Shane Watson of Australia is one of few players who are picked almost automatically, but does he deserve this luxury?
Watson’s figures of late in ODIs have not been impressive and with a bunch of younger, more powerful and potent all-rounders arriving on the scene, it seems unlikely that he will continue much longer in the coloured clothing format.
These are not his only negative points with his inability to convert starts into triple figure totals well known. He does have good line and length but as a fast bowler needing to compete with the likes of James Faulkner, taking two wickets in a year suggests he is not doing enough to contribute to the team’s success.
Australia have the most all-rounders of all cricket teams at national level. James Faulkner, Mitch Marsh and Glenn Maxwell at 24, 23, and 26 years of age are just a few.
With ten years on their side, they are Australian crickets’ future. Watson has always been picked on potential, potential he only showed in 2010 and 2011 and rarely since. At 33, it’s time to stop picking Watson on potential and start picking him on performance.
His scores from the last year include two ducks and five scores between 10 and 20.
Even when the all-rounder did manage a start (40, 41) he couldn’t convert with no half centuries or triple figure scores.
His inability to convert starts into centuries is shown by his career stats that tell us that Watson has converted just one third of his fifties into centuries.
His last hundred for the Aussies was his 102 against India way back in October 2013. All the other mainstay top order batsmen average over 40 in the same period compared to Shane’s measly average of just 16.4.
Once renowned for his powerful hitting, is an average strike rate of 60.5 over the past year justifying his inclusion in the team? As a top order batsmen around the likes of Aaron Finch and David Warner, that’s not a major issue, but he should still be scoring big runs, averaging at least in the high 30s.
Although valued for his low economy rate and ability to keep an end tight, do we really still need Watson? With Marsh much the same bowler and arguably the better batsman with an average of just a tick over 46, we don’t.
Let’s just take a look at Marsh over the same period, an economy rate of 5.3 and three wickets. Watson however did not look as dangerous with an economy rate of 6.2 and just two wickets from a similar number of overs.
Watson has had his opportunity, and blew it. We have lots of bowling options. Just pick a specialist batsmen to play at first drop like Cameron White, or move Smith up the order and get Shaun Marsh in.
We need players who are playing cricket at a high level to play professionally. Watson hasn’t given us any proof of that lately and if he can’t do it, pick someone who can. While I don’t think he deserves to stay any longer but it’s an understandable position currently with Australia wanting the same team consistently on the park but post World Cup he should be dropped.
What do you think Roarers? Should they drop him? Or does he deserve one more chance?
brian
Guest
So you're saying he took 160 wickets in two seasons? He's been in the Australian odi line up since 2002 and even though he was a constant injury problem, between 2006-2013 he was one of the most consistent players for Australia. Those 5500 odd runs and 160 odd wickets weren't accumulated in two years, yes 2009-11 helped him where he scored the bulk of his runs but he's been very consistent and a proven performer and match winner for over a decade
Jacob York
Roar Rookie
Yes sorry i realise that.. i misread it as 8 not 82 which upps his average by eight runs. Watson actually played 9 games not 7. The only reason he averages 40 in ODI's and has 160 wickets is because of his two golden years on top way back in 2010 2011.. He has shown little if any of this talent this past year.
Craig Watson
Guest
Watto is the eternal under achiever. Big on promise small on delivery. Surely the world cup is his last chance. He needs consistent runs and plenty of them. He can no longer be considered an all rounder as his bowling is not potent enough these days. His test place is already under threat. A poor WC and his ODI spot will be also.
Craig Watson
Guest
I would not put Maxwell in the all rounder category. Australia badly needs a specialist slow bowler who bats. There are just none about in domestic cricket that I can see. Ashton Agar will be down the track but he still has a fair way to go before his left arm tweakers are considered good enough for international cricket.
