It’s been a confusing couple of days in Australian cricket. After reading some of the comments in the media, one can only assume that a temporary case of madness has descended over the sport.
First of all, we had Cricket Australia’s High Performance Manager, Pat Howard, and Test captain Michael Clarke stating that all-rounder Shane Watson would need to be fit enough to bowl in order to be selected for the second Test against South Africa.
However, Watson has since confirmed that he won’t be bowling in Adelaide, yet confusingly said that he maintains hope he would still be selected for the Adelaide Test after rejoining the squad this week.
Even more confusing, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Selection Chairman John Inverarity stated Watson could play as a specialist batsmen, provided he could prove his fitness. This obviously dramatically contradicts what Howard and Clarke said.
It certainly seems that not everyone is on the same page at Cricket Australia.
Yet it’s not just those within the inner sanctum that have been saying some strange things.
Respected cricket writer Malcolm Conn suggested that Watson is not good enough to be selected as a top six batsmen for Australia, and that Rob Quiney should therefore retain his position in the team.
Come again?
Before I launch my spirited defence of Watson, let me first clarify that if Watson cannot bowl due to his calf strain, then I don’t believe he should be selected. But not because he isn’t one of Australia’s top six batsmen, but because it clearly means he’s not 100% healthy.
If there are question marks over your ability to send down a few overs, then you are obviously not 100% fit.
As a top order batsmen, it is expected that you should be sufficiently healthy enough to bat an entire day – something I struggle to believe you could do if you have not completely overcome your injury concerns.
However, I’m no medical specialist, so I spoke to respected Sydney physiotherapist John Panagopoulos from Active Physiotherapy.
Panagopoulos has worked with numerous cricket teams around the world during Twenty20 tournaments, along with having an affiliation with the Sydney Cricket Club.
Understandably, Panagopoulos can’t diagnose Watson from media reports. However, he did tell me that it’s reasonable to think that if Watson can’t bowl, then he can’t be 100% fit, and may have issues running, sprinting in the field, and turning quickly when batting.
So I have no drama in Watson remaining out of the side if he isn’t fit enough to bowl. But only because it suggests he’s not fit enough to bat and/or field either, especially for a five day match.
However, that doesn’t translate to Watson suddenly not being one of Australia’s best six batsmen.
Especially when the player nominated as a better candidate was Rob Quiney. I’m sorry, but by any calculation, that is sheer madness.
I thought Quiney appeared comfortable during his short time at the crease at the Gabba, and Conn said he believed he deserved another chance because he looked ‘polished’. I have no idea when ‘comfortable’ and ‘polished’ became the standard on which batsmen were judged.
Without being rude, I think it’s important to remember that Quiney scored a measly nine runs. Yet you would think he scored 99 the way some experts are suggesting he should take Watson’s spot.
I have nothing against Quiney. I enjoy watching him bat, and was very pleased he got selected, for he thoroughly deserved it. However, he’s simply not in Watson’s class.
Quiney averages 37 in first class cricket. Watson averages 44. Quiney averages 9 in Test cricket. Watson averages 37. And let’s not even discuss Watson’s awards, accolades and accomplishments at the elite level.
Case closed. Nothing more to see here. Jog along.
You could argue that Watson doesn’t convert his starts into big hundreds, and I would agree. You can state that Watson has only averaged 25 runs in five Tests over the last 12 months, and you would be right.
But if you tell me that Quiney is a better batsmen or more accomplished than Watson, I think we’re going to have a serious disagreement.
I have no issue with Quiney taking Watson’s spot if the latter is unhealthy, but that doesn’t mean the Victorian is a better batsmen.
Rule Watson out if he’s injured, but don’t claim he’s not one of Australia’s best batsmen. His record may not be exceptional, but his class is undeniable and Australia do not have an abundance of talented batsmen at present.
While on the subject of madness, riddle me this, those that say Watson should be fit enough to bowl to get selected, but are happy to see him bat number three if he is: if Shane Watson truly is not one of Australia’s top six batsmen, what the hell is he doing batting at first drop, arguably the most important position in the team?
Just to round off the madness, last week Mitchell Johnson stated that he was ready for a Test recall in Adelaide.
I respect Johnson’s positive outlook and I love that the fact he still has ambitions to make it back into the Test arena, but to be blunt, he’s a fair way down the fast bowling pecking order at present.
There is nothing to suggest that if Johnson finds some consistent form and takes a bagful of wickets that he couldn’t wear the baggy green again. But for him to suggest it could have been for the second Test this week is slightly embarrassing, along with a little disrespectful to the many bowlers currently ranked ahead of him.
They say cricket is funny old game, and it’s certainly been a funny old couple of days.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Haha! Yea, that's well done. I also would have accepted: "You know you're in good form when you snick them." Or Australian cricket's favourite line these days: "He looks amazing in the nets"
Timmuh
Roar Guru
He showed spectacular judgemen on the ones he left. Unfortunately the one he had to play at was an absolute peach, that only the very best in the business could have got an edge to. That was clearly the best duck you will ever see, amazingly unlucky as without that one ball a century was a definite. Something like that?
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I wonder if Quiney's innings today will be described as a 'polished' duck. . .
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Actually, batting him at the top order gives him plenty of time to rest - seeing as he never comes close to carrying his bat through an innings!
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Watson will always give the Australia side that extra batsman and bowler over other sides like SA have with Jacques Kallis. That is if he can bowl. If he can't bowl then he is not 100 percent fit and should be given rest to recover completely. Do not risk a player and open the possibility of injuring him further.
Rhys
Guest
The Chappell v. Hughes situation at least made some sense in the context of the the 'World Series' and 'establishment' camps. If there are indeed factional frictions in the current set up, I'd be very interested as to how they've evolved. I guess in 5 or 10 years one of the current group might write a tell all account of things.
Rhys
Guest
Though Waugh did have a hamstring that seemed to be on constant injury stand-by.
Rhys
Guest
And the batsman in question had a hell of a lot more ticker than Watson has. Steve Waugh was someone that got the most out of his (considerable) talent, and then some.
Rhys
Guest
I'd place Watson right along side Andrew Symonds in the 'what could have been' column. Both players potential match winners on any given day. Both occasionally delivered, but more often than not fell short of that mark. Maybe it's something in the make up of the modern day all-rounder. Kallis is the stand out, but few others of the last 20 years have come close to the records of the 70s/80s greats - Botham, Dev, Imran, Hadlee et al. Could it be the increase in demands of limited overs cricket?
pope paul v11
Guest
Brettig has written yet another breathless article praising Ponting. This time about his value beyond runs to the team. Ya reckon? I make it that there are at least 3 factions in the team. In order of importance they are The holy trinity in Clarke, Ponting,Huss,The Top 3 Gang, and The Plebs. Reminds me a bit of the Chappell gang vs golden boy Kim Hughes. Therefore Craddock may be onto something with a falling out between Watto and the trinity, however Clarke may be just doing the right thing by team. On the other hand, coupled with the non support of U T Khawaja from within the trinity despite class and form and praise for Quiney's epic 9, dressing room form, catching ability and previously unheralded medium pace, it seems a bit personal. Anyhow that's my conspiracy theory for the evening.
pope paul v11
Guest
And the coach selector too.
pope paul v11
Guest
that's a belter of a wicket
Craig2
Guest
Watson's average is only below 40 if you include his 8 tests between 2005-2008 when he batted at 6 or 7 - his average as a test opener is 43.6 - these figures clearly indicate he is currently one of our top six batsmen.
Edmund
Guest
Just a quick one to add to the points which have already been made, I'd suggest that the selectors, as well as the team more broadly, would be more than a little apprehensive to throw an unfit Watson into the mix for fear of turning what might be a slight calf strain into an injury which has more long term implications. Top article Ryan, and kudos for replying all through the day!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
The praise for Khawaja was over-the-top. And I'll be the first to admit I was guilty of it myself. Having said that, I feel more comfortable gushing out the praise for someone that scores 38. But 9 runs? C'mon! And 4 of them came off an edge through slips!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
That's a fair enough point, lolly. Ponting has played many times when less than a 100%. You could argue that it's a slightly different case, but really, it's slightly hypocritical of him.
lolly
Guest
It was a classic set-up and a batsman fell for it but somehow that has been ignored by almost every journalist and commentator I've heard speak or write on Quiney's innings. It's been very amusing following the surreal nature of the write-ups about Quiney's 9 runs. It reminds me of the over-the-top stuff about Usman's 38 in the last test of the last Ashes only the bar is set hilariously low in this case. I'm hoping he gets a beautifully crafted 3 in the next match for Aus just to read the descriptions of his poise. Well, that's not quite true if he's picked I hope he gets real runs but there is much unexpected amusement to be had in failure this summer.
lolly
Guest
Punter is the last person who should be saying that sort of thing. He's played injured often enough. He did it in the last World Cup and in the Ashes 2010. I guess 100% fitness is always more important when you are talking about someone else.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
That's true dasilva. I'd add the same point I said to Sheek above: Watson is not your average cricketer. He has had an injury plagued career, and has broken down mid-game for Australia before. He's somewhat a risk, fairly or not, to select even when he's fully fit. But when he's clearly not 100%, that's a gamble to big to take.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Hey Sheek, I would also argue that Steve Waugh was less injury prone that Watson, so you were more likely to take a chance on his fitness. Waugh also played in a stronger team, so selectors probably felt they could carry one player who less than 100% fit. The current side doesn't have that luxury.