Shane Watson has just given Australia’s selectors a big headache after his second century in two games – bought up with two consecutive sixes, no less – secured the Champions Trophy for Australia.
Watson has been long supported by Ricky Ponting, and throughout his injury riddled career, the selectors have continued to pick him when fit.
And it seems that 2009 may just be his year.
He travelled with Australia for the Ashes series and was afforded an opportunity after the English pace bowlers found a supposed weakness in wonderkid Hughes’ technique.
There was much discussion whether to stick it out with Hughes or give Watson – a genuine all-rounder, but not a recognised opener – a chance.
The selectors opted for change – probably with the 2005 Ashes series in mind where they stuck with a lineup and relinquished the Ashes – and Watson didn’t disappoint. In his five innings at the top of the order, he averaged an impressive 48, but didn’t manage to turn any of his starts into a century.
He retained the position for the ODI game against Scotland and the seven game series against England, averaging 27.62 with the bat. But it was his 13 wickets at 19.62 which was of particular value to the Aussie attack.
Then came the Champions Trophy just a week or so later, with barely any time to work on any problems he may have been having in the nets.
He subsequently failed twice with the bat again, to be on a streak of 4-0-0-0, and the calls for change were coming again. Indeed, it was probably only his bowling and injuries to other players that were keeping him safe.
His 24 in the game against Pakistan didn’t do him much good, either. But then something clicked and a few days later he’s averaging 47.77 as an opener (better than Hayden, Gilchrist and Mark Waugh) on the back of two unbeaten centuries.
This has presented Australia’s selectors with their first “nice headache” since the infamous mass exodus of retirees.
The question is now, not only where to play Watson, but also in what role?
His injury fraught past has been well documented, and it is this aspect which the selectors and indeed the captain and coach must weigh up every time he is picked.
For too long, it was assumed that the “big strapping lad would come good,” and this is obviously never going to be the case. He is injury prone and will be for the remainder of his career, but we’ve now seen what he can deliver if he is kept fit.
So what to do with Watson?
It’s been a long time since Australia had a genuine fast bowling all-rounder. Watson is capable of batting anywhere in the order and bowling first change at 140 km/h – a rare luxury in the game of cricket.
In the past, all-rounders have tended to bridge the gap between the batsmen and the bowlers coming in at 7 or 8. But I see Watson at 5 in ODI’s, much like Andrew Symonds.
The scary thing is, Watson is a better cricketer than Symonds.
Roy was a good slogger, but was often found out with the bat and was never much more than a handy bowler, while Watson is good enough to bat anywhere in the order and could – when at his best – hold a spot down as a specialist bowler.
Only in fielding can Symonds claim to be superior and that’s only due to his own amazing abilities as Watson certainly is no slouch.
Bowling? Well, this is the important part as it’s this aspect of his game that has caused him so many problems.
If Ponting can get 6 overs out of Watson in an ODI, Michael Clarke should be able to take the other 4. Any bowling he does should be seen as a bonus, not a requirement for his selection.
In Tests he should bat at 7 with a solider, run-accumulator in at 5, and when bowling, he must be used sparingly – one 5-6 over spell per session, no more.
He may be an excellent bowler but he is not Jacques Kallis. For Australia to get the best out of him, they must accept his limitations.
If his workload is managed correctly and he can stay fit, in conjunction with Mitchell Johnson, Australia may have just have two star all-rounders that will take them to a fourth straight World Cup and regain the Ashes.
mushi
Roar Guru
Freud look at symonds stats towards the back end of his test career and they were not in line with what you would expect from a slogger. I think many observers fall for the old trap of a preconceived notion of what Symonds was and then form their view based on that not the facts. Watson may not be a "recognised opener" but he did a better job than Hughes what headache is he providing other than valdiating their selection????
Dave1
Guest
Hughes aveaged 32 and had a strike rate of 68. There were plenty of other batsman with better figures than him last season http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=4481;type=tournament
Justin
Guest
Hughes misses the ODI squad again! Unfuckinbelievable!!!
Dave1
Guest
Gillespie had to change his action becasue of his injuries http://www.changetools.net/cricket-technique/cricket-technique.html ".....The main aim of Jason Gillespie's revised bowling action is to correct a minor fault - the incorrect landing of his front foot on arrival at the crease. By pushing his left leg too far to the right in his delivery stride and twisting his torso, Gillespie compounded the strain on his lower back....."
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
agreed, cricket is professional in every other sense so selectors most definately should be. It's not like CA couldn't afford it nowadays either.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Gillespie had so many problems due to serious injuries (broken ankle in the clash with Steve Waugh for example). Watson's has more to do with his action that Gillespie's did, he was just unlucky.
Justin
Guest
Hauritz has always been a reasonable one-day bowler, its what got him back into the Test team as he wasnt playing much for NSW in 4 day cricket from memory. But its a lot easier to take wickets when the batsmen have to attack compared with having to bowl them out in a Test where run rate is not as important.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Freud,I just dont buy your politics connection in relation to White...I would opine there is no politics involved...I will grant you that Hilditch has not been a very good Chairman of Selectors..I thought Hohns did a good job. I do think we need a new panel of selectors and they should be properly paid..no more part time gigs.
Dave1
Guest
his one day stats are pretty good http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/8180.html Mat Inns Runs Wkts BBI Ave Econ SR 90 79 2648 89 4/39 29.75 4.78 37.2
Dave1
Guest
A chuck isn’t a chuck just because someone says it is. It has to be measurable, otherwise umpires and officials are going to get sued.
Dave1
Guest
Dizzy Gillespie had a lot of injuries before he finally came good. Maybe Watson is the same.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Sorry Vinay, I don't think you can drag the Don as a selector into this. Harvey was around before "player power" kicked in with the Packer era and Sir Donald was notoriously hard to get along with as you would know. Harvey's lack of animosity probably had to do with the fact he didn't have a Chappell type personality. Warne also didn't kick up a fuss that he was never made captain even though (as we've seen in the IPL) he would have been excellent.
Jameswm
Guest
A few points have to be made: - Watson at his best could NOT hold down a place as a specialist bowler - I think 6 is his spot in the tests. He is a very good batsman as we've seen (and I've been saying all along) and his bowling is a plus. And it's a big plus in the one-dayers. In tests, Haddin at 7 and even Johnson at 8 are close to test level batsmen these days - well, Johnson's stretching it, but Haddin certainly is. it makes for a strong lineup, as Hauritz/Krejza are both solid batsmen - bowling wise in tests, he should be your 4th seamer, or 5th if it's a green-top and you omit the spinner. The 3 main quicks should be bowling 18-20 overs a day each, the spinner 20-25, and Watson about 10. He has to be able to bowl those 10 without releasing the pressure off the batsmen, that means, fast, hitting the pitch in the right areas. Movement of any kind is a bonus. He couldn't be a MacDonald type bowler - yes too often he comes across as too straight up and down. There have been times when he's moved it a bit, but he has to have a stock ball that moves - the calls to remove Hauritz from the one-day team are seriously misguided. He's been nothing short of brilliant through the CT and England series, never going for runs and regularly picking up wickets. It'd be great to have a spinner who rips through lineups, but Kumble did OK for a line and length spinner who moved it enough to keep you honest. - I agree with what FOF said about fitness. It has two very distinct meanings. One is not injured, and the other is more the ripped, lean could run a marathon runner fit. Cadel Evans could be injured, but it doesn't mean he isn't fit in the other sense of the word. Watson is certainly the ripped type of fit, and it's hard to blame the injuries on him My personal opinion is we need one specialist opener in the one-dayers, which now may as well be Hughes, though Kat could be better. One of Watson and Haddin should bat around 5-7, and I don't really care which one opens and which bats further down. I'd keep Ferguson ahead of both Clarke and Hussey too, and as I see it Hussey, MClarke and White are fighting for 2 spots. Hughes Haddin/Watson Ponting Clarke, though I'm not a huge fan of his in the one-dayers Watson/Haddin Ferguson White or Hussey Johnson Lee Hauritz Siddle 12th - Hopes, which means you need a few overs from Clarke. It does leave the team a bit unbalanced. 13th White/Hussey
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Michael C..I agree White is ideally suited to the One Dayers..good fielder..can clear the ropes or be dogged as he showed when Australia were two for not many in the final. And FOF the politics bit is an overused and reduntant chestnut. I'll give you just one example..Harvey was Victorian and overlooked by Sir Donald ,who appointed Richie Benaud instead...and through all this Harvey bore no animosity...in fact he became one of Benaud's most trusted Lieutanants alongwith Alan Davidson. So I for one dont buy the politics conspiracy.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
And I'll continue my push to get White out of the lineup. He's not a bowler nor a batsman, he's only in the side because Warne talked him up a few years back and he's the Victorian captain, we all know its politics, not talent that keeps White playing for Australia.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
No Vinay, a chuck isn't a chuck, the ICC couldn't allow it to be so simple because they know they'd have lost Murali as Sri Lanka are nothing without their record holding off-chucker.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
A chuck is a chuck whether it is 10 degrees or 15 degrees. Where was the ICC when Ian Meckiff needed them?
Michael C
Roar Guru
Watson should slow his bowling and try to get more shape, we don't need him trying to bang it in. If he could bowl like Andrew McDonald, he'd be perfect....or if Andrew McDonald can get comfortable batting wise??? One, the other...or both? btw - the final reminded us that C.White is a 40-50 run better top 4 batter than down the order. Anyway - I'll continue my push for Cam White to throw away the leggies and take up Greg Chappellesque slow mediums.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Watson is fit enough, fitness has nothing to do with being injury prone. When I was at my fittest was when I had my most injuries and it had nothing to do with fitness, it was the mechanics of my body and it's similar with Watson. You won't get a more naturally physically fit cricketer, look at him, he could pull a plough for 12 hours a day but the strain of his bowling is what does it for him, not his fitness level.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Greg, the doosa is theoretically possible under the laws of the game as they allow for a certain amount of what we layman call "chucking". I still don't rate Hauritz because he is so defensive, he won't ever rip through an attack and that's what I want from my spin bowler, that's exactly what Warne and MacGill (the poor guy, could have been a legend as well) did so well and then Hauritz, probably due to him not having talent ouzing out of his pores like the aforementioned leggies can't bowl that way. Ponting it would seem is happy to include Hauritz nonetheless, he is solid and you have to give him credit for improving on all aspects of his game but I'd much prefer to see Krezja given a chance in the tests and if he can prove himself, in the ODI's too. That being said, I'd prefer no spinner in the shorter forms if we only have the defensive Hauritz to pick, throw Michael Clarke the ball, he is a fantastic bowler and should do more bowling if his back can withstand it.