard. He’s an all-rounder. And despite what one may personally think, the numbers say he’s actually a pretty good one.
In Test cricket, Watson averages 35.51 with the bat, and 32.71 with the ball.
As a point of comparison, consider the following names, and their respective batting and bowling averages in Test cricket.
Andrew Flintoff: 31.77 and 32.78
Ian Botham: 33.54 and 28.40
Imran Khan: 37.69 and 22.81
Garfield Sobers: 57.78 and 34.03
Kapil Dev: 31.05 and 29.64
Richard Hadlee: 27.16 and 22.29
Keith Miller: 36.97 and 22.97
Tony Greig: 40.43 and 32.20
Jacques Kallis: 55.37 and 32.65
Even the most cursory of glances across those figures would highlight that Watson’s career numbers actually hold up quite well against the list of some of the most highly regarded Test all-rounders of all time.
I am no president of the Shane Watson Fan Club. In fact, I used to be the CEO of the Anti-Shane Watson Organisation, due to the fact that Ian Harvey was my favourite cricketer, yet was constantly overlooked for Watson.
What I am a proponent of, is attempting to remain objective and balanced with opinions. And as disappointing and frustrating as Watson can be, the calls for him to be altogether dropped from the team – based on his career – don’t quite hold up against intense scrutiny.
If the basis for dropping him is purely this series, then that is another matter, and a different discussion, altogether. For it wouldn’t be without complete merit.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cricket Australia and the selectors spoke before the series about cutting some slack to any underperforming players, particularly those whom were playing at the SCG when Phillip Hughes was struck.
For the record, Watson was at first slip on that fateful day, and though some players have responded with gusty, amazing performances on the pitch, one cannot deny that different players handle such matters in different ways.
It does seem as though the nation has moved on, but that doesn’t mean all of Hughes’ teammates have.
By no means am I using the Hughes tragedy as an excuse for Watson, and neither would he be. I’m just reminding everyone that the selectors may take such considerations into account, and Watson may therefore be being judged on more than just the current Indian series.
In that case, what is Watson judged upon then?
His over-zealous wicket celebrations, his questionable use of the DRS (when both batting and bowling), his sledging of opponents, his ‘I look like I just sucked a lemon’ face-pulling, his career earnings, or any other nebulous factors, should never come into Shane Watson selection calculations. Nor should the fact you might just be sick of him.
From a pure cricket perspective, we can certainly debate Watson’s ideal spot in the batting line-up. We can also bemoan his poor conversion rate, along with his paltry four Test hundreds. However, if we’re judging him on his designated role in the team – specifically, the all-rounder position – the numbers suggest he’s more than doing a solid job, regardless of where the all-rounder should traditionally bat.
Even if you don’t believe that to be the case of late, and you still believe Watson should be dropped from the team, and replaced by another all-rounder, whom exactly are you going to select?
(Before some of you ask, yes, Australia does need an all-rounder in the team, because without Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne dismantling teams at will, Australia needs a legitimate fifth bowling option.)
The other two prime candidates for the all-rounder spot are James Faulkner and Mitch Marsh.
Faulkner has played 45 first-class games, for a batting average of 31.91, with no centuries. From a bowling perspective, he’s taken 147 wickets at 24.06, with four five-wicket hauls.
Marsh has played 43 first-class games, for a batting average of 29.44 with two hundreds. His bowling has produced 57 wickets at 29.33, with one five-wicket haul.
Shane Watson has played 128 first-class games, for a batting average of 43.07, with 20 hundreds. While he’s takes 204 wickets at 29.12, with seven five-wicket hauls.
Based on those figures, Watson should get the nod, and that’s before we even discuss the fact that Marsh is injured at the moment, and that there are justifiable concerns on whether Faulkner could realistically be asked to bat in the Test top six – a task all three need to be able to fulfil, because none are worthy of being selected as a frontline seam bowler.
If Australia requires an all-rounder, Watson is the most qualified man for the job, based on performance, results and experience.
If you want to pick Mitch Marsh ahead of Watson on potential, that’s absolutely fine, and I have no objections to that selection strategy. However, it needs to be recognised that is exactly what you would be picking him on, and to a lesser extent Faulkner as well.
I’ve made the case before that after 50 Test matches, it’s a large enough sample size to indicate exactly what type of player you are. I don’t think you can be picked on potential after that amount of Tests. You should be picked on your performances in those 50 games.
Watson has now played 54 Tests, and it would seem – to me anyway – that the player he has shown himself to be in those games, is simply the player he is.
Though I’ve often used this exact argument – that he is what he is – against Watson, and have suggested perhaps it’s time Australia look elsewhere to fill that all-rounder spot, I now find myself using this same body of work in a case for Watson.
35.51 with the bat.
32.71 with the ball.
That’s what you’re going to get with Watto. And maybe, just maybe, we should be happily taking it.