I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking this will be a call to keep Shane Watson in the Test team. Reassure yourself on this point: Watson should not be in the Test team.
He cannot be in the Test team. Keeping him in the Test team would be a misstep on a scale somewhere between Nasser Hussain putting Australia in to bat in Brisbane in 2002, and the Vietnam War.
The reason a defence of Shane Watson is needed is not because he deserves to retain his place – which as we’ve established, would just be a colossal mistake – but because, for all his faults, he is not the reason Australia is behind in the Ashes.
Having him in the team isn’t what lost the first Test, and dropping him isn’t what will win the second.
Shane Watson is a man who has lived his life under a terrible curse. He was granted the gift of gorgeous textbook technique, but denied the ability to cause that technique to properly coincide with a ball moving towards him. Every shot he plays looks magnificent assuming you weren’t expecting him to hit anything.
But the point I want to make is: this is out of his control. In Cardiff, Watson was out twice the same way he’s been out umpteen times before: trapped lbw to fast bowlers using the cunning and subtle plan of bowling at the stumps. He knows he’s been out that way many times: he knew the bowlers were trying to get him out that way again.
He couldn’t do anything about it. That is his tragedy.
For whatever reason, Watson is, at this late stage in his career, simply incapable of not getting out to straight balls. At least to straight red balls – throughout his career the weaknesses that plague him have seemed to lose much of their power when facing a white ball, but such are the mysteries of cricket – maybe coloured pads are easier to play around the front of.
The fact remains, Watson’s fall in Cardiff was out of his control. He just couldn’t do any better than he did.
On the other hand, we know that Steve Smith is capable of not madly charging down the wicket before he knows where the ball is going. And we know that when he sees the ball zooming down the legside, he’s capable of padding it away without waggling his bat feebly at it. We know he’s better than that.
We know Adam Voges, for all his inexperience at Test level, is a 35-year-old man with over a decade’s first-class cricket behind him, and that he is certainly capable, having played calmly and serenely for nearly two hours, and with the safety of stumps in sight, of not flailing idiotically at an innocuous half-volley and scooping it straight to cover.
We know that Michael Clarke is capable of resisting the temptation to waft weakly at a wide one and providing backward point with a catch as easy as it was alliterative.
We know that Brad Haddin, even if of an advanced age where taking crucial catches that may determine the course of the match are beyond him, is capable of not slogging recklessly just when true grit is required.
What I’m saying is, in being dismissed twice through nothing more than his own inability to hit the ball, Watson may have been the least culpable of all Australia’s batsmen in the first Test. He was, at least, playing only within his own limitations, rather than deliberately making himself less competent than he really is.
He also fought hard. He stayed in the middle for longer during the Test than Clarke, Smith or Voges managed, and was clearly desperately focused on combating the English line of attack. That he couldn’t is no more his fault than it was Glenn McGrath’s fault he never hit a double century. You can ask a man to give of his best, but you can’t ask him to give of what he does not possess.
Yes, Watson has to go, and in all likelihood he will. And like the end of any career, it’s a sad moment in time.
Few players have been more criticised, yet for all his failures, he had his successes too, and there were days on which those textbook shots connected with thunderous power and he clouted bowlers of all sorts far and wide. As he grew older, those days became fewer and farther between, and the ability to veil his vulnerabilities diminished to the point we are at now.
His time has come as it does to all, and as it may to a few more before this series is out.
But let the record show that the reason Watson must be dropped is the same reason that Watson should not be blamed – Australia was the architect of its own destruction in Cardiff, but Watto did not collaborate on the blueprints.
I am sorry to see you go, Shane, even if I’m glad you’re going.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
I agree actually. The Mitches are match winners, but we need a Siddle to stem to flow and create pressure.
Darren
Guest
So whi will be 1st slip - does Voges field there? Clarke prefers 2nd slip to the quicks and Smith third. They may have to move up one.
JD
Guest
Let's face it the selectors should be the target of this criticism. They could have and should have dropped him earlier. Watto has been a great player and servant to the team, but of course he will play on until told otherwise
FrozenNorth
Guest
Here's the problem with Watson, Starc averages something like 27 with the bat, you could include him as the bowling all-rounder and the side is much stronger than having Watto there. Just use Starc in short, powerful spells.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
As many would know, I've been baying for Watson's head to roll for some time now. It's not because I dislike him, nor do I think he has failed Australia. Rather, I think his body is failing him, and there's no magic fix at 34. Thanks for the memories Watto, you've been a faithful servant to Australia, and I thank you particularly for some memories circa. 2010/11, when you were at your peak. Now let's see what Mitch Marsh can do!
VivGilchrist
Guest
Always nice to hear a chunky keyboard warrior running down an Aussie player. Congratulations Ben.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
I've got to disagree there, to be honest. I think he's fine as a fifth bowler, he did the job the captain asked of him. Clarke would bowl him to give the front-liners a break, slow the scoring down if the other bowlers are losing their control, exploit swing or reverse swing if it was on offer, contain at one end while he let Johnson loose at the other. He's versatile, reliable and gets the odd break-through. It's about all you need from a fifth bowler, isn't it? As far as I can tell, it's his batting numbers that give people more to complain about than anything else. I thought the big issue was not enough hundreds. More specifically, not enough first innings hundreds, early in a series, under loads of pressure. Which is fair enough, it would have been nice if he'd made more runs. Still, if you're going to look at his numbers as they stand, 35 batting and 33 bowling, it's not a disaster of a career for an all-rounder. Watto's a fair way from perfect, but in the absence of Jacques Kallis II, he's done alright.
The Lazy Phoenix
Guest
Shane Watson has unified Australian cricket fans - everybody wants him gorn...
Ryan Eckford
Roar Guru
A fair chunk of his, instead of, A fair chunk of is.
Ryan Eckford
Roar Guru
In any sport, including the game of cricket, one of most critical aspects about performing at a high level, and continuing to do it over a long period of time is having problem-solving skills, both in terms of sorting out mind teasing things, and technical deficiencies in your game to become a better and more complete player. All players can overcome mind teasing things, but not everyone can overcome technical deficiencies. Watson has never been able to improve and refine his technique to overcome major flaws in his batting. A fair chunk of is inability to do this is because he just struggles to handle the pressure of expectation, and lacks the mental strength/confidence/trust/belief that he will reap the rewards of his hard work in the middle.
CrossIT
Guest
35.19 avg for a number 3 is not good enough, it has never been good enough. Those be the facts your honour, shown here in the cold hard light of day. Farewell Watson, please don't fall across the stumps on the way out.
Notsoldonwatto
Guest
Yes we will really miss his 10 overs of incisive bowling over 2 full English innings. His relentless pressure took its toll. Good riddance.
DCNZ
Guest
i feel a massive void has entered my life. No more anticipation and excitement about Watto the Great coming to the crease, no more LBW reviews, no more bewildered forlorn walks back to the dressing room. The Lords test won't be worth watching now.
Anthony Condon
Guest
That's cos he's lucky to bowl 8 overs in a match. Pretty pointless having a guy in the team for his bowling and not using him. I always got the feeling that was injury management, in which case he's been playing as a batsman who occasionally bowls for the last three years.
Anthony Condon
Guest
He was always going to get 11 wickets and 200 runs at Lords. He's been robbed, he should appeal.
Benjamin Conkey
Editor
Watto's batting numbers aren't too bad for an all-rounder..it's his bowling that's the issue. Has only taken something like 19 wickets in Test cricket since 2012.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
I kind of have to agree with that - during the last two Aussie summers it looked like he'd figured that problem out, he hasn't got out much LBW in the last 18 months, but the English conditions seem to have done it. If he can't fix it then it does make his batting a bit of a liability. Pity though, because I still trust his bowling over Marsh's, especially at Lords. If we go into the next test with all three Mitches, after our lack of control was so badly exposed last test, then we're asking for it ...
lao hu
Guest
I just hope he was not reading this article.
James
Guest
right decision i think but aww i do feel a little for watson right now. i cant think of any topic that more australians will agree with than that watson should have been dropped. so in that regard i do feel for the guy a little.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Nice article, Ben. I also thought Watto put up a good fight, especially compared to the other middle-order batsmen.