I’ll get on the front foot right from the start: I am an unashamed and regular critic, like many, of Australia’s current number three, Shane Watson.
It’s not because I don’t like the bloke. I have nothing against him, despite his regular DRS related brain fades, a general tardiness in completing certain homework tasks, and some questionable wicket celebrations throughout the years.
Watson has become the epitome of frustration on a cricket field.
He has always been capable of more than he’s produced for his country. Despite a respectable output thus far, which has put him in the top ten all-rounders Australia has ever produced, there’s just been something about Shane Watson to suggest his potential was never fully realised.
Why? That’s anyone’s guess.
The inconsistency of his career has lately caused the catchphrase “[insert sportsman’s name/animal/intimate object here] should replace Watson at three” to spread over social media across the country – ever more so than the debate about whether ‘the dress’ was black and blue or gold and white (it was black and blue, for what it’s worth).
While it is more than common now for a sports person to be jumped on by social media, it seems simpler in this case as to why Watson is so harshly judged.
The criticism isn’t due to any doubt over Watson’s ability. The general sentiment shared among cricket fans is that Watson absolutely should be picked in the Australian Test and ODI sides.
Instead, the issue with Watson has become the familiar tale of should’ve, could’ve, would’ve.
Both with the bat and the ball, he has teased us with moments of sheer brilliance that have proved that he can be a match winner in all forms of the game.
From his devastating spell of 5 for 17 against South Africa in Cape Town in 2011 (although Australia being bowled out for 47 in the next innings may have overshadowed that), to his highest score of 176 against England at The Oval in 2013, Watson has more than proven he can perform on the world stage.
It is the fact that Watson has at times made his talents so clear for the cricket world to see that has led to the vehement criticism he receives.
Ultimately, the Queenslander who broke into the all-conquering Aussie Test side in 2005, and has since played 56 Test matches since, has held a career which has become the ultimate tease for Australian cricket fans.
We are forever aware of what the man could do on any given day, how he could make big hundreds and put his country ahead in the game, he could produce the partnership-breaking delivery and take two or three more.
All too often though, Watson has instead nicked to first slip and thrown away a start, or bowled 10 overs without looking remotely dangerous.
Watson has regularly often left the public wanting more, leading to frustration with his output.
The one-time Australian Test captain has become victim of the lofty expectations placed on him, and this lack of consistent performance has led to his position as the public’s whipping boy.
Having scored only four Test centuries in his career, despite notching up 24 half-centuries, Watson’s conversion rate at the top of the order has frequently brought criticism his way, and when combined more recently with a decreased influence with the ball, the critics have demanded his omission from the Test side.
So how exactly will Shane Watson be remembered?
As the all-rounder who has made over 10,000 runs and taken over 270 wickets for his country in all forms?
Or, much more likely, as someone who was never able to meet the lofty expectations – however unfair or unreasonable – set upon him by the public?
However many hypotheticals you may throw up about what could have been different for him, without injuries, or holding a stable position in the batting order, Watson’s career has been one of glimpses. Glimpses of what he could do, that were so good, that left us demanding the full treat.
Ultimately when retirement comes knocking, he will be remembered as a player whose brilliance was ever-present, but all too rarely shown.
How do you think Shane Watson’s career will be remembered?
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
Hi Toy, I don't mind the Marsh experiment, because I think unlike Watson, the selectors are not encumbering him with a sense of expectation that accompanied Watson. The other factor is that Marsh has made a reasonable start to his batting in Tests, which show there is something to work with. The other element is that there is a place for an allrounder in a squad that may need five bowling options, especially when Ryan Harris is a Test-by-Test proposition. But Watson was picked during the glory years, and then from out of the blue, catapulted at the top of the order in 2009 after the deeds of Flintoff once again frightened the Australian selectors into making an idiotic decision - dropping Phil Hughes at the first sign of weakness as opposed to getting him to tough it out and find a way through it. Again, I think Watson is only responsible for the quality of his personal output, so therefore he can be scrutinised. But he should not be blamed for Australian cricket's unhealthy obsession with allrounders, of which he has stood to most benefit and be penalised for.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Excellent post, however this is all down to the pig-headedness of the selectors and mgt where all-rounders are concerned That is why Mitch Marsh has played 4 tests even though he's not really ready yet. None of it is Watson's fault.
b
Guest
How will Watson's career be remembered? One word, potential.
b
Guest
Watson has struggled to score hundreds in tests, his recent form has been terrible to the point he will be lucky to make the side in the WI, you admit it's hard to see him getting better, especially at his age, but you want him to replace Rogers when Rogers retires? That seems a little insane too. I'd rather see Finch try and moves his one day form into test cricket than have Watson replace Rogers for one, or maybe two years of underperforming.
MickyC
Guest
I don't blame Watto too much to be honest. I blame state cricketers for not being good enough to seize/claim the number 3 spot and as such disallowing him from batting at 6. I blame the selectors for picking him as a top three batsman in tests, which he doesn't have the temperament for. Unfortunately a stellar ODI career will be remembered for a somewhat inglorious test innings. I wish him well.
VL98
Guest
On records, Thats just your opinion. They are outstanding. Batting average(&SR) in ODIs, strike rate in T20s, batting-bowling avg in both formats are the GOLD standards for judging a player. You must be on crack to think that they are not important. Other than the HS, other records show number of Australian "Player of the Year" awards. The name of the award says it all. & Regarding IPL, its a tournament where all big players in the world play. His team's motto is to groom younger players. So, inspite of being the captain, he bats lower down the order. Watson was the one who insisted for rahane to be selected & continously backed indian players to play in top3 & 4 positions. Now he & binny are playing international cricket. Actually, his team is the only team which gives chances to younger players, all other teams just open with big international players. My point is., if Watto put himself in the opening slot, he would have won another player of the tournament. Winning twice is a record already.
Death by Watson
Guest
Vas - well said brother. Watson received 10 times the chances of others with equal promise and others again who performed much better but were still dropped e.g.Katich Just saw he has finally been dropped, ironically in the format he has actually done well in. Sigh, hopefully we can now focus on the youth with potential, a nice change from focusing on the 33 year old veterans of 50+ tests with potential -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
VL98
Guest
Which match of Brendon McCullum is that? Give me cricinfo link. BTW, Watto is dropped. This is not the end. There's more to his story for sure. Actually, i love the fact that he's dropped. Because i knew that Oz will not win this cup & watto is going to be made scapegoat for that... i.e, everybody is going to blame him for WC loss. Now that he's not there, there is no chance for blaming him. I am actually super excited for Watto's comeback. That is going to be a monstrous innings.
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
The problem is that Watson was always made a focal point of the team ever since Australia lost the 2005 Ashes - the catalyst in which Australian cricket stopped favouring specialists for roles, instead of focusing on "jacks of all and masters of none" cricketers. In many ways, it's not Watson's fault. He can only be picked, and what is he going to do? refuse selection? The first few times it was proven that Test cricket was beyond him, he should have been sent back to Tas/Qld/NSW and told to get his form back up to scratch. But Australia have considered him so important that they have altered the dynamic of the team to fit him in, based on little other than promise. It's just difficult to ponder the sort of excellent Test career Phillip Hughes may have had had he never been dropped in 2009. Think of all the spinners trumped then dumped in order to keep a misfiring allrounder, and then the batting order that has had more shuffling than a poker night in order to find his best position. Then consider his record. People keep trumping his ability to play at the top of the innings, all for the dividend of four Test hundreds. Then if you drop him further to get him to bowl more, he breaks down. Then if you try and minimise his bowling, he only bowls 10 overs max an innings. It's just sad to think of all the players we have hired, fired and retired in order to fulfil the potential of one player. The keyword is potential, because that is the chief buzzword Watson has had all his career. It's an insult. Think of how little the word was used to describe Jacques Kallis. Why? Because he very quickly became less about potential and more about delivery. Rant ends here.
Julian King
Roar Guru
As Einstein once said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result". I'm no Watson hater, but I think we need to tone down our expectations of him, particularly now he's nudging 34. Are we holding out for some kind of breakthrough season? It's hard to see him getting better. He's not going to score a thousand runs in a year. That is not to say he can't hold his place in the test side on balance, but he's far from an automatic selection. Shane is plod or plonk, which is not ideal for a 3. Opener is his best position and when Rogers goes, there may be merit in selecting him there once more.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
It was White and Gold
TriangleFlatDog
Guest
well said! Lol
Josh Sim
Roar Rookie
A fantastic player, a real danger when batting and seemingly capable of breaking partnerships and taking wickets at will. Unfortunately, all of us can only remember a handful of times when this has actually been the case. If potential equalled results, he'd be better than Kallis, unfortunately for Watto, that ain't the case. At least he's got Lee Furlong to go home to.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
A touch of Graeme Hick perhaps in promise? Although Hicky would have given just about anything for the faith Watto receives from his selectors. One interesting thing is that while we followers are generally harsh about stats and performance, Watto seems to be very well liked by the team regardless of how he's going. This was evident during the Great Homework Debacle. Smithy also got big wraps for his approach to captaincy. I wonder if this tolerance is because the majority of players see international cricket as a tough but rewarding experience where sometimes expectations ( for all ) aren't met and dramatic moaning about it is likely to cause resentment?
Dog's Breakfast
Guest
Harshly judged? How is it lofty expectations when people expect their national side's number 3 to kick on after he gets to 20-30? For mine Shane Watson is a consistent performer... Consistent at getting out due to consistent brain fades; Consistent at underperforming/being non-existent in crunch games; Consistent at plundering minnows to keep his spot in the side; Consistent at being maddeningly slow to get through his overs; Consistent at being injured or unfit; Consistent at being a disappointment. I've got nothing against the bloke personally, but cricket-wise I can't wait to see the back of him. Time to move on.
Peter
Guest
Built like Tarzan plays like Jane - time for selectors to say times up Shane.
Jo M
Guest
Yes we did win 12 games straight. Are you blaming Clarke for the garbage shots that the majority of our so called batsmen played to get out? You can only blame Clarke for his own, nobody else's.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
Problem is/was he was always picked based on potential (and whatever secret backroom deal only the selectors know about). Its not just him, there have been others picked on potential and not on form. How many times did Phil Hughes (RIP) have to go back and prove himself in Shield games again. How many times for Watson?
spruce moose
Guest
Yeah, the Jonestown followers weren't as hooked as this person.
Winky the Wolf
Guest
He also holds the record for the most injuries (Ribs, Hammies, Knee, Shoulder, Back). Probably the only person who could more than likely sprain a wrist removing a twist top. I Agree that he should have always been a No 6/7 but at the time there wasn't a No 3. He put his hand up and at the moment no one else looks likely.