Sliding Doors: What if James Hopes was Shane Watson?

While amid a block of pyjama cricket and with no Tests in sight, the nationwide seminar on Shane Watson will pause for a well earned sandwich break.

Unless his red-ball frustrations cross-pollinate with his stronger suit of the game, discussion won’t fully recommence until his first skittish moment in the West Indies – and frankly, that’s too damn far away for a business like the The Roar.

Because this place needs to put food on the table with mouse-clicks and debate, let’s do a Watson hypothetical while he conducts himself inconspicuously away from Test cricket. It’s for a good cause, and besides, we haven’t talked about him for a good couple of days now.

So when it comes to the flawlessly-rigged bombshell, have you ever imagined what the world would be like if his position on the Australian cricketing landscape was held by someone else?

If an alternative was taken at that Sliding Doors moment when he was first chosen? If the powers-that-be shunned the glamorous Gwyneth Paltrow for the more plain-yet-serviceable brunette version?

To give you an idea of what I am babbling about, let’s recalibrate on Situation: Watson.

By taking a quick straw poll, you’ll see not much has changed. Firstly, it’s still challenging to conduct a survey with hay, and secondly, Australians are still warming to the beefy multi-tasker like he’s their mother-in-law.

This is because of a couple of totally irritating reasons.

Firstly, as a cricketer of above-average talent and bone structure, he seldom delivers in the clutch. This happens mainly in the creams, where it’s become his trademark.

Secondly, everybody sees this except those damn selectors, who are always whistling while gazing across the bayou whenever another one of his knocks goes festy.

This is the crux which gives Australia a code blue migraine. Why would these jokers rather eat a plate of glass than drop him? From where does this unyielding patience generate?

Many speculate that the one time captain is not judged on traditional data (runs and wickets) and more so on a highly unique and secretive Watson-specific data (availability, promise and gun size).

While this may be true, the overriding majority say his lifetime membership is a product of being earmarked at the height of the country’s all-rounder craze.

Remember this time? After years of desperate searching for Akrams, Flintoffs and Cairnsssss, where only Brendon Julian, Shaun Young and the other Lee brother were unearthed, the Australian hierarchy lumped the lot on Watson when he hit the scene and cemented him deep in to the long haul plans.

Ever since, they’ve been waiting for sweet justification. So far, it’s a wait that’s proved very Harold Holt.

So what if such an investment was made in someone different, with the same deep wells of patience shown?

For this science experiment, let’s randomly select James Hopes. It’s a perfect comparison because he stacks up well timewise – they both debuted in first class cricket in 2001 – and because his name is in the headline and I’ve conveniently got his numbers at hand.

What would the returns be like if Hopes was Watson? Would he have fulfilled our deep urge for the all-round Australian hero, or would he have just pissed us off too?

Okay, I firstly acknowledge that Watson is an elite all-rounder in the shorter forms of the game, so it’s safe to say that while Hopes is trusty oak in this form, the big guy shades him with his hectic explosiveness and match-winning capabilities.

Additionally, he’s an adonis without air-brushing, while the Queensland warhorse always looks like he just got out of bed. So fair to say, he’s got him covered on a couple of fronts there.

But what about in more important matters such as Test cricket? Could Hopes have been a solid long-term return with a little bit of perseverance?

Sure, his first class batting average of 32 with 5 centuries and 260 wickets at 26 isn’t going to trigger a picket out the front of Cricket Australia’s offices, but what if he was given the exposure to a higher level? Would these numbers flourish?

One thing I know that ‘Catfish’ could’ve given in substitute, and that’s less trips to Medicare. While Watson has a body-groove on the physio table from fortnightly calisthenics, Hopes has been the evermore dusty Hilux without a flat on the rough terrain of the Shield circuit.

An example of his durability was a recent state game against the Blues. When half of his fast bowling cartel broke down, Hopes simply rolled up the sleeves and bowled a triathlete-like 47 overs to plug up the gaps, taking 3/114 in the process. Sweat personified.

If Watson was in the same scenario, he would’ve been one of the blokes injured.

So would the scene be different? Should we just stop whinging and be grateful for Watson, or would the money have been better spent elsewhere? Alternatively, is this just a bunch of disproportionate codswallop?

You might say this is apples versus oranges. X-Factor versus reliability. Marketability versus modesty. Bronte versus Blacktown. Weet-Bix versus a meat pie and a can of VB. And you might be right.

I just can’t help but think…would Hopes be higher in a world without Watto?

(See what I did there? Yeah.)

So what do you think, Roarers? If you could go back in time, would you swap your Watson for a Hopes?