Shane Watson is an enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped inside a mystery. For all the hype about him, sometimes you think he just needs to dash into a phone booth to reveal his secret identity.
He has played at several positions in the order and also bowls handy medium pacers that occasionally break the odd dangerous partnership.
It would seem odd therefore, that the Australian Cricket team really have little idea what to do with him, but it does. This is compounded by the fact that, due to injuries, Watson is now voicing with selectors the idea of playing merely as a batsman rather than as an all-rounder.
The simple reason for all this is that beneath this much vaunted versatility is a sense of vulnerability. His place in the batting order has, more than anything else, been at the behest of what needs filling, rather than his natural spot, such as the No. 3 slot that Ricky Ponting filled for much of his career.
This is compounded by his stats. While his average of 37.02 is not too bad, the fact is that his conversion rate of 19 fifties and two centuries is not what’s needed to take a game by the throat.
The other problem is that, statistically in Tests at least, his bowling is perhaps the more useful side of his game. As the fifth bowler in the Australian side, he boasts an average of 30.06 at a strike rate of 63.
Losing him as a bowler means finding another all-rounder and as Mitchell Johnson found out, it takes more than a massive PR campaign to allow you to both bat and bowl at a consistent level.
Therefore, is Australia willing to continue to bend to what Watson feels his body requires him to do? Or will the selectors give Watson an ultimatum?
Because while people believe he could be anything, perhaps a more important question is whether Shane Watson and the selectors believe that what Shane Watson can be is feasible for the Australian Test team.
Bearfax
Guest
Probably right AF. There's not much else available once you get past Clarke, Hughes, Warner and Khawaja. I'm perplexed as to why Burns hasnt had any opportunities. He and O'Keefe are my next projects now that Hughes and Khawaja have got their opportunities. Burns, aged 24, averages better than Cowan, Doolan, Quiney, Shaun Marsh, Christian, Finch et al. So why hasnt he been given a chance to show his talent if the selectors are apparently so worried about the lack of batsmen. And I read that Doherty won his place over O'Keefe, despite a big difference in Shield performances in O'Keefe's favour, because of Doherty's International experience. Again I say that is a stupid reason to choose one player over another, if you're not giving the other player the chance to show his wares at the International level. I tell you. these selectors make the rules up as they go and then break them if it suits a favoured player..
Renegade
Guest
+1
Arthur Fonzarelli
Guest
Shane Watson is in the best 6 batsmen in Australia. When he is bowling as well, he is in the best 6 cricketers in the world. He is worth persisting with.
Baldrick44
Roar Pro
It seems like a squad that reflects the fact that the selectors aren't quite sure of the structure of the side post Hussey and Ponting.
Red Kev
Guest
Remaining uninjured (i.e. longevity) is an essential part of being a legend. Watson is a great limited overs cricketer, perhaps even the best we have ever produced. However he is mediocre at best as a test cricketer.
Red Kev
Guest
I won't argue with that
ashfak joy
Guest
Watson would be a legend for Australia for all time. He's a brilliant player. But unfortunately, he gets injured a lot, that's the problem. So i prefer Watson not to bowl and just bat. That would be good for both Watson and the Australian team.
B.A Sports
Guest
Would be willing to bet many of those first class runs were scored on a benine Belreve when it was a batsman's paradise
Matt F
Roar Guru
Which leads us to the problem that Watson won't be bowling this series
matt h
Guest
I would say he is good enough to replace Cowan ... but then I would say that about a lot of batsmen
Red Kev
Guest
I was just trying to illustrate form. I agree that if Watson is bowling then he should play. However as a batsman he just isn't good enough.
Bearfax
Guest
Well Watson has been selected in the latest Indian tour and one has to wonder why. If it is to take Cowen's place (he's also in the party) if he fails, then it could be a reasonable move. But he's only just back from injury, isnt bowling and has scored very little so far. Finally Khawaja gets recognised with selection for India and Invererity suggested he is a strong chance to play the first test. Finally the kid gets his chance. Its up to you now Uzzie. Steve Smith selected as a batsman only. He is scoring well in first class cricket and wont be bowling apparently. And Maxwell, despite poor recent performances in on the tour, probably thanks to good first class averages also. Both going as a learning experience according to Inve. Henriques is going as the main all rounder. Well he seems the best of an average crowd at this stage and at 25 at least will get better so probably a good selection. Fast bowlers are as expected and the strong part of the team Would have preferred Steve OKeefe to Doherty as spinner but there you go. Also would have liked Burns to get a go probably instead of either Watson or Cowen but maybe later. A fairly reasonable touring squad. If their batting line up starts with Watson, Warner, Hughes, Clarke and Khawaja, they may have a chance of winning
Renegade
Guest
The glaringly obvious in why this isn't a fair comparison is that watson has a test to shield average of 80/20 while khawaja is the complete opposite....it's a silly comparison. Again i'm saying the obvious but test matches are a lot more difficult than shield....how many of khawajas centuries were in tests?? I'm a Khawaja fan and believe he should be in the test team but not ahead of Watson in any shape or form. There's a place for both.
Renegade
Guest
Yes, i should've clarified that.....as an All Rounder.
Red Kev
Guest
In fact just to make it more fun for you I've compiled this - the combined Shield and Test records of Watson v Khawaja over the last 3 years (i.e. since the start of the 2010/11 summer). Watson (16 tests, 4 Shield matches), 1104 runs @ 30.7 (0 centuries, 8 half-centuries). Khawaja (6 tests, 18 Shield matchs), 1574 runs @ 40.4 (3 centuries one of which was a double, 8 half-centuries). Fair? Watson is not within cooee of a test-match-class batsman.
Matt F
Roar Guru
As an all-rounder? Absolutely. As a pure batsman? I don't know how that can be at all justified
Renegade
Guest
That would have been a good squad however the only two exceptions are massive exceptions.....Haddin and SOK should be there and Maxwell and either Smith or Doherty shouldn't. Honestly if Maxwell plays, we may as well start throwing away baggy green caps.
matt h
Guest
So it was all true then ... 17 players implies the selectors do not know who the best team is. Send over another 5 and they can play each other. My issues: - Watson is only there for the first two tests. Where does he play? Do they drop steady Eddy? I would but it would result in more chopping and changing. Given the number of "allrounders" picked it implies that 2 spots in the top 5 will be shared by Cowan, Watson and Khawaja. - Is Smith a batsman? He doesn't bowl any more. So does he go into that mix above? - That is all assuming they will play an "allrounder". Maxwell, Henriques or Johnson? None are good enough in my opinion. - The only way Henriques plays is to free up a 2nd spinner spot for Doherty. But when our strength is our pace bowling and we have Siddle, Starc, Bird, Pattinson, Johnson to choose from why on earth would we pick only two of these to have Doherty in the side? Have the selectors seen his first class average? Did they watch him against th English in 2010? - If Maxwell plays then we can fit in 3 seamers but what evidence has there been to date that Maxwell's batting is up to it in a test match, or that his bowling will trouble anyone? Is he not an offspinner the same as Lyon? How is that adding to the team? - Steven O'Keefe must have some serious personality issues to have missed out. Not that he is a star, but he is compared to Doherty in first class cricket. For me the 11 should be Watson (Cowan for last two tests), Warner, Hughes, Khawaja, Clarke, XXXXX, Wade, Siddle, Starc, Lyon Bird. (Pattinson maybe in the latter tests if he is fit enough) I just can't bring myself to type any of the number 6 options: Cowan opening and Watson down the order? Ed is just not good enough, Smith? Maxwell? Henriques? Johnson? Jesus! When Watson goes home one of these others will play. There are no other specialist batsmen on tour. How is that possible with a squad of 17?
Renegade
Guest
His still a very valuable member of this side....i don't care what the last 2 years of stats suggest. When fit, he is one of the first picked in any format of the game for Australia right now.
Red Kev
Guest
It isn't unfair at all. Since the last tour to India in 2010 when Watson scored his second and last test match century Australia have played 25 tests (Watson has only managed to stay fit for 16 of those). In those 16 tests Watson has averaged 33.2 with the bat. His most recent Shield match yielded a score of guess what ... 33. And in case you want a more complete picture, over the last three seasons Watson has only played 4 shield matches and has averaged a lowly 22.1 That is two years of first-class form to show you exactly how good Watson is (i.e. not very).