He’s one of Australia’s most maligned cricketers, yet Shane Watson still stands among the country’s best Test allrounders as far as statistics go.
The 34-year-old’s international career is on a knife-edge after he was reportedly dumped from the second Ashes Test against England on Thursday.
His axing received a mixed reaction – mostly derision from the public but some support from ex-players, including former Test teammate Matthew Hayden who said he should be given one more chance to prove himself.
Watson managed only 19 runs in the second innings of the first Test, in which he resembled a schoolboy “looking for his grade-one lunch money” according to retired Australian wicketkeeper Ian Healy.
While he’s averaged just 26.91 with the bat and 53.50 with the ball over the past 12 months, his recent poor form doesn’t speak for his red-ball career as a whole.
Watson has posted 3731 runs at an average of 35.19 over 59 Tests, and 75 wickets at an average of 33.68.
To many, these numbers justify his tag as a perennial underachiever.
But comparatively, they’re not so bad.
He is one of just five Australians to have taken 75 or more Test wickets and averaged better than 35 with the bat.
Better still, he is one of only three to have scored more than 3000 runs (3731) and take 75 wickets – the others being Steve Waugh and Shane Warne.
Just 14 players have scored more than 3700 Test runs and taken more than 75 Test wickets, but only three of those numbers at an average of better than 35 with the bat and under 34 with the ball – Jacques Kallis, Waugh and Watson.
A GLANCE AT SHANE WATSON’S TEST CAREER STATS
* 59 Tests (debut v Pakistan, Jan 2-5, 2005)
* 3731 runs at an average of 35.19
* 75 wickets at an average of 33.68
* One of five Australians with 75 or more Test wickets and averaged better than 35 with the bat – alongside Keith Miller, Steve Waugh, Warwick Armstrong, Jack Gregory
* One of three Australians to have scored more than 3000 runs and taken 75 wickets – alongside Steve Waugh and Shane Warne
* One of 14 players to have scored more than 3700 Test runs and taken more than 75 Test wickets:
Jacques Kallis – 13289 runs at 55.37, 292 wickets at 32.65
Steve Waugh – 10927 runs at 51.06, 92 wickets at 37.44
Garfield Sobers – 8032 runs at 57.78, 235 wickets at 34.03
Wally Hammond – 7249 runs at 58.45, 83 wickets at 37.80
Sanath Jayasuriya – 6973 runs at 40.07, 98 wickets at 34.34
Carl Hooper – 5762 runs at 36.46, 114 wickets at 49.42
Kapil Dev – 5248 runs at 31.05, 434 wickets at 29.64
Ian Botham – 5200 runs at 33.54, 383 wickets at 28.40
Daniel Vettori – 4531 runs at 30.00, 362 wickets at 34.36
Andrew Flintoff – 3845 runs at 31.77, 226 wickets at 32.78
Ravi Shastri – 3830 runs at 35.79, 151 wickets at 40.96
Imran Khan – 3807 runs at 37.69, 362 wickets at 22.81
Shaun Pollock – 3781 runs at 32.31, 421 wickets at 23.11
Shane Watson – 3731 runs at 35.19, 75 wickets at 33.68
Bovs
Guest
Watson's batting is fine for a 6-8, but the problem is he has often been picked on the premise that he can be a top-5 batsman and not lived up to that billing. He did have 2 very good years with the bat, coinciding with his securing of a couple of AB Medals. Take out those 2 years though, and he has never deserved a spot in the team on batting alone. That said, he could've still been a good all-rounder if he had been a genuinely threatening bowler. But 75 wickets in 59 tests even with an acceptable average is just not enough for him to considered anything more than a support bowler. Comparible all-rounders all took more wickets per game - Kallis nearly 2 a game, Flintoff closer to 3 a game, and Botham was at 4 a test. So summing up Watson, you have a player who (2 years of genuine quality aside) was at best a 6-8 batsman and a part-time bowler. Yet at various times he was selected in preference to players like Katich, Symonds, North, Voges, Burns, Phil Hughes or Brad Hdoge all of whom may have had a lot more to offer than Watto's "potential". This is what has frustrated fans for so long.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
"Watto was crap, the stats tell the story." "Actually, Watto's stats are quite decent." "... The stats don't tell the story!" Anyone else notice the double standards?
Doc79
Roar Rookie
Not world standard- no mental toughness or ability to dig in. Good luck in the real world shane, where job performance directly determines an ongoing job.
michael steel
Guest
My thought son Watson are as follows as a person who is not a fan of him nor do I despise him like some. The word for Shane Watson is forgettable. He has ok figures for a change bowler but not a strike bowler with an average of 33. As batsman I don't think the 35 average is the issue it's that you feel that when he gets to 35 his job is done. His scores of 33 and 19 in the first test were typical Watson. 50 plus for the match. I think we'd rather four failures and then some astonishing century. He has played in 56 Tests is "Forgettable" except for him constantly being dismissed from LBW's and the questioning the decision.
Deep Thinker
Guest
These stats show that he has just proven to be a bits and pieces cricketer - neither a truckload of runs or wickets. Just a series of handy contributions. But handy contributions are not good enough to be considered one of the greats. An average of 35 shows he is barely a top 6 batsman, and a mere 75 wickets shows he is not a front line bowler. On talent, he is much better than that, but the reality is that he has failed to deliver. This, I am sure, is partly due to injuries. But I also think his failure to stop getting out LBW shows he is a one dimensional batsman and has been unable to correct his technical flaws and raise his game to another level.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Do you reckon it'll work though? Reckon you need a 'Wa' at the start of the last name, or will a 'Wh' do?
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Pretty sure his two best hauls came in losses.
JGK
Roar Guru
Would be good to know his wickets per Test for those categories.
JGK
Roar Guru
Nice. They are Australia's only 3 cricketers with those initials. Meanwhile, Cam White is hurrying down to Births Deaths and Marriages to change his first name to Scott.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I love stats. All different shades of the allrounder there. Arise Sir Watto, a handy cricketer.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
"Better still, he is one of only three to have scored more than 3000 runs (3731) and take 75 wickets – the others being Steve Waugh and Shane Warne." Shane Warne Steve Waugh Shane Watson. I'm sensing a pattern here ...
HB
Roar Rookie
Ok, well I looked Watson's performances in matches won vs. drawn vs. lost, and it doesn't really support my previous comment. Maybe stats comparing dead rubbers to non-dead-rubbers would be more telling... In matches won: Batting average: 34.81 Bowling average: 29.59 In matches drawn: Batting average: 44.80 Bowling average: 45.80 In matches lost: Batting average: 30.11 Bowling average: 32.34
HB
Roar Rookie
Watson's stats say nothing about the circumstances in which he's scored runs or taken wickets. One of the most common complaints about him is that he only performs when the pressure's off; when his team really needs him to perform, he generally isn't up to the task. It would be interesting to see some stats regarding Watson's performances in matches won vs. lost, or dead rubbers vs. non-dead-rubbers.
JGK
Roar Guru
FWIW - Bob Simpson played 3 more Tests than Watto for over 1000 more runs and only 4 fewer wickets. Plus he was the greatest sliipper of all time.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
You mean Imran Khan instead of Waugh? There are stats and there are stats. I'm not sure anyone is ever going to pretend that Watson is in Kallis or Imran Khan's league. You'd be bonkers to pretend he's near that level of success.
Campbell Watts
Guest
All of those guys are either batting all- rounders with tons more runs than Watto, or bowling all-rounders with plenty more wickets... Watson is the Vanilla Ice of all rounders!