deccas
Guest
Would the team be weaker or stronger for dropping Watson right now? I honestly cannot tell you. If he was dropped and Burns went to 3, with Mitch Marsh at 6 the bowling is undeniably weaker. Marsh has a lot of work to do on his bowling before he is in Watsons class. Is the batting stronger then? Its hard to say, Burns is an unknown quantity at 3, I'd think he would be a better bat than Watto, but who really knows. No one has seen enough of him at that level. Given that this course of action doesn't necessarily strengthen the 11 its hard to advocate taking it. Assuming that we need an allrounder and given also that above course of action doesn't necassarily strengthen the team the options, as I see them, are as follows. Moving Burns or Smith to 3 and Watson to 6. Moving Smith to 3 and Watson to 6 and bringing in another middle order bat for burns. Playing Watson at 3 and Marsh at 6. Dropping Watson, moving smith to 3 and playing Faulkner at 7. Arguements can be made for any of these. I'd want to get a middle order bat in there at 6 and leave Watson where he is for now though. Our middle order is looking decidely flimsy right now, with Marsh as consistent as Melbourne weather and Clarke as dodgy as a swiss bank account I'd like to see someone in there with the capacity to take over one of these two spots, so I would Leave watson at 3, bring in Lynn for Burns at 6 and leave things as they are. Faulkner, Marsh, Henriques should all be told they are a real shot of getting into the team with some strong shield results, Burns Cowan should be told keep it up and you'll be batting 3 before long, because Watson isn't making the team after the Ashes, and Silk Carters and Bancroft told that they'll have Rogers place if they can make 6 hundreds before the series after he retires, and see who makes it.
Don Freo
Guest
Yes Jacob but you are obviously Victorian. Cameron White....plleease! The papier mache cricketer....as a batsman? He doesn't score runs. Finch will probably end up out of the side with Watson opening.
Don Freo
Guest
Or he did what the team needed instead of worrying about random milestones.
Bfc
Guest
It a cricketing metric only, but Watto's consistent failure to convert 'starts' into big scores (centuries plus..) is illuminating. At 33 he can no longer be picked on potential as there a several younger batsmen who are waiting for an opportunity, and as many have noted, several all rounders as well. He has 'flattered to deceive' in both the Test and ODI arena. Too few runs (who has the lowest batting average of #3s with say 50 games...?) and too few wickets...time for CA to give someone else a (decent) run.
VivGilchrist
Guest
YAAAAAAAAAAWN! Ok, you don't like Watson, we get it. He averages over 40 with the bat and @30 with the ball. Let's drop him. Bravo.
Punter
Guest
You have taken out his 82 as highlighted by Scuba. He actually averaged 23 in 2014 which is ordinary, yet he only played 7 matches compared with Finch's 18. He still averages over 40 in ODIs whilst taking over 160 wickets. That is a world class record. Why would you gamble on White (averages 34 in ODI) or even Marsh (averages 39 in ODI) instead of a proven ODI performer. The Watson bashing may have some merit with regards to the Test Team but he is an A Grader in ODIs.
Jacob York
Roar Rookie
Have to disagree with you there, Finchy has averaged over 40 in the same period and with a better strike rate.
Jacob York
Roar Rookie
I know lots of you are talking about how there have been lots of Articles on Watson, but when i wrote this i was trying to mainly focus on ODI's not Tests which are talked about a lot more. another reason for that being, a talk about how a player doesnt deserve to be playing tests seems slightly out of place when no one is playing tests
Jacob York
Roar Rookie
My apologies!! My stats were wrong. Mine said 8 not 81! However that still proves his inability to score centuries after he was in that game batting very professionally and well gave his wicket away.
Monday's Expert
Guest
We'd be deluged with articles about how unfair his banishment was.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I reckon Finchy is less secure than Watto.
Nordburg
Guest
Another Watson story,WOW.If he was banished from the Test side or ODI's,what would people talk about? -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
GD66
Guest
Really ? Again ? There must be other topics in cricket without recycling this one every single day...
Elma Dudd
Guest
What if his contribution is a quick fire 14 ? He leaves others under pressure due to the fact the opposition know he plays stupid shots and gives them two wickets in quick succession. He's been given more opportunities than most have been afforded .
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
I still think Watson's going to be a crucial player for us in ODIs. I don't think any team enjoys bowling to Watson in the one day format, because he can really take games away from the opposition. I absolutely agree about his lack of deserving a Test place, but between him and Bailey, Watson offers a good number 3, handy bowling and a safe fielder. If his contribution is to score a quickfire 100 in a quarter or semi, then he's worth persisting in the ODI format.
13th Man
Guest
Time for him to go. I think he should get cut when clarke comes back.