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.
Average Punter
Guest
Has not been consistent enough with bat or ball. Too many injuries. I think Ben Cutting is a better choice going forward. But the retirement of Hussey makes it even tougher for the selectors. They need to blood more promising batsmen before the ashes.
Brendon
Guest
Actually, I disagree. We focus on his batting in these discussions, but I think his bowling is underrated, and will be invaluable in England next year. If he can stay on the park, which is very unlikely!
Brendon
Guest
Actually, they dropped him and then brought him back as a number 3 to face Curtley in his prime in the early 90s. That didn't work either, from memory.
The no. Three
Guest
Id like to c M Hussey and S Watson swap around in the batting order. People agree?
Bayman
Guest
Grumpy Pants......Grumpy Pants......I'll give you effing Grumpy Pants you, you,......Oh, I see what you mean!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Who said I didn't enjoy the read, Grumpy Pants?
Bayman
Guest
I know what you meant, ROC, but if I had done as you suggest I would not have had so much fun. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the read but I'm not actually trying to please anyone but myself.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
They did indeed. The Vics were all knackered from chasing 900 runs worth of leather, and bowling 250 overs!
formeropenside
Guest
still bowled the Vics out twice though, as I recall
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Your first paragraph suggest its a mindset which can be changed but when your catain decides to go slog a part time spinner and get caught on the boundary for 40 something when the team really need him to bat for a day and a half sure why not put te foot down and plonk it as well. How about playing him down the order or giving him a instruction. After all that is why there is team meetings and captains to give players instructions. So you are basically saying that everyone bats for himself and see who can muster it slashing quick centuries? Cricket is a team sport ain't it. How is his bowling? Oh wait they let him bowl a couple of overs trying to turn him into a top order batsman rather than a allrounder Well who was Watson's replacement? He did marvelous did he. Great job selectors. No I am not suggesting that.After all Kallis is a team player and will give up personal ambitions for his team without the blink of an aye. Maybe Australia will do better when they start playing like a team with a plan and not individuals trying to see who can score the quickest century.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Barry, I remember that Shield final well, because my best mate was playing for Victoria! Queensland scored 900 on a wicket that was flatter than Keira Knightley.
Spartan and his Bat
Guest
The next two series before the ashes should be used to expose new people to test conditionsl. In particular C Boyce, J Bird, B Cutting.
Rhys
Guest
The difference with Steve Waugh is he was allowed to settle at #6, and was rarely moved up and down the order. I'm wondering if part of the reason behind Watson's 'issues' is the fact he really hasn't been allowed to become settled in a specific role. Waugh also benefited from having a more settled batting order around him. One other thing seems to distinguish Waugh from Watson. The former had much better powers of concentration (at least evidenced by results). I'd slot Watson in at #6 and let him settle there.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
I think the crucial thing for Watson is that no matter where he bats that he actually performs. An average of 26 in his last 11 Tests (21 innings) and 30 innings since his last Test hundred is hardly acceptable for a 31yo top-order vice-captain. Neither is two centuries in 36 Tests. It is time he started to perform regularly or his place in the team must surely come under scrutiny, not just simply what number he bats at. He has the technique, it would appear that it is the mental side of things that are astray.
MadMonk
Guest
I don't like looking at batting positions on numbers alone. Batting at 5 when your team is 3 for 30 is completely different to batting at 3 for 300. There is a lot of superstition around batting positions that needs to be debunked. Where you bat is really a risk exercise, how well equipped are you to face the range of scenarios you might face. Open you will face the new ball. Lower done you are more likely to see fatigued bowlers, ring fields, an older ball and spin. How you mange the different scenarios will dictate where you are preferred to bat. My rule is build your batting lineup from your strength. In my view Clarke and Hussey should each bat one spot higher simply because at 5 and 6 they have a higher chance of running out of partners. I would support Clarke at 3 but he obviously does not fancy an early start against the new pill so I will let him go at 4. Batting Watson at 1 or 3 complicates the captains use of him as a bowler and exposes the risk of him having to bat when fatigued. This risk is best managed by batting him at 6. Cowan needs to open and the other spot is a toss between Warner and Hughes. Relaxed with either. We need selectors to apply logic not superstition or player power. Equally night watchamn should be avoided but if used
The no. three.
Guest
This series will not be a forerunner for the Ashes series. I honestly feel they have to choose batsmen who are tough for that standard of series, Mentally tough like Origin..
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi guys, Being in a course all week, I haven't kept myself abreast of every post. But briefly, if I may. The problems with Australia's batting order not only revolve around Watson's most suitable position, but also Clarke's. There appears to be a reluctance on Clarke's part to move form #5 to #4. This really does throw the line-up into confusion, since no-one else is as technically or temperamentally equipped to play 4 to the same extent as Clarke. As captain of the team, & it's best batsman, it's incumbent on Clarke to bat at 4. Now with Watson, the stats are untested on Watson's average deteriorating as he drops down the order since 45 of his 66 innings have been as an opener. There's no convention that says you can't be opener & a member of the bowling attack as well. We simply haven't seen Watson bat often enough at 5 or 6 to make a definitive assessment of his suitability here.. I just don't think Watson is mentally & physically tough enough to be both an opener & frontline bowler. He needs to bat down the order, at #5 or #6. The great South African Trevor Goddard opened the batting & was also a frontline member of a 4-man bowling team, not 5-man. Goddard did a lot of bowling & it probably took the edge of his batting. And I would suggest he was mentally & physically tougher than Watson, although not as naturally gifted a batsman. One final thought on Watson, he's now 31. I reckon he's just about as good as he's going to get. There are no surprises left. The trick now is to use him where he can benefit the team the most. That's batting at the 'waist - 5 or 6 & as a support pace bowler. Now Hussey, he's temperamentally suited to 5 or 6, that's just how some players are. The mercurial Doug Walters sometimes batted at 4, but this was too high for him. Hussey has a different style of batting, but batting in the 'waist' is where he best serves the team. I don't think either Warner or Cowan are long term answers to the top of the batting. But until someone better comes along, we must persevere with them & hope they have more good days than bad. There are some things that fans just have to suck up. My suggested batting order (for now): Warner, Cowans, Hughes, Clarke, Hussey/Watson, Watson/Hussey.
The no. three.
Guest
Brett, the top six might make 500 in almost every innings as far as I'm concerned against Sri Lanka. They wont. But even given that, It is not a forerunner for the Ashes. I feel that strongly about it. We must try and find solutions. Experience and a blend of youth, good luck selectors. We need the equivalent ton State of Origin class batsmen, if you know what I mean.
sittingbison
Guest
I'm happy to have a baked Watson in the team Col, but not a half baked one ;-)
formeropenside
Guest
Or maybe Tony Dodemaide, but he was more a bowler who batted. Also, not as accomplshed a one-day player. I am now reminded of the late 80's as the last time we tried to find an allrounder to fix weaknesses in the Australian side. As it turned out, that was S R Waugh.