What do you make of a good score after a dropped catch? All part of the game, or does the achievement bear an asterisk?
Australia’s World Cup quarter-final featured two such innings, both important to the batsmen involved.
To an extent, Australia’s win over Pakistan vindicated Shane Watson and Glenn Maxwell. One is distrusted because he hasn’t been around long enough, the other because he’s been around too long.
To their detractors, each is flaky.
Maxwell has hushed his critics with recent scores, but a single reverse-swept duck would return them to full voice. Watson’s critics have been career-long, and will not be satisfied no matter how much the national cricket fraternity values him.
Yet in a tense knockout chase against a bowler on the rampage, their partnership remained unbeaten, Watson providing the core with 64 from 66 balls, and Maxwell the cap with 44 from 29.
Of course, the ‘unbeaten’ part rings hollow: both had been beaten by Wahab Riaz but his fieldsmen couldn’t complete the deal. Watson was missed on 4, Maxwell on 5. Either of those drops might have cost Pakistan their chance; together they certainly did. We’re left to assess what happened afterwards.
Watson is criticised for being many things: unreliable, undisciplined, easily distracted, unable to tough it out. Here, he created a lasting memory. Wahab might just have bowled the best spell of this World Cup. Watson was the man who survived it.
Wahab’s pace and bounce had forced Michael Clarke to fend to short leg. Watson might have done the same half a dozen times. Immediately Wahab was at him, 150 kilometres per hour, bowling short and at the body. Watson was flinching, twisting, fending the ball to the vacant off-side, then just wide of the leg-side catcher, then over slip. His one attempt to hook nearly finished him.
Wahab roared at the drop. Then he was straight back at it, slamming the splice and the bat handle in front of Watson’s throat. He followed up each ball to glare, not in rote pantomime but glittering fury.
He felt the game depending on him, right then. He clapped his field, mouthed off angrily, hurled down the stumps. At the end of the spell, Watson was still there.
An Australian bowler showing the same aggression would attract lectures on sportsmanship, but from an underdog team defending an underdog total, it seemed magnificent. Unfair, you may say, but so is cricket. Unfair was Friday night for Wahab, coming back for his second spell.
When Maxwell did take guard, he was not replacing Watson but Steve Smith. It was 4/148, not 4/76. Wahab did not have the same energy. Nonetheless, his first ball to Maxwell was a bouncer. Maxwell flinched from the line, crouching while playing a mutant of a cut shot interbred with a forehand.
He wasn’t even vaguely looking in the ball as he sliced it. The catch wasn’t taken at third man.
When Watson was dropped from that hook shot, he put the stroke away. When Maxwell was dropped from an improvised attempted smash, he settled himself and then started playing more of them.
Maxwell has this burningly clear-headed approach. His success this World Cup has come when walking out with licence to swing. The question was whether he could be valuable in a different context, and what he would do. Turned out the answer was yes, and that he’ll play exactly the same way.
This time it worked. He defended when he needed to, but Maxwell’s shots flew away. Tension was dispelled by how quickly the score grew. Watson’s strokeplay expanded. Against every non-Wahab bowler, he ranged from comfortable to dominant.
Watson likes batting with Maxwell, after plundering against Sri Lanka in the pool stages. Perhaps Maxwell makes Watson feel liberated to attack when he wants without feeling like he has to force the pace.
Finally there was the symbol of the struggle won. Wahab bowled short. Watson dusted off the pull shot. This time the contact could not have been more true. The ball went flat over square leg and into the assembled spectators.
The spell had been broken, the magic bled away. Watson had prevailed – a dose of luck, no doubt, but better players than he have enjoyed their share of that.
This article was first published in Wisden India.
JMW
Guest
Finch out, Watto (well played) up, Bailey in. Then the batting looks stronger.
Joel
Roar Rookie
Finch has a couple of serious technical flaws that are especially prominent early in his innings. He gets caught on the crease easily, which is why he gets out bowled, lbw or scooping to cover.. he's not getting to the ball, and secondly against swing bowling instead of going to the pitch of the ball his front foot plants and his right hip comes around to accomodate. It looks to me like he wants to come forward but can't get his feet moving fast enough.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It's probably why he's so incredibly poor at first class cricket.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
What plan is that? Bowling short to Watson? I'd say that if you want to get Watson out, the best thing is to bowl the ball on a good length around off stump and move it slightly in or out. If you want to ball short you had better be fast and accurate. Other Pakistan bowlers tried the same thing and got dispatched to the fence, and when Watson had got himself going he even did the same in Wahab's second over. I think if India try and pepper Watson with bouncers, they could find themselves on the back of a big score!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
When you are facing bowling that insists on bowling short at your body, you are hardly going to be hitting it through the covers are you? I've faced that when batting myself. Bowlers continually bowling short, and I continually pull and hook them for four, and then the fieldsmen chirp in about me only having one shot! Actually, it's more a case of the bowler not being able to bowl any other sort of ball!
Joel
Roar Rookie
The spell from Wahab was very good, but Smith had none of the trouble that Watson did facing him. Point is that early in his innings Watson made Wahab look freakin' fantastic. Credit where credit is due, he bowled a good fast spell with a good plan to Watson and the ball to Clarke is exactly where you should owl to Clarke early on, but the "greatest spell of bowling" thing from some of the commentators is a bit far fetched.
VL98
Guest
Davros, You are so silly that, the less i talk to you the better for me. The fact of the matter is, now your watto-hater group is a minority. Majority are on the other side. Before SL match, you guys were all over him like a pack of d*gs. But now, your barking is falling on deaf ears.
Don Freo
Guest
So...that's one attack...maybe. Windies made hacks of some of the NZ bowlers. Maybe one decent bowler. As for the Paki attack, being dropped on the boundary is no indication of a decent attack. It was terrible.
Don Freo
Guest
I'll delete my comment...it has all been said.
Brian
Guest
would they? oz have faced two decent attacks. against nz they made 150 and against pak watto was dropped at 3/87. i say its 50-50 against india whose batting wont fold like pakistan.
Ross Fleming
Roar Rookie
Watto won everyone over with this gutsy innings, credit to Waugh and boof for selecting him again
davros
Guest
simply not tracking the ball ALL THE WAY ...is he good enough to do that against top shelf bowling ...well maybe not ?
Don Freo
Guest
But it was never a pickle. 213 was always a simple target. Our lower order would get that.
Don Freo
Guest
I think Watto was going to be left out of the Ashes tour but his last two digs, especially this one, have put him back in the frame. But really folk, do you honestly think a few fast balls and some amateur sledges are going to upset Watto? No Australian ever capitulates to that. They just set themselves to win the battle. Good guts, good skill, great experience.
Larney
Guest
Absolutely correct Renegade. i wonder if it had been Smith or Warner in the same position of this negative reaction would have been the same?
Renegade
Guest
So just because it went longer and it was Ambrose bowling not Wahab.... Watson didn't do well?? He stood his ground and stared the bowler down as well. You guys clearly don't like Watson and are just arguing semantics here.... The guy did a fantastic job on Friday night and played a big role in seeing Australia into the quarter finals. You're searching for reasons to try and talk the effort down.
E-Meter
Guest
Exactly, no comparison. 1995. And that Ambrose onslaught went for much longer. At a time when the West Indies were still somebody, rather than the hopeless bums you see today.
davros
Guest
and steve Waugh v ambrose ...no f.....g comparison...I stayed up and watched all of that that series every night in 1990 I think it was ..and to even try and put Watson in that class..to beggars belief ..Watson got super lucky he had no answer to what was bowled by the leftie ...waugh stood his ground stared ambrose down ..took numerous balls on his body with his hands at his sides..so as to not offer a chance ..please !!!
davros
Guest
what about the LAME pull shot in the air when he was on 4 ...and the dolly dropped catch ...seriously ? you make no sense !
davros
Guest
keep your eye on the ball ..watch it all the way ,duck sway and drop your hands