Who should make way for Shane Watson?

I was an "allrounder" in my cricketing days, couldn't bat and couldn't bowl.

Whats stats Atko?You keep using that line without providing anything! When Watson started his Test career, do you remember the batting lineup? Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Gilchrist, where else is he supposed to bat in that line up! Fair dinkum! 1st test bowled 19 overs 2nd test - 6 overs 3rd test- 6 overs 4th test- 24 overs 5th test- 29 overs *Test 4 and 5 were in India where all bowlers had higher workloads. We seem to be going around in circles here. We can agree that Watson is an "allrounder" I suppose

That sums up Watson perfectly f or me. Not many Australians have had a hgher batting average than bowling average, and Watson is among them

Atko, I presume that would be from, and including, the 2009 Ashes series - prior to which he had played just eight Tests scoring 257 runs at 19.77. He also had taken 14 wickets at 35.57 in those eight Tests.

Fair call, Bearfax, I don't necessarily disagree with you. Let's just wait and see but understand there's clearly a different dynamic at work here in the selection of Marsh - and Doolan. One which Ryan has raised in his previous article (referenced above).

Train, "I don’t care how a player looks. As one of the roar writers put it, a batsman’s currency is runs. etc...." That's much better, now you are arguing with some logic. That "a batsman's currency is runs" line I have actually used myself in a couple of comments in the past. Wouldn't it be ironic if you were quoting me at me! I don't disagree with what you say in this comment. I even agree averages are a place to start, or one of the considerations, in whether a player gets picked. I will disagree, however, with anyone who suggests that averages should be the only consideration - and that has been the essence of my argument all along. I was surprised by the selection of Marsh and Doolan but not shocked by it. I don't consider the selectors have made a dreadful mistake, nor do I think they have sent a confusing message to other players. I'd like to think, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, that those who may have felt in the mix have had conversations with Invers and Lehmann about why they were not selected when M&D were. They may not agree, but they've been told. The public by and large, however, do not get told and really, nor should they. Because we are now obsessed with numbers people have concluded that the guy with the better average is the better player. And he might have got better results this week, or this month, or this year, but it doesn't mean he's actually better. Batsmen do not, as you have rightly stated, get marks out of ten for style. The good judges, however, can tell a good player by looking at him play without any knowledge of average. Conversely, you and I can look-up Cricinfo daily and watch the average adjust accordingly. But if we've never seen the guy play we really know nothing about him. I used the Johnston Ashes story as a mischievous example but still to make a point. Yes, I agree it's a special case but fifty years later all people see is the average, not how it was achieved. It's a massive joke because Johnston was a rabbit (although he did famously win a Test for Australia against the Windies with the bat). The 102 average for Johnston, as averages are for anyone, is just a cold number on a cold page. It does give any clue as to how that number was attained. The joke, in Johnston's case, included the fact that near the end of the tour, when the possibility was there, even his opposition were not trying to dismiss him. Cricket is nothing without a sense of humour. That average, though, is there till the end of time. I can only assume that many on the Roar are having trouble in this day and age reconciling how a player can be picked if he doesn't have the best average - or even a particularly good average. All this says to me is those people are having trouble evaluating what Invers and Lehmann mean by performance as in, "If it's not a number, and this particular number (average), then what can it possibly be?" I can't tell you how much fun I had last night, glass of red in hand, replying to you, Ryan, expathack, Ronan, et al. Ryan, it must be said, had a fair old go at me this morning, hackles well and truly up, and I confess to feeling a little guilty. I referred to 'idiots' when responding to Ryan and expat together. My use of the term was intended to be generic but poor old Ryan thought I was having a go at him since he was included as one of the addressees. Not so, but the damage was done. I view this misunderstanding like I view 'averages'. They can mean one thing and say another. With that in mind, and taking everything that I have said in all my comments, I'd warn you to be careful about stating that any player who averages under 40 should never be picked. Always think, "context" - then remember that Marsh averages under 40 and he just made a rather impressive Test century. You can see the dilemma?

Consistency Bayman. Forget stats for a bit and look at consistency. He may look very good. He plays some outstanding innings the last of course being his century against the formidable might of South Africa. He's very talented and I understand the selectors being enamoured by him. But he's not consistent. he'll score a marvellous century and then nothing above 20 for half a dozen innings. He's done it most of his career. In his last 25 Shield innings, he was out 20 times for 20 or less runs and was averaging about 27 over that period. And there were two centuries there to. Lehman's maybe what he needs to correct this problem and if he achieves consistency I'll be pleased for him and back off the criticism. But he's done the one century bit before on several occasions and everyone has lauded his achievements. And then nothing. Lets see what happens this time.

Heard a report on ABC Radio today from Jim Maxwell, Watson's struggling to be fit for the Second Test. But, far more importantly, the selectors are starting to tire of his constantly-wounded status. Knowing Jim, that wouldn't be a rumour. About bloody time. Back to Sheffield Shield for a lengthy stint, Shane.

Bearfax, It was indeed very naughty of me.....but then I can be a very naughty kind of guy. I'm not politically correct, either, so don't spend too much time hoping on that one. I take your point about the nineteen year old Harvey and the thirty year old Marsh and you are right. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that those 'in the know' have always rated Marsh's ability despite the apparent differential in actual results. In other words, they know he can play - and it probably mystifies some as to why that ability has not translated into consistent runs. The result of his selection, a century against Steyn, Morkel and Philander, also backs up the notion that he obviously can play. My other point, the more silent one which I just hope people will finally pick up on, is that the evidence now suggests that this current selection panel is more inclined to pick a guy they know can really play as opposed to someone about whom they have doubts despite that guys higher average. Unfortunately, I still have a tribe of people telling me about this average or that average when I'm saying to them, "Forget the average, look at the talent - because that seems to be what Invers, Lehmann and co. are doing whether you like it or not." Based on that, I just do not have a problem with the selection of Marsh and Doolan but many seem positively horrified as if their world, as they knew it, has just ended. They just can't seem to get their head around the concept that performance (as required to be picked) just may not be based on average but something else - like skill, temperament, attitude. I can accept that people who know not much about batting might base their whole judgement of a player's worth on his average - which is not to say that the average is always wrong, by the way. Bradman's average, even in his early days was pretty compelling. But it's not true of every player. I would have thought that the selection of both Marsh and Doolan might have awoken at least some willingness to delve deeper in some people but, no, I'm still getting "but his average is better than the other guy" even after the selection of these two suggests the selectors know that but don't particularly care. They know what they see - and they like what they see so they picked them. Start by redefining the meaning of 'performance' and it gets a bit easier to understand. That's all I'm saying.

Yes well done, you've shown that he was a middle order batsman in his first five first class games. Congrats. Obviously you've lost track of what we were discussing. Shane Watson began his international career as a bowling allrounder and you're comparing his stats to a batting allrounder. I said that was unfair and they should be compared to the era when Shane Watson was given a bigger responsibility with the bat. Have you checked out his first five international tests? What was his role in that team? A b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bowling allrounder. I'll say it again, once he was shifted to the top order his batting went up a level. Stats back that up.

Aransan I dont necessarily disagree with some things that you say. I'm not suggesting stats are the only factor in determining if a player should be promoted or not. As I've indicated before form and age etc are also factors to consider. But what I am saying is that statistics should be the first thing that is considered. Consider it this way. What is the most important factor that justifies worthiness for test selection. Style? Impressiveness from the point of view of someone watching them play? None of those things applied to Smith who was considered to have a school yard way of batting. Yet here he is a test cricket player scoring over 40 average fairly early in his career. So what is it we're looking at. The answer is outcomes. Not how Smith scored his runs. Not whether he looked good. But the fact that despite all the criticism, he scores the runs. In the end that's all that is important...outcomes. You want someone who goes out there and scores the most runs and does it consistently. Doesnt matter how he does it, as long as the runs are on the board. Same with bowlers. And outcomes are only determined by watching the player over time. Determining if he is scoring runs and is scoring them consistently. That's the foundation of statistics. Now the only caveat is form and age. Form varies with all players but you still choose from the players who have the runs on the board consistently. In other words you choose someone who has over 40 runs per innings in FC cricket because you know they score runs and they do it consistently. A 40+ player goes off form like Khawaja, you then choose one like Lynn who is also 40+ and in form. In effect that's all that matters. Scoring runs consistently and taking wickets consistently. In essence the end justifies the means in this scenario. And you continue to promote those players even if they seem to fail initially because its the same game at test level as FC level just more intense, just as FC level is more intense then grade cricket. Those players have been through various tiers getting to where they are and still scoring runs. If they managed that, they will eventually manage the next step. There is no magical difference. They are playing the same sort of players they played in FC cricket. Its just they are now playing the cream and have to raise their game to the next level as they have been doing throughout their cricket careers.

Bearfax, you have too much confidence in numbers and statistics. A batting average is only one measure of performance. Unfortunately it is difficult to put numbers on other measures but that doesn't mean that they should be disregarded. Players and officials in first class cricket would have a very good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of players in FC cricket, and they wouldn't just be looking at averages. As our collective numeracy has declined in modern times we seem to have increased our confidence in numerical measures. An example is on our roads where alcohol and speed are correctly recognised as being important factors in road safety and we can put numbers on them. But I am seeing people drive with their arms out of windows and dangerous driving not necessarily connected with alcohol or speed. But the numerical measures finish up driving everything, we don't need as many police on the road because we are collecting those numerical measures that ensure that our roads are safe. I think you would find that police would be more reluctant to pick up dangerous driving these days than previously unless they have some numerical measure to back themselves. I have seen that in the workplace too where very great importance is placed on aspects of work which can be assigned some numerical measurement. These numerical measures finish up driving everything but unfortunately there are some very important aspects of performance for which no numerical value is readily available and so is ignored and that is to the detriment of that organisation.

You wanted stats by claiming that "once the focus shifted more to his batting it went up a level. Stats back that up". FC debut for Tassie 2000/01 played 5 games 1st game vs Qld- first inninngs batted at 7 scoring 25, came on as 3rd change bowler (14 overs in a big Qld innings of 468) 2nd game v NSW- batted at 4, bowled 5th change 3rd game v Vic- batted at 4 (first 50), bowled 3rd change 4th game v WA- batted at 4, bowled 3rd change 5th game v SA- batted at 4 (hit first century), bowled 3rd change So, besides his debut, he batted at 4 and never bowled better than 3rd change (ie 5th bowler used). SOrry, but if a bloke bats at 4 in his second FC game hes a batsman.

People are complaining that Watson isn't a good enough batsman to hold his spot in the team, I don't know that replacing him with someone who's basically a bowler and handy lower order hitter is going to improve that. Faulkner isn't close to being a top-6 batsman, so replacing Watson with Faulkner is not actually a good replacement. If he can be one of the top 3 pace bowlers and come in batting at #8 and score lots of runs there that's a great bonus, but he's not the sort of genuine allrounder who can bat in the top 6.

In saying Rogers hasn't been "the rock" they'd probably hoped for isn't the same as suggesting he should be replaced by Watson. I think probably the second test should be unchanged and we'll see how people go there. Rogers is in a precarious position though. He's an older player who doesn't have the sort of history that grants a bit of extra grace with the selectors. This means that it may only take 2-3 consecutive poor tests for him to be gone.

Bayman, I don't care how a player looks. As one of the roar writers put it, a batsman's currency is runs. The one with the higher average 9/10 has scored more and got out less frequently. Scoring runs wins matches. Not innings that look good without putting runs on. You can't pick on stats alone. But they're a good place for a starting point. I'd argue any player with an FC average under 40 should not be looked at, as that is the standard for a decent test batsman, so you're setting yourself up for a fall looking beyond that. Yes, we are obsessed with numbers in modern society. That's because the team with the most number of runs or wickets wins matches. Judges don't give the batsmen a score out of 10 for style, etc.

Ooooo. You are being quite cheeky arent you ICF. But I like you