There are three distinct phases of the Test career of the much maligned Shane Watson.
ENGLAND VS AUSTRALIA THIRD ODI SCORECARD
Phase 1, between 2005 and 2008, was where he only played a limited number of games due to his injury issues and arguably was still not ready for the demands of Test cricket
Phase 2, between July 2009 and November 2011, was where he was truly a Test all-rounder.
Phase 3, between November 2011 and July 2015, was a period with the odd highlight but predominantly poor form, no settled batting position and ongoing injury problems.
The stats for the separate phases make for interesting reading.
Phase 1
Batting: Position No 6 or 7. 267 runs at an average of 16.69, 50s: 1
Bowling: 14 wickets at an average of 35.57, with a best of 4-42
Phase 2
Batting: Position No 1. 1878 runs at an average of 43.67, 100s: 2, 50s: 15
Bowling: 42 wickets at an average of 25.50, with a best of 5-17
Phase 3
Batting: Positions No. 1–6. 1596 runs at an average of 30.69, 100s: 2, 50s: 8
Bowling: 19 wickets at an average of 50.36, with no more than 1 wicket in an innings
What does this all mean?
Aside from his own fragility in terms of form and body he has a strong case to point some of the blame at the hands of the selectors along with Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur, and by default Ed Cowan, Dave Warner and Chris Rogers.
Why so?
If the selectors, captain and coach really wanted Watson to succeed, he needed to stay at the top of the order.
His purple period both with bat and interestingly ball was when he was opening the batting. He truly was a Test all-rounder, an average of nearly 44 with the bat, and an excellent 25 with the ball.
This was the true Watto, albeit for a lack of hundreds he was an essential cog and it is something the selectors and captain should have noted and rectified.
If they were going to play Watson, it was either him opening or nothing.
Instead coaches, selectors and Clarke, while maintaining the policy line of loyalty, contributed to his slow demise.
With Watson on the sidelines of the start of the Australian summer in 2011-12, Dave Warner came into the side as opener – a position he is yet to relinquish.
He was joined by the never to be forgotten Phillip Hughes, before Hughes was discarded for Ed Cowan.
What was to follow on Watson’s return to the Australian team in April 2012 against the West Indies was the pivotal moment when his career would start the slide into decline.
At the time the incumbent openers were Warner and Cowan. Warner quickly established himself as a long-term option. That was not the case for Cowan, who as we know was later to be discarded. He had played in 4 home Tests, notched a couple of 50s but was only averaging in the mid 30s. It was a useful start but the true incumbent after only being away for 6 Tests was Watson – and he should have been reinstated.
He had batted at No. 1 in his previous 25 Tests and was in the best form of his career, while Ed Cowan had only played in 4. But instead of doing what they should have, Clark and Arthur kept Warner and Cowan together, and for the rest of his career Watson would hover between 3 and 6 with mixed success.
Watson did briefly return to the opener spot when Warner was sidelined, but the horse had bolted. Ed Cowan was gone and the door had opened for Renaissance Man Chris Rogers, who owned the spot until his retirement last month.
Of course his own body and form have a lot to do with his promise not being realised.
But in in fairness to Watson, if others had shown some greater trust and respect and restored him to his rightful spot, then he may have been able to prove all of his doubters wrong.
Rosco
Guest
I don't think I have ever read more rubbish in my entire life. Only person Shane Watson can blame for poor results is Shane Watson. Regardless of where you put him, Shane Watson was not a test batsmen, he proved that time and time again. Ed Cowan is an opening batsmen. A pure 5 day opening batsmen. Not confused by format or form. he needed more innings. today, he is still hitting it better than any opener in the country.... Sure his current average in the mid 30's is lower than he would have liked. His tenure included tough tours of India and Windies where he faced more balls than most of the top order, in a time where Australia needed stability at the top of the order. Watson always looks good to get out. Especially when opening. Shane Watson is a slog with a monster front pad, too big for the red swinging ball at the top of the order. I'm actually amazed this article was published. #ppllