Steven Smith will be a contented captain as his team takes the field on Day 3, and after two days of sheer, unadulterated domination, the Test is his for the winning.
When Ryan Harris is flaying boundaries for fun, you know the top order has done a job. When Mitchell Starc is winning the immediate approval of Shane Warne, you know it’s been a good day.
FOLLOW SCORES FROM DAY 3 OF THE CRICKET IN SYDNEY HERE
For the first time in the history of the great game, as I’m sure you heard, the top six of an Australian team all passed 50. One of them, especially, wasn’t able to push it to three figures for 24th time in Tests.
I really didn’t want to get into yet another discussion about the fortune and misfortune of Shane Watson, but it’s almost impossible to avoid. And it was evident from the outset again yesterday; whereas Smith just picked up where he left off on Day 1, Watson continued to poke and prod and scratch and scrape.
Mohammed Shami struck Watson in the fourth over of the day, with the ball flying away for three leg byes off his helmet. Watson waved away the Australian physio when he appeared, but he took his time before looking comfortable again.
Smith, meanwhile, just raced from his overnight score of 82 into the nineties, and brought up just another superb Test century inside 45 minutes. The way he raised the ton was so typical of the series, too; a heavily offside-stacked field saw a knee-height full toss delivered on leg stump, which Smith promptly whipped through midwicket for four. It was Smith’s 683rd Test run for the series, and it was just too easy.
Watson on the other hand was making batting look tough. Ravi Ashwin was keeping him tied down with a very straight line and four catchers around the bat on the leg side. You could set your watch for the likelihood of Watson wanting to belt his way out of the shackles.
Shami banged one in short, and Watson with acres of room on the leg side managed to quite skilfully pick out Ashwin at deep midwicket. Everything that could possibly infuriate you about a Shane Watson dismissal was there to take in.
For starters, the field. India have had a mid wicket at varying depths since Watson first came to the wicket on Tuesday afternoon. They know he likes to pull on the front foot, and he knows they know he likes to pull on the front foot.
So sure, pull on the front foot Shane, but hey, any danger of rolling your wrists? Or, you know, if you can see it so early that you can pull on the front foot, why hit it down the throat of the only bloke between you and the fence? Even just five metres either side of the man would’ve seen it go for four!
It’s seriously blood boiling. And here I am, up on the bloody soapbox again when I said I didn’t want to. That’s the gravitational pull of a Watson dismissal. He plays a stupid shot, straight to the only bloke on the fence between Paddington and bloody Wollongong, has the blank ‘oh, there was a bloke out there’ look on his face, and trudges off in the slowest possible way while your blood pressure goes through the roof.
Geoff Lemon was stationed in the press box row immediately in front of me, and it takes all of my inner strength to not take his “Hey, Watson!” rant from the last Ashes series in England and colour it bluer than anything Kevin ‘Bloody’ Wilson could have managed. Infuriating.
(Because who doesn’t want to relive it right now?)
It shouldn’t be like this. A Test batsman with more than 50 Tests behind him shouldn’t have this sort of effect on people. The skipper has just peeled off his fourth consecutive first-innings ton for the series, and I’ve overlooked it like it’s standard fare.
What’s more, Watson and Smith put on 194 for the third wicket, a crucial union coming immediately after Australia lost both openers within six balls of each other. Part of the reason Shaun Marsh and Joe Burns were able to accelerate and bat so freely in the afternoon session was because of the platform relaid by Watson and Smith. Likewise, Harris’ nine balls of manly awesomeness.
So why do we allow ourselves to get so angry with Shane Watson? Why does Shane Watson do things to make us so angry?
Late yesterday afternoon, though, I had an epiphany.
Watson has the most publicised, most scrutinised, most criticised set of Test numbers in my lifetime. And it’s all part of his cunning plan; he’s playing us all for fools.
If the mantra of ‘all publicity is good publicity’ is true, then Watson has enough credit to play Test cricket well into his 50s. He knows we can’t help but talk about him, and he knows we’re all sweating on another exasperatingly unconverted fifty.
Playing us for fools, he is. Like. A. Fox.
And short of adopting a Simpsons-like conclusion of ignoring him like a rampaging killer neon sign, we’re in this for a good number of years yet.
jimbob
Guest
...Lara did it in one innings..
Rex
Guest
Yes, that is possible - sure. But its my opinion Smith can bat at 3..... It has been common in the past to start batters in the lower order and move them up as they gain experience. Smith is batting superbly now (much better in recent times) and I think he would handle 3 - I think he will be there within a year.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I'm just having a go, I would think Faulkner is a better batsman than Starc too. He looks much more like a batsman when he bats than Starc, as does Harris. In some ways, Starc has probably over-achieved with the bat, and Faulkner and Harris really should have better records with the bat than they do with the ability they have. With the number of first class matches Faulkner has played, for him to not have scored a first class hundred is pretty poor, he's seriously underachieving. I still don't think he'd get good enough to be considered a top 6 batsman, but bowlers with much less batting skill than him have scored multiple first class hundreds.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Winston if Clarke and Smith actually want to bat at 3 and are able to perform at 3 then Watson either has to perform at 4, 5 or 6 or he isn't in the team. Priority must be given to the best batsmen to perform their best. But I have doubts that either of those players have any strong desire to play there considering Ponting's last test was December 2012. From the Indian series he missed in 2012 our Number 3 per test has been: Vs India Hughes Hughes Clarke(Got a duck first innings)/Hughes Hughes Vs SA Quiney Quiney Watson Vs SL Hughes (Watson at 4) Hughes (Watson at 4) Hughes Vs Eng Cowan (Watson opener, Clarke 4, Smith 5) Khawaja (Watson opener, Clarke 5, Smith 6) Khawaja (Watson opener, Clarke 4, Smith 5, Warner 6 first innings, Watson 4, Clarke 5 and Smith 6 2nd innings) Khawaja (Clarke 4, Smith 5, Watson 6) Watson/Faulkner (Scored 176 in this match, Clarke 4, Smith 5, Siddle 6 as Night Watchman, Haddin 7 then Faulker 8. Warner and Watson opened the 2nd innings as they appeared to chase quick runs altering the order) Vs Eng Watson (Clarke 4, Smith 5) Watson (Clarke 4, Smith 5) Watson (Clarke 4, Smith 5) Watson (Clarke 4, Smith 5) Watson (Clarke 4, Smith 5) Vs SA Doolan (Marsh 4, Clarke 5, Smith 6) Doolan (Marsh 4, Clarke 5, Smith 6 - Lyon batted at 6 as night watchman) Doolan (Clarke 4, Smith 5, Watson 6 - Watson moved to 4 in the second innings and Clarke to 5, Smith to 6) Vs Pakistan Doolan (Clarke 4, Smith 5, M Marsh 6) Maxwell (Clarke 4, Smith 5, M Marsh 6) Despite the fact that Watson has played 3 more than anybody in the 25 test matches prior to this series, of the 14 that he played he was only at 3 a total of 7 matches. So he hasn't been pushed as hard at 3 as some thing. They've thrown him there 50% of the time. Now in these 25 matches where no long term 3 has been settled, they moved Clarke there once, he got a duck and didn't bat there the 2nd innings. Now whenever there has been ample accomplished batsmen available, the trend has been to bat both Clarke and Smith as far down the order as possible. This has been as low as 5 and 6 when there have been batsmen that were considered to be accomplished batsmen at 3 and 4. When we've gone with a weaker 6th batting option like Mitch Marsh they have remained at 4 and 5. I just don't see any indication there is a likelihood of either moving there.
Winston
Guest
But the problem is if you put Clarke or Steve at 3, you're forced to put Watson in a different spot where he bats worse. Assuming you must pick him anyway because of his bowling, that becomes a bad idea.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Chris I agree statistically he's not better, but he definitely is a good stroke maker. The other thing he does well is bats under pressure. Whilst this has only been in limited overs games, his ability under pressure should be noted. So in closing, I can't support it with statistics, but I consider Faulkner a better batsman for 2 reasons: 1. Superior stroke maker 2. Bats higher in the order, therefore likely to accumulate less not outs.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Starc averages 30 in test cricket with a top score of 99. Faulkner averages 31 in first class cricket with a top score of 95. Can't see that he'd necessarily strengthen the batting much by replacing Starc.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think the question just forgets, a little, the meteoric rise Smith has had. Back when Watson got injured in SA and Doolan was tried at #3, Smith had just had a couple of decent series and was starting to feel comfortable that he really belonged and could be a good test cricketer. He wasn't yet showing the domination we've seen this season that makes you just feel really confident whenever he walks to the crease. Nobody would question Smith as a good selection as captain in Clarke's absence now, but many thought it was too much, too soon just a few tests ago and weren't sure how he would go. I have thought, probably since the Shield final last year, that Smith may well have been the man to be a long term number 3. If they had someone playing there who wanted to be there like Watson who was able to do well enough for a while so Smith could find his feet better in test cricket first, much like Ponting who had plenty of time at #6 before moving up, that might be good, but if they need to make a change either dropping Watson down the order or out of the team altogether and wanted someone better for that #3 spot, that Smith is ready to take it.
jack thomas
Guest
I can't put it any better. Thats the best comment. "He should start believing that getting 35 each innings at number 3 IS good enough because he is also adding bowling." If he starts believing in that, he will obviously do better. All this problem started when people messed his mind with "You must convert 50's into 100's" All hell broke lose into his mind & his career from then on. He never thinked about 100's before i.e, 2009-11 & he was the best batsman during that time. When people messed his mind to score 100s & not 50s, he became overthinking, worrying & always under pressure Watson. Remember his quick 100 at perth. He scored 100 because he was asked to score quickly in that situation. He didn't think abt 100 & he made it. One has to meet him as soon as possible & tell "forget abt 100. Don't think abt anything. Just go out there & have fun. Just like backyard cricket." Talent+right mindset=success. (Right mindset = Not thinking abt success)
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
If Clarke or Smith want to bat at 3, they are better options and great. But given the amount of different players trialed at 3 that seems doubtful.
Winston
Guest
The other key issue with Watson is that he is our number 3. If we were to select our number 3 based on who is the best batsman in the country, then he's simply not good enough. The easy conclusion from that would be to shift him down the order, but there lies the dilemma, which is that he averages higher either opening or at 3 than lower down. It is what it is, and nothing can be done to solve that. Now, ignoring that for a moment, if we add his bowling to the mix, it makes it irresistible to select him because there's no better all rounder. So if we accept that he must be selected, then the choice is a simple one: Do you bat him in a position which he's good at or do you bat him in a position which he's less good at? It becomes a no brainer! So maybe the only problem is with our views about the traditional make up of the batting order and what we expect of our number 3. There is certainly no rule which says you best batsman must bat at number 3. Just like how it wasn't that long ago when the general rule of thumb for openers was that they shouldn't bat like Warner or Sehwag. It wasn't that long ago when we had our best batmen at 5/6 in Clarke and Hussey (while Ponting was still occupying 3 but on a decline). I just wish Watson thinks that way as well and stops doubting himself. He should start believing that getting 35 each innings at number 3 IS good enough because he is also adding bowling. Who knows - if he starts believing in that he might even bat better!
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You don't think it's because Clarke and Lehman or even Smith didn't want him to bat at 3?
Monday's Expert
Guest
No I'm not, I have opposable thumbs for a start.
Monday's Expert
Guest
Good questions TWAS and time they find out how Smith will go at 3, because I'll put some money on Smith moving to 3 when he assumes the captaincy permanently.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
But why wouldn't they see how Smith if Watson was not playing? Or in the Ashes in 2013 where Watson batted at opener, 4 and 6?
Monday's Expert
Guest
Because Watto wants to bat in the top 3 and Clarke (as long term captain) is happy for him to do so..
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
But he doesn't "never make runs". He consistently makes 30+ and bats 20+ overs. That's why people are complaining, his lack of centuries mean it's consistent scoring at a similar that is making his average. So the difference is coming in 20 overs earlier.
Rex
Guest
Tell me what the difference between batting 3 or 4 when your 3 never makes runs?
Simoc
Guest
You're obviously not a cricket monday. The selectors pick the team. The captain decides the batting positions in the best interests of the team. And that has always been the way. They discuss these things, no doubt, and that is why Watson remains at three.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Does it matter who averages where, as long as you have the time with the highest average? I could care less if our 3 was averaging 10 with the bat if we were notching up 500 an innings.