- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
A really interesting outcome from Ryan O’Connell’s and my batting pub debate earlier in the week was the never-ending variety of opinions on who should bat where in the Australian order.
For every Roarer that would make change out of necessity only – like Phillip Hughes coming in at no.3 for the retiring Ricky Ponting – there was another suggesting that everyone with the possible exception of Ed Cowan needs to move.
The more I read the comments though, the more it became obvious to me that there is one player more than any other that is causing the most uncertainty.
Shane Watson.
Evidently, this isn’t an exclusive opinion, with many of you questioning the all-rounder’s output, and by default, his deservingness or otherwise of a place in the side.
It’s already apparent that Watson is in for a positional change in the batting order for the First Test against Sri Lanka, starting in Hobart tomorrow.
It’s just as apparent that Watson’s not overly thrilled about it, too, seeing him talk about the change last week up in Brisbane before the first Big Bash League round.
And perhaps there’s reason for him not to be thrilled, too. Veteran News Ltd cricket journalist and late-blooming TV pundit Robert Craddock revealed on Fox Sports’ Inside Cricket program on Monday night that Watson’s returns as a batsman get worse the further down the order he goes.
CricInfo lists his numbers like this: batting at no.1 (and have you ever noticed how Watson always faces the first ball when he opens?), Watson averages 43.7; at no.3 it drops to 28.5; it’s 24.3 at no.6, and 14.5 at no.7. His strike rate and the number of hundreds and fifties scored also similarly drop the further he drops in the order.
Since his debut in the summer of 2004/05, he averages 36.9 in his 36 Tests.
Of course, it’s worth remembering that Watson was first thought to be Australia’s answer to Andrew Flintoff. After the burly Lancastrian tore through Australia to deliver England the Ashes at home in 2005, Cricket Australia suddenly developed the fascination with having an allrounder capable of batting in the top six, and bowling at 140+kph.
And like Flintoff, Watson has had his career massively disrupted by injury. I mentioned above that Watson has played 36 Tests since his debut in 2005. Mike Hussey debuted the following Australian summer, and will be starting his 77th Test tomorrow in Hobart.
Even when he’s fit though, slotting Watson into the Test XI hasn’t always been easy. Ideally, you’d want your all-rounders to be good enough to be selected as a bat or a bowler in their own right, but Watson has probably never fit that equation.
At his peak as an opening batsman, he won consecutive Allan Border Medal in 2010 and 2011. The argument at the time was that he had the best technique of all the Australian willow-wielders. I’m not so sure about that, personally, and he still falls victim to the same deliveries today that used to bring him undone then.
Roar regular, Bayman, certainly agrees, commenting on Monday,
“Getting out lbw roughly a third of all Test innings suggests to me that his technique, not to mention his judgement, is not as sound as some might think. His concentration is clearly not up to the mark so even if his technique stood up he can’t bat long enough to take advantage. Do even his biggest fans seriously suggest a Clarke-like double ton is just around the corner?”
Analysis of Watson’s dismissals only further enhances Bayman’s concerns.
Overall, Watson’s been out to the bowler 62 times in his 66 Test innings. Of those 62 dismissals, 15 have been at the hand of spinners, leaving 47 dismissals to pace bowlers.
Of those 47 to the quicks, he’s been out LBW 15 times and bowled eight times. That’s 23 occasions – nearly half – where he’s been undone by technical misjudgement, or of course, by some very good bowling. Sometimes it would’ve undoubtedly been both.
In Watson’s 24 Tests as an opener, he faced 3556 balls in 45 digs, averaging 79 balls per innings; well less than half the strike available in a Test session.
Just for the sake of comparison, England Captain Alistair Cook has faced nearly a third of that number of balls in their current series in India alone. In six innings. And at more than 190 balls faced each time he walked back to the pavilion.
Watson’s numbers point to him being more successful as an opener, but I’ve never been completely convinced about him as a top order bat. So then, the question becomes if not as an opener, where does Watson bat?
I honestly don’t know, and that’s the trouble. And judging by the variations suggested on Tuesday, it seems there’s no consensus, though no. 6 is a popular choice. Watson at no.6 probably should work, and yes, traditionally that has been the spot for all-rounders.
But Robert Craddock also rightly pointed out the other night that Watson’s game is built around power hitting.
He’s had success as an opener because the ball is hard and comes on fast, and the field is still attacking. If he only lasts 79 balls as an opener with few fieldsmen in front of the bat, does he have the mental game to make runs with defensive fields?
In addition, does he really have the array of shots, or the ability to hit through these defensive fields when batting lower? Even in his Brut TV ad, he hits everything in the air.
It’s no wonder his place as a batsman comes into question then. He makes a decent case to be included as a fourth seamer, I think, but his batting issues mean that to shoehorn him in somewhere almost certainly brings a disturbance to the batting force.
The selectors have brought a funny situation upon themselves over time. Their insistence on playing an all-rounder evidently comes at the price of imbalance when theoretically it should be helping the balance of the team.