Shane Watson is set to add to his 58 Tests for Australia when the first Test gets under way on Wednesday in Cardiff. With Mitchell Marsh slamming tons in both the tour matches, there was serious consideration that Watson could be dropped.
But the ineffective bowling of Marsh during the tour match could sway the selectors to bank on Watson to fill the No. 6 slot.
Under Darren Lehmann, Australia has always preferred to have a fast bowling all-rounder at six that can bowl 8-10 economical overs in a day, pose some sort of threat and score some handy runs. The inclination for this slot has always been towards a player that can produce more output with the ball.
For this reason alone, Watson is still higher than Marsh in the pecking order. Watson might have lost his pace, but among the crop of current bowlers in the squad he still has the skills to swing, reverse swing and, importantly, curb the flow of runs.
During the 2013 tour of England, Watson had performed the fifth bowler’s job admirably by sending down 85 overs, of which 38 were maidens. Since discovering the art of reverse swing on the 2008 tour of India, Watson’s credibility has increased.
With the Cardiff pitch known for its abrasive, dry nature, Watson’s relentless bowling is likely to cause a bigger headache to the English than Marsh.
Currently, Marsh’s bowling resembles that of Watson when he first debuted for Australia in 2005. The pace is around the 140km/h, but he is gun barrel straight. In the Test matches against Pakistan last October, he barely got the ball to reverse and he is known to dish out couple of bad balls an over.
The quota of overs from a fifth bowler like Watson has enabled Michael Clarke to still keep a lid on the opposition batting, while the frontline seamers are given a well-earned rest.
Also with Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson and Josh Hazlewood likely to be seamers in the first Test. It means Hazlewood is the only renowned bowler out of the three known for bowling long, probing spells.
Johnson’s immense success in the 2013-14 Ashes at home was brought about because Clarke had used him in short sharp bursts. A majority of the spells were just four overs. If Johnson took a wicket, Clarke gave him that extra fifth over.
Similarly, Starc has regained his form through short sharp bursts with the white ball. These sharp bursts have ensured Johnson and Starc pace have sustained their pace over the day, making them a constant threat to the opposition batsmen.
In the Caribbean Tests, Starc and Johnson only bowled one five-over spell each. During the last summer against India, Johnson’s pace was down by a few yards and he was given more five over spells under the leadership of Steve Smith. Australia will need those crucial third or four-overs spells from their fifth bowler.
Watson is simply more skilled. He has the intelligence to work a batsmen out. He breaks partnerships. He bowls cutters, slower balls, outswingers and inswingers. When the ball swings, which it will in England, Watson can be a wicket taker.
Clarke has brought him on as early as the fifth over in the Lord’s Test in 2013. Watson dismissed Cook in three balls. Watson makes something happen as the fifth bowler.
Given that Marsh was introduced in the eighth over of the tour of match, this suggests the selectors were on a mission to give Marsh the first bite of the cherry. But he had let them and himself down, and it might just have cost him his Test spot.
One may argue that Marsh is a better batsman, but the ideology of Clarke and Lehmann is to take 20 wickets. Watson provides them with a greater chance of achieving that objective.
So, unless Australia lose a Test or the batting fails miserably, expect Watson to continue to frustrate Australian public with his inclusion in the Test team.
Don Freo
Guest
So, you're saying Marsh's bowling was ineffective? He bowled 4 overs while Essex scored 300. When he was given his next bowl, he removed their century maker, Bopara, and their only other international, Ryder. I'd say that was effective. You can only take wickets when you have a ball in your hand.
Bobbo7
Guest
And how often was Haddin dropped on nothing in that series? A lot. He averages 17 or 18 for the last 2 years. I still can't work out why Haddin is suddenly a great player in everyone's eyes.
SpongeBob
Guest
That'd be the one. Australia were going marvellously, 6 for 150 odd, and then that hacker comes in and guides Australia to 450 or some rubbish total that would be acceptable only in under fives. And now they're giving him another year?! Codswallop I say.
Rob JM
Guest
I heard that Haddin is still the best sledger in the business!
Rob JM
Guest
You mean that one in Aus that we won 5-0 and Haddin won player of the series? :) I suspect that is the only reason he is still there! Neville was pretty rusty with the gloves judging by the number of byes that were scored in the last tour match. good long term potential mind you.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
No idea. 20 Questions? Animal, vegetable, mineral, other ...?
VivGilchrist
Guest
I'm more concerned about the form of Haddin and Lyon but I guess the lynch mob don't agree....
Adsa
Guest
What did your imagination come up with?
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Okay ...
SpongeBob
Guest
Haddin is total rubbish. Almost cost us the last ashes series.
SpongeBob
Guest
"wickets do fall pretty often during or shortly after his spells because of the pressure he creates" Bingo. It's as if people haven't watched a game of cricket before. Plenty of times Australia is pinned down by a spin bowler, then FINALLY a pace guy comes on they can smack around and boom they're out. Even though at times the spin guys get few wickets, they do in the overall scheme make a big contribution. Likewise you might have great pace and then a spin bowler comes on they can finally tonk and get caught on the rope or stumped. More of a team game then it appears.
MichaelJ
Guest
If I said it I would be banned again, just like my tennis comments were. You will have to use your creative imagination.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
What does he represent?
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Well, Hadds thought so - he mentioned Watto's spell in an interview not long after the game, briefly, just said that he bowled well and created pressure in the lead-up. He and Johnson both got a couple of near misses. I don't think it's completely outrageous to suggest that helped.
bob123
Guest
Our 4 bowlers should be able to do the job without relying on Watson and if they can't then that's where the problem is. If Johnson and Starc (and I'm not saying they can't) can't bowl more than 4 overs in a spell then you can't play both. However I think they can bowl in decent spells and with Hazelwood, Lyon and Marsh that should be plenty of bowling. Watson does bowl well in English conditions, but your number 6 needs to be able to score runs and with Haddin playing the way he is (don't get me started on him) we are going to need all the runs we can get from our top 6.
Rob JM
Guest
Watson's main advantage is his ability to swing the ball. Thing is we have this guy called Mitchell Starc who can also swing the ball. If the ball is swinging then we wont need Watto for bowling, and we will almost certainly need M Marsh or his brother for batting. So why pick Watto?
MichaelJ
Guest
I think it's quite telling that Watson is still around the team, given what he represents.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but it is really stretching it to try and say that Watson bowling at tail-enders helped Harris to get those wickets at Capetown. It's outrageous to suggest it.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
Marsh wasn't really 'ineffective' as you put it. He was a bit more expensive but was also the top run scorer across the two tour games and has 4 wickets to Watson's 0. Watson might have been more economical but as threatening as a bunny rabbit wearing a fur coat.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Ok then, let me pick your pick-apart apart. No, he's not fast - he was getting up to 137.5 a couple times a spell during the World Cup, but that's about the limit - but he doesn't need to be fast to be effective. Besides, that batsman Tom Westley, who got 100 for Essex in the tour game, said Watto was 'onto you at good pace', and very difficult to face when the ball was swinging, so I don't think it's really an issue. True, before the series against India it had been a long time since he'd bowled any substantial amount of overs. He wasn't used much in the 2013/14 Ashes because he wasn't needed, we were bowling the Poms out for less than 200 all the time. But when they needed him in Brisbane, after M Marsh did his hamstring, he stepped up and bowled 27.4 overs that game, then he bowled 22 in Melbourne and 28 in Sydney. That's 10-14 overs an innings. He may not take wickets all the time, but wickets do fall pretty often during or shortly after his spells because of the pressure he creates - his spell in the tour match against Essex, Brisbane against India last summer, and even the famous Cape Town test of Ryno's heroics, where he bowled a 2 over spell before Ryno came on that got a few things happening, are some examples of this. When there's a change of conditions, like cloud cover or even just late evening, and the ball starts swinging, Watto does create pressure and pose an actual threat. He's also pretty good at getting break-through wickets: he's able to come on and unsettle set batsmen, because offers a real change of pace and style to the front-line quicks. With all of that together, and the fact that he's already well-suited and experienced to English conditions, I wouldn't say he poses no threat - not one as ostensible as Johnson or Starc, obviously, but he's a versatile change bowler and he does make things happen. I reckon the argument that Watto is a better bowler, and a more useful bowler, is sound. The argument for Marsh's batting is also sound. Then the argument that Watto's clearly in from with the bat is sound again. So it comes down to what the selectors decide for this game. I think they offer different things and it depends what the selectors want.