How long will it take for Australia to return to the top if we continue to play dumb cricket? Shane Watson, who yesterday ran out former captain Ricky Ponting against the West Indies, has form in playing dumb cricket and making dumb decisions.
Here is a look at his track record:
Watson has been involved in eight of the 21 run outs that have occurred in his 33 tests. He piled pressure on team mate Phil Hughes by announcing his intention to open while Hughes was still the incumbent, which was not good for team harmony.
While I’d rather have Watson than Hughes in my side, the comment showed that Watson is sometimes lacking as a team player.
While Watson consistently scores 50s (he has 16), he has only two test hundreds, suggesting he puts himself into a position to deliver, and then doesn’t. With the bat he averages 37.32 when Australia win, 36.1 when Aus loses and 46.63 in draws. I’d like to suggest those statistics prove he has not scored vital runs when we win, and doesn’t deliver when we lose.
On the other hand, with the ball he averages 23.92 when Aus win, 26.00 when Aus loses and 41.00 in draws. This suggests he’s much more likely to contribute with the ball than with the bat.
When he was injured (and Haddin was the vice-captain) we won five Tests from six. Now, that he’s back and Haddin is out, what contribution does he make? He runs out Ricky and then plays a loose shot right after lunch and exposes the lower order, all after being set and looking good to get some big runs. What about the responsibility to go on and make a big one after the error?
No matter what Haddin’s failings are as a batsman/keeper over the summer, I didn’t really see Watson stand up and take accountability for the No.3 slot and vice-captaincy either.
Of all the quality No.3 batsmen around the world in recent years, guys like Ponting, Dravid, Sangakkara, Amla, Lara, Kallis, Fleming and Khan, the worst average among them is Fleming with 47.25. The lowest high score is Kallis’ 189*.
These guys are the cream of the batting talent crop going around in world cricket in the past 15 years and their records prove that they can make big runs when it counts. Is Watson good enough (or will he ever be) to mix it with them, or even David Boon (66 tests, 4412 runs, HS 164*, 45.16 Avg, 13 tons), the next most successful Aussie No.3 after Ponting and Bradman?
Now Watson has only had the gig for one innings, so it may be somewhat premature to judge, however, calling without looking and running out Ponting, and then getting out to a loose shot, was not a good start. Especially considering the openers had somewhat done their jobs (put on a 50 run partnership and blunted the new ball) and it looked an easy wicket to bat on (not one West Indian made a single figure score) even if scoring was slow and difficult.
Unfortunately for Australia, Watson is lazy and self obsessed. And the worst part is that he’s an Allan Border Medalist (for whatever that’s worth) because he shone in a year where Australia went so badly, no-one could mount a reasonable challenge for the jewellery. That win just reinforced his opinion that he’s going ok, and that he doesn’t need to change.
I’d have him in my side but only because his bowling makes up for his lack of discipline and hardness in batting. However I’d make it clear that expectations are that if he’s to be considered a batsman then he needs to start converting. All rounders bat at six or seven unless you’re a freak like Kallis, Miller or Sobers. That’s where Watson should be playing his cricket.
And god help Aussie cricket if he’s our great Test hope. After 33 tests he has a batting average or 38.14 which doesn’t suggest he’s going to be in our engine room. Conversely his bowling average of 28.33, which is much better than I thought it would be before I started to research, suggests he’s more of a bowling all rounder in tests.
I’d also suggest that he’s better with the ball because he has more team mates in his ear when fielding/bowling than when batting, and he’s therefore more likely to stay on track.
As long as Australia are willing to accept mediocrity this is fine, but if we want to be top of the pile then we need each member of the team to stand up and take accountability for their role in the team. I just don’t see how Watson is doing this from No3.
So please selectors, make the right call, get off your arses and tell him to get off his, or move him somewhere in the order where he will do less damage to Australia and more to the opposition.
jaseraparker
Guest
ya!I agree with d article but we can't blame a player like watson 4 d cause of runouts.coz runouts often with d missunderstanding of 2 players.ya!it's true that watto have involved in 8 but it's also true that he has helped his team when his team needed him d most...it 2 wrong 2 blame him coz when he fails 2 bat he bowls brilliantly &make 100% sure that AUS wil win d game comfortably...A PLAYER LIKE WATSON IS A GIFT 2 D AUS SIDE...jas
Barry
Guest
Yes, but Cowan and Forrest improved dramatically when given permanent spots with regular games with their new states. Forrest has great technique and should get his shot at the top soon. NSW always likes to push the young ones in quickly til they hit a rough patch, then there is always another baby in the wings. Hard to know your game under that pressure.
Duncan Gering
Guest
Craig2, This article is about Watson the Test cricketer, and the best place to play him in that side. He's done really well in ODI's, but only because the shorter formats are a little more forgiving as there are fewer breaks in play and overall they require less concentration. Coupled with the fact that ODI's are by their very nature a dime a dozen so there's less riding on the outcome of each individual game. You can afford to be a little more cavalier and frequently it pays off. My point was that his figures suggest that (in Tests) he's a bowling allrounder, rather than a batting one, and his batting position in the team should reflect that. I already addressed his bowling contribution and my opinion as to why it seemed my smarter than his batting. Today's innings was a case in point, he batted awesome, he had the game at his mercy, he was in and set, and then he got out and left the finishing to someone else in fading light. A pretty 50 but not as substantial as it should or could have been. In the end we fell over the line before bad light stopped play only because Mr Cricket played (arguably) a more substantial innings. I mentioned Ian Chappell as an example of the contribution a No.3 should be making. I don't think Watson is making that sort of contribution. As to his opinion of where he should be batting, all I can say is that sometimes I agree with Chappelli and sometimes I don't.
Duncan Gering
Guest
Dane25 I'm not sure you actually read my article. I never advocated spearing him, and I don't have a short memory. I've never thought he should be opening the batting, or even batting in the top 5, it's just that I've not written that until now. I think he has the talent, but until he shows that he can capitalise on it and contribute like a No.3 (or even opening bat) should (Cowan is in the frame here too) he shouldn't be batting at the top of the order. Cowan has only played a small number of tests (5) so I'm willing to give him some more rope. Watson has played 33 tests, most of those at the top of the order, for a comparatively poor return.
Craig2
Guest
The claim that Watson is a "dumb" cricketer is ridiculous. His captaincy of the ODI team drew praise from a few quarters. He has also bowled extremely well, that is, skillfully and intelligently, in limited overs cricket since his return from injury. In addition, he has hit about 3 50+ scores since his return. After a shaky start in the test he looked pretty good, however, his run out of Ponting was indeed regrettable. I would agree that he is not a no. 3 but he should be opening and has done a good job there except for the Sri Lanka series. Many in this thread have referred to Ian Chappell and he has recently written that Watson is currently our best opener.
Wrong'un
Guest
Couldn't agree more, it might just be Watson holding a voodoo doll of the person making the decisions. Is it any wonder that there is no-one putting their hand up to take up a spot in the team when so many have been badly treated. The support given to new, often young players 'appears' to be limited. The media, of course, can smell blood from as far away as the nose bleed section of the stands, so when a newbie is struggling they pounce....as does Watson it seems. It is hard to argue with his numbers, so I'm disappointed to admit his place in the side is relatively safe but he really does need to clean up his act in the intelligence arena and the selectors really do need to find an appropriate spot for him.
Dane Eldridge
Expert
This seems like a piece that could've been summed up in a few sentences about his poor running between wickets. Is he really so bad that we all want him immediately speared? What about the balance he brings to the side? Which all-rounder is banging down the door to take his spot? Personally, I think we are all guilty of having short memories when it comes to our elite cricketers. When they are scoring runs and contributing above expectations, we have a 'so you should' attitude. But as soon as one foot is put out of line, we lose the ability to think rationally and want knee-jerk reactions. From the moment Watson was included at opener in the Ashes series he has gone from strength to strength and I believe is a valuable part of the team. I don't condone run-outs but I also don't think it should be the catalyst for a campaign to out one of our more valuable cogs.
Craig
Guest
How about Klinger - captain of SA and leading from the front. Oh, right, he is originally Victorian so no chance. I thought the article was good, and spot on about Watson, however let's be honest, while the stats aren't great for Watson, I would like to do a year on year comparison of the whole batting order over the last 2-3 years...which of them would stand up to scrutiny or compare favourably with our glory days of Haydos, Punter at his peak, langer, Gilly, Hussey when he ave. 80 etc... We are not the team we were, but then, the quality of cricket world wide has been declining an the IPL is partly to blame (lots of money, hit and giggle) effecting Test cricket. F...ing ramp shots and switch hitting. No wonder we all think Warner is good. Would ANYONE have him opening ahead of Langer and Hayden??? I hold my breath every time he faces up. TEST cricket people...TEST cricket. Bring n David Hussey or Michael Klinger. Sack Ponting and drop Warner down the order. Why do you think our middle order keeps failing, they're expecting him to go out any ball also...confidence...lacking!
jameswm
Guest
and Justin failing to put together big 100s is less of an issue at 6. Scoring 30-70 regularly is fine. They have no idea about that batting order - seriously - where is the common sense?
Duncan Gering
Guest
Osmond, good pick up. Border too appears to have been more effective than Boon. I don't recall Border batting at 3 during his captaincy, but I blame the mists of time. however I've had a look at some stats and I owe Ian Chappell an apology. He was a better No3 than either Boon or Border, and he captained many matches from that position too. Tests...Runs...HS...Avg...100...50 Boon........66......4412...164*..45.48..13...20 Chappell...54.....4279....196...50.94..13...22 Border.......21....1154....163...47.09 ...4....8
Justin
Guest
"And another thing – if Watson recognised that he needed to reduce his batting responsibilities to allow him to bowl more, how is changing from opener to first drop going to help with that?" Couldnt agree more. He is a good option at 6. He has been around long enough now that he should be scoring more 100's but just fails to deliver in this are in Tests.
Bayman
Guest
Luke, Duncan never said Watson was the incumbent Border medallist. He said he is an Allan Border Medal winner - which is correct and different.
Bayman
Guest
Rookie, To be honest, I couldn't find any holes at all. Watson will get respect when Watson actually delivers. Which he is patently yet to do. Watson is not a top order batsman and never has been. Attractive, aggressive fifties are all very well but they don't help much when you're chasing 450. As Duncan suggests, Watson is pretty....but dumb. It must be said, however, that he is a lovely fellow - and I mean that. Being nice, though, is not what is required here. Being smart, and tough, is. Watson has a habit of ball watching when he bats. Given that, he then has little idea what his partner is doing. He makes poor decisions and he shows poor judgement. He seems, at any moment in time, unaware of the game situatiuon. He ran out Katich in Adelaide during the last Ashes series because he was a) more interested in whether the lbw appeal against him was going to be upheld and b) unaware a run was on and his partner was keen. By the time Watson realised he would not be given out he then just took off despite the fact that Trott was now very much closer to the ball. Katich was burned because Watto was just so self-absorbed. In this game it was his former captain who suffered his lack of attention to detail. As for his dismissal, go back to his "triumphant" elevation to the opening spot in England in 2009. He made several fifties and almost without exception was dismissed within minutes of resuming a session. Breaks in play are his worst enemy. Or, maybe, he is is own worst enemy! And it doesn't seem to matter whether it's a lunch, tea or stumps break. Ten minutes after any restart - he's gone. Most famously, perhaps, two balls into the next day after being 96no overnight against the Windies in Adelaide. A brainless shot next morning and clean bowled. Watto looks good, he is a nice chap, but he's exactly as Duncan describes. No holes there Rookie!
Disco
Roar Guru
Watson also does gormless TV commercial acting very well. Who couldn't be anything other than inspired as he swings round to camera and delivers the words "Back yourself"?
Disco
Roar Guru
Agreed that Khawaja would ideally have scored more runs but he did look promising and occupied the crease. I don't believe he's yet been given a proper chance. It would certainly have been useful to see how he went in even a couple of Tests against the Indians when Marsh was on his way to accumulating 17 runs for the series. Let's not forget Khawaja overtook Cowan and Forrest in the NSW pecking order despite being younger than both of them.
Chris
Guest
I sometimes wonder who is actually in charge these days. When Hughes was ditched in England, Watson decided he wanted to open the batting, despite having no experience in that position. And he was given it. When the vice-captaincy opportunity came up, Watson decided he wanted that too, despite him having no leadership ability. And he was given it. Why? Is the national team really the place to be learning these basic skills? Is Australian cricket so hard up for experienced openers we're perfectly happy to throw someone totally inexperienced into the role? Are we so lacking in leadership skills too? And another thing - if Watson recognised that he needed to reduce his batting responsibilities to allow him to bowl more, how is changing from opener to first drop going to help with that? All very strange...
Osmond
Guest
I'd always thought that that Watson had potential as a top-order batsman, but it turns out he bats as though he was hired for his looks ...which I suspect he was. Bowls okay though. And even though he spent most of his career in the middle order, I would suggest that Allan Border was a more successful number 3 that David Boon
jameswm
Guest
Nah I'm happy for him to stay at 4, but he should move up to 5. He scores so many runs at 4/5, so leave him there. Border and Waugh didn't bat that high when captain. We do need to find a no.3 though. Punter should be asked to do it for now, but as I said above, there are no obvious candidates. Disco, Khawaja hasn't exactly grabbed the chance with two hands. Still, if Cowan doesn't improve, there'll be an opener's spot for the taking soon, too.
Disco
Roar Guru
Khawaja is the one that's done the most (in spades at first-class level and somewhat at Test level) yet he's been ostracised. Watson's always appeared suspect temperamentally.
Luke
Guest
A solid article, except the bit about Watson being the incumbent Allan Border medalist. I believe he was ODI player of the year (and Twenty20?) but this year, Clarke was the recipient, going from memory. Not that anyone really pays attention to Australian cricket's "night-of-nights" so all is forgiven... but if you ask me, Clarke needs to be pushed into the No.3 position. He's currently Australia's best batsman, as well as the captain, so it would make a lot of sense. I say, ideally, that our problems in the middle order would at least be short-term solved with Clarke at 3, Ponting at 4, Hussey at 5 and Watson at 6, with Wade to follow Watson, and then the bowlers, based on their relative batting ability. Clarke is in his prime. I agree with what Ian Chappell said last November: the time to move up to No.3 is now or never.