Apart from the obvious traits that both are Australian Test alrounders, there is another thing that Shane Watson and Greg Matthews have in common.
As we all know, Watson and Matthews are complete opposite personalities off the field.
Watson is a buffed-up individual with the looks, legally blonde hair, cute smile, speaks conventionally and has appeared in Brut ad.
Matthews on the other hand came across as scruffy,rebel without a cause, anti-establishment, no hair, and a bit of a loose cannon. Talks in unconventionally lingo and is/was a client of Advance Hair Studios, Who could forget “advanced hair…yeah yeah!”.
However, the common ground for both players is they have been utilised incorrectly by the Australian Test team past and present.
For many years now, there has always been conjecture surrounding Shane Watson’s place in the Test side.
The reasons for that conjecture comes down to been in and out of the Test side due to injury concerns. And when Watson does play, he has been criticised for making many starts and failing to go on with it. While his placing of the front foot has always made Watson prone to the LBW and bowled dismissals.
As for his bowling, he has been servicable at times, but never a match winner.
From an early age, Watson was viewed as a highly talented alrounder. Although, thus far to date, he has fallen short on that promise and at 33, time is running out.
Watson should have been a specialist batsman only, batting either as an opener or at number three, where he averages around the 40 mark, ahead of his overall average of 35.98.
Watson should’ve given up on the bowling five or six years ago, and therefore, avoid the injuries he has suffered throughout his career.
When you look at the careers of Steve Waugh and Steve Smith, both started off their Test careers as alrounders.
When Waugh and Smith were dropped from the Test side, both made the conscious effort to concentrate on their batting and less on their bowling. Both redefined their roles in the Australian side.
The result?
Waugh scored close to 11,000 Test runs at 51, while Smith has five centuries, averages 46 and is next in line to captain Australia after Michael Clarke retires.
As we rewind back the clock to the 80s and early 90s, Matthews batted at number seven for majority of his Test career and ended up with an impressive average of 41, which included four Test centuries.
Matthews batted at number seven in 33 of his 53 Tests innings. In that batting position, with the ball, he was deployed either as the only spinner, or a second spinner.
But his bowling overall in Test cricket didn’t make for any pleasant reading.He took 61 wickets at 48.22. With the ball, Matthews is best remembered for taking ten wickets in the Madras tied Test in 1986.
The one interesting thing when you look at the bowling stats of Matthews is in the third and fourth innings of a Test match, he did average 35 and 31 respectively. This is respectable compared to his Test bowling average of 48.
Matthews was a wily old spinner in the domestic scene where he took over 500 first class wickets. Matthews’ canny off spinners may have been handy come days four and five. But in the main, Matthews lacked the penetration and turn to prize out batsmen on a consistent basis.
Quite often, he’d be taken to the cleaners by Sir Vivian Richards.
If Matthews’ role was redefined, he should’ve batted at six, especially with a Test average of over 40. As a batsman, he was a fighter and a scapper. Once Matthews got in, he did take some moving from the crease.
The only dampener with his batting, was he only averaged 15 against the West Indies. But when your up against Messers Garner, Holding, Marshall, Walsh and Ambrose, it was never an easy task.
Sure, Matthews had eight not outs in his career. But to balance the ledger, he bizarrely opened the batting twice.
As a bowler, he could’ve been used as a fifth bowling option, either behind the four quicks, or as a second spinner, and be used primarily in the second innings of Test matches.
Matthews played his last Test in 1993. Yet, if he was a player today, there’s a fair chance he would walk straight into the current Test side.
For both Watson and Matthews, there careers haven’t been utilised in the right manner. If it did, both may have been champion players.
When you look at both players Test statistics, Watson is solid around, while Matthews has impressive batting figures.
Watson stats
Tests 53, runs 3,455, ave 35.98, 100s 4, 50s 22
Wickets 69, ave 32.14, S/R 70.1, 5w 3, 10wm 0
Matthews stats
Tests 33, runs 1849, ave 41.08, 100s 4, 50s 12
Wickets 61, ave 48.22, S/R 102.8, 5w 2, 10wm 1.
The real lesson going forward for future Test players, is to identify what roles they could offer their first class teams and the Test team. This issue is mainly surrounded by players who believe can offer more then one role to the side, yet are only capable in performing one task.
Is Mitch Marsh an alrounder or a batsman? At Shield level, is NSW’s Ryan Carters a batsman or a wicketkeeper batsman? And the same question applies to Victoria’s Peter Handscombe.
The sooner we identify the key roles of a player, the better. We don’t need more unfilled careers like Watson and Matthews.
Mohamed kookaburra
Guest
The difference between Watson and Matthews is Watson is a test cricketer with enough common sense to keep his opinion to himself whereas Matthews is and always has been an opinated buffoon who should have stuck with twilight cricket.
michael steel
Guest
I've just read this article one year after it's been written, thanks to twitter. I agree with your assessment of Greg Matthews who became a very dependable batsman in an era (mid 80's) where Border was the only dependable batsman
jammel
Guest
Yep, Matthews' average is really good! He was a quality player - a vastly better Test batsman than Watson IMO.
brian drian
Guest
they are both bungholes?
jack thomas
Guest
Agree on "Watson is a batting all-rounder, meaning that batting is his dominant suit. He has all the physical attributes, but I reckon he is a bit soft mentally, which is why he fails to totally fulfill his potential." In an ideal team, he would have become the worlds most destructive batsman consistently. But this is not a ideal world, his soft mind couldn't handle the politics on him. He was made a scape-goat on many many occasions. He's a ideal person who thinks everything is white, & when somethings happen to him(which are not supposed to happen) his mind can't handle it. It goes into a "stress & worry" mode. Being a watson fan, i know for a fact that the one&only problem of watson is his own mind. I'm his fan coz His talent is immense(beyond everyone else). As a person, he's too ideal. I like that too.
peeeko
Guest
thanks Viv
jamesb
Guest
Interesting what you said in your last paragraph, where neither have played in a dominant side. May well have affected them as players.
sheek
Roar Guru
Jamesb, That's the rub of it, Neither Matthews nor Watson have been able to fulfill their potential. Moving to different roles is irrelevant. Matthews was a bowling all-rounder, in that his bowling was supposed to be his dominant suit. Converting him to a batting all-rounder wouldn't have worked, because while he was an excellent no.7, batting consistently at no.6 & expected to be a regular run scorer would have been beyond him. Watson is a batting all-rounder, meaning that batting is his dominant suit. He has all the physical attributes, but I reckon he is a bit soft mentally, which is why he fails to totally fulfill his potential. Unlike Matthews, who actually over-achieved as far as his test batting was concerned! Ultimately, Matthews fell short in both departments - as a specialist spinner & as a specialist bat. Matthews & Watson are useful cricketers, whose place in their respective teams is fine as long as the other guys are firing. As an example I refer you to South Africa's Tiger Lance, a member of the great 60s teams. One thing the great South African sides of 1965-70 possessed were excellent all-rounders, & Lance ranked 4th behind Goddard, Procter & Barlow, probably in that order. Lance's output wasn't exceptional, but he kind of gave the team balance, & as long as the other three were firing on all cylinders, which was most of the time, then his place in the team was secure. Matthews & Watson are both unlucky not to have played in consistently dominant teams. An individual player's flaws are usually brutally exposed in an underperforming team.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
I didn't realise Matthews' batting average was that good. Interesting stat. Although I suppose batting down that low there were a few not outs to skew the average a little higher than it might otherwise have been?
VivGilchrist
Guest
peeko, I disagree. End of story.
Monday's Expert
Guest
I thought for a moment that you had inside info that Watto's locks were a weave.
peeeko
Roar Guru
Train, "end of story"? oh yes i must be wrong. In his early days in the Australian team Watson was only included due to his bowling, it is only recently with the falling away of Australian FC batting talent that he could perhaps considered as a batter only. Michael Bevan had a brilliant shield average of 60 but didnt make it in tests. Watson averages decent in Shield (41) as well but hasnt measured up in tests in the long run with a 36 average. Watson career FC average of 43 does not make him superior to other candidates and seriously don't end comments with "end of story"
Gus Paella
Guest
Watson is no longer a genuine all-rounder. He only bowls 5 overs per innings and often broken into two spells! I feel for Watson but his body has let him down and can't score 2s and 3s which makes it hard for whomever he is batting with to make runs also. Make him captain of the T20 side, he can hit boundaries and bowl 4 overs a day.
peeeko
Roar Guru
Smith could have improved his batting if he continued to bowl as well. there is enough time for people like Matthews to practice their batting and bowling. his "failure" probably had more to do with other things. i dont think the australian selectors ever considered Matthews as a pure batsmen despite his test average being higher than his Fc average
dan ced
Guest
Watson is another of these "does enough in shield to get picked" like Rogers did for this test.. but the guys with very consisted good scores don't even get a chance. I still like him, but he really needs to get a big score with the bat and stop getting out after a decent start. On recent international form Watson, Rogers, and Siddle should be replaced. I'd go Watson>Ferguson, Rogers>Cowan, Siddle>Hazelwood. If Harris is rested, Starc should get the spot. I was one to give Cowan a lot of shit when he'd get out for 30 off 200 balls but his form this season is undeniable as an opener.
jamesb
Guest
Peeko "moving Matthews to 6 wouldn’t have made any difference to his career. you seem to not like the concept of an all rounder." I do like the concept of an alrounder in the side. But when you look back at the respective careers of Watson and Matthews, both have fallen short of their true potential. The only way to realize their potential is/was to be handled correctly by team management, coaches and selectors. Imagine if Steve Smith continued on the path of been a leg spinning alrounder. He may not have ended up as a reliable batsman as he is today.
Camo McD
Roar Guru
It's a very interesting comparison. The two most genuine all-rounders we have had in the last 30 years. At Sheffield Shield level Matthews is probably the best performed spinner of the past 50 years. I agree they have not been utilized as best as they could have been. Comparing the two, Watson is by far the better batsman but Matthews is better performed at test level while Matthews is the superior bowler in my opinion but Watson's bowling average is 16 runs better.
Train Without A Station
Guest
And who would have been picked over Watson? Marsh? Doolan? Somebody else who averages less than Watson's test average at Shield level. Watson's bowling wasn't the only thing that kept his place. The fact that he has one of the top 6 FC batting averages is what kept his place in the team. Replacing him would have mean selecting a player with an inferior batting record. End of story.
jack thomas
Guest
Completely agree on "Watson should’ve given up on the bowling five or six years ago, and therefore, avoid the injuries he has suffered throughout his career". Not giving up on bowling messed his batting, confidence & career. He made a huge mistake. He seems overly emotional on being an allrounder. I hope someone puts some sense in his mind. Nothing is too late for a person who has talent on his side. Just 1 wrong decision turned a potentially great career of dominance into something, lets say "not living up to potential".
peeeko
Roar Guru
moving Matthews to 6 wouldn't have made any difference to his career. you seem to not like the concept of an all rounder. Fact is Watson has only kept his place in the side because of his quality bowling ,take that away and he would not have been picked. stopping bowling does not make him automatically a better bat