Shane Watson has made plenty of headlines lately with questions about his fitness, ability to bowl and best position in the batting order.
But the bottom line is that, wherever and however he is used, Watson needs to perform.
There is no doubting his ability from a technical standpoint, but it is fair to say that Watson has underachieved, especially in the batting department.
With Michael Clarke’s dicky back a constant worry for the national selectors, vice captain Watson could find himself thrust into the top job at any time.
One of Clarke’s greatest strengths as captain has been his ability to take his own game to a new level.
Since assuming the mantle as Test skipper, he has scored three double centuries and a triple while boasting a batting average of 68.1.
While he is yet to carry the responsibility of captaincy, it is high time for Watson to produce on a far more regular basis.
There is no doubt that injury has marred his continuity in the baggy green, with the third Test against South Africa at the WACA his first on home soil since January 2011.
But when Watson has been in the side recently, his performances have largely been below par.
In a Test career which now spans 36 matches, he has a batting average of just 36.9.
One of the more worrying aspects of his batting is his inability to make opponents pay once he gets settled at the crease.
The fact that Watson has scored just two centuries from the 20 times he has surpassed 50 at Test level is a massive blight on his game.
He has currently gone 30 Test innings without a century – hardly acceptable for a top-order batsman.
In his past 11 Tests (21 innings), he has scored 552 runs at a paltry average of 26.3, during which time he has made eight single figure scores, including three ducks.
In the one day arena, Watson has proven himself to be a far more valuable batsman, with an average of 41.5 and a rapid fire strike rate of 88.
He holds the record for the highest one day score by an Australian – 185 not out against Bangladesh in Dhaka.
At times his belligerent and prolific scoring at one day level seems to mask the fans’ view of his Test form.
He has proven himself to be an effective bowler in the longer form, with a creditable career record of 60 wickets at 29.2.
His recent form, however, has not been flattering, excepting one performance against South Africa in Cape Town late last year where he captured 5/17 in the highly abbreviated Test which featured Australia’s ignominious innings of 47.
In his past 11 Tests he has produced 18 wickets at 26.9, however if you remove that one innings in Cape Town his return is far less impressive – 13 wickets at 35.9.
Watson has been told that he will most likely bat at four in the forthcoming series against Sri Lanka, to which he responded: “It’s taken me a few days to get my head around that, but it means I can bowl a few more overs”.
Here’s hoping that his often fragile body is up to the task.
At 31 years of age, and as deputy to Clarke, it is time for Watson to impose his presence on opposing sides.
On both fronts – batting and bowling – he has to find consistency and the ability to put the opposition under pressure.
As one of the senior members of the squad, for Watson the time is now.
Bayman
Guest
Cameron, Your succinct summation of Watson's apparent dilemma at finding himself at number four covers it perfectly. Surely going into bat at 2/30 after forty minutes is better than going in at 3/30 after forty minutes. Of course, at 3/35 after fifty minutes the next guy might feel some stress!!!
Frustrated
Guest
I think his ongoing selection is still a hangover from Andrew Flintoff affect in the 2005 Ashes and the selectors having a preoccupation with including a specialist allrounder(hence how Symonds, McDonald ended up playing tests). The difference is that Flintoff was a genuine test match bowler who could also make centuries occasionally. Watson lacks the ability to contribute significantly with either Bat or Ball consistently. If we must have an allrounder, can't we choose from some other candidates: Faulkner, Butterworth, Mitchell Marsh (if he wasn't injured), Ben Cutting (may be a stretch to call him that but made a shield century recently), Steve Smith, Steve O'Keefe, John Hastings, Dan Christian. Most of these guys have a stronger skill but would potentially contribute more than Watson overall. If the prerequisite is to have equal performances batting and bowling, no matter how weak, Watson deserves his spot.
Rob from Brumby Country
Guest
Just on an aside, how good is Alastair Cook's form? We haven't been hearing about it because of Michael Clarke's heroics, but Cook has evolved into an incredibly good batsman. He's scored over 7000 runs and 23 centuries at an average over 50, and he's only 27 years old! For comparison, by the same age, Clarke had scored just under 4000 runs at an average below 50. And Clarke has never had to face McGrath or Warne! Cook is much, much better than most people are prepared to rate him. We are going to have a lot of trouble with him.
Nick
Roar Guru
Drop him. He is 31 and always injured. At best he has 2 more spineless years to play. His performances in Perth were embarassing and speak volumes of a man who would prefer to selfishly angle his way into the team half fit than be the bigger man and sit out until he is fully fit (or acquired some talent). He stood at first slip when his fellow bowlers were being trounced: selfish, arrogant and pathetic.
Fidel
Guest
"I watched him closely in the field during the Boxing Day test at the ‘G last year...." That must be some gift you have, given he hadn't played a test on home soil since January 2011 (forgive my pedantry - I assume you mean Boxing Day 2010).
Chaos
Guest
I think Shane Watson has to stop using Brut. Why is he demolising a wall in a changeroom? That's his problem right there...
Red Kev
Guest
I thought it was fairly apt - if the comically oversized shoe fits...
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Accusing the likes of Rod Marsh and John Inverarity of being "clowns" is somewhat harsh.
Disco
Roar Guru
Agreed.
Disco
Roar Guru
Seems very self-absorbed.
jameswm
Guest
That's what I think. The only one around the setup who I could see as a test captain is Tim Paine.
jameswm
Guest
That's a very good question.
Talisman
Guest
roarr, what if this supposedly poor Sri Lankan side actually beat us or at least give us a fright? Those cracks won't be papered over then. A quick appraisal of this Ozzie side is: brittle top order, bowling (whoever is fit) struggles to take 20 wickets & fielding seems to have dropped away over the last few years. That's not a recipe for victory. As for your second para totally agree no matter who we send. The selectors imo have failed to find sufficient new talented batsmen, the bowlers while exciting & good can't get on the park & the selection process is compromised.
Red Kev
Guest
Wow I didn't realise it was that bad.
Crispy
Guest
The problem with using statistics where you ignore a particular strong performance is that you negate the very nature of cricket. You have days where you're bowling we'll but you can't buy a wicket, every edge falls just short, every uppish cover drive is just wide of cover, the French cuts go for four, the batsmen play an miss 20 times in a spell but never nick one. And then you have days like in capetown where you are bowling well (I watched that spell - he was fantastic) and every edge or false shot draws a wicket. Michael Clarke's performance over the last year or so would look pretty average if you ignored innings in Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide... The statistical mark that I use for deciding whether an all rounder is any good is "is his batting average higher than his bowling average?" in Watsons case the answer is yes. It is rare for all rounders to put in a match winning performance with bat and ball in the same match - the exceptions: Botham, Flintoff, Akram stand out though. Cricket Australia need to decide what Watson's most valuable skill is and play him accordingly. To me his bowling is where he will win matches and he should be batting at 6 or 7.
Duncan Gering
Guest
+1
Duncan Gering
Guest
Watson is being mucked about only because the selectors have decided he HAS to be in the side and they have picked him out of position. His returns as on opener are abysmal (that might be a little strong), even Warner and Hughes have more centuries in less than half number the tests. So what if he won the AB Medal, all that proves is he performed marginally better than everyone else, and that fact that he has a golden arm (when he does roll it over) certainly doesn't hurt the cause. Until he fixes his head (history tells me this can't happen) and bats and bats and bats (this either), and bowls a bit too, he's never going to rate a top 5 spot in the team, not in my view.
Swampy
Guest
I hope that its very likely that the next test captain is not in the team, cause there ain't no worthy candidates in the team. I don't follow NSW so much but out of the 6 state captains, Steve O'Keefe seems to be the only one that has the potential to improve. He must have put a few people offside though because he seems not only off the selectors radar but banned from its airspace. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
JJ
Guest
What really really irks me, is that he (and some others) play so much T20 (mostly abroad) and he breaks down when playing for Australia ... cliche, but it really ain't the same anymore.
Brett McKay
Expert
Kev, in that Malcolm Knox column I referred to above, he mentions that Watson debuted 10 months earlier than Mike Hussey, yet Hussey's played 40 more Tests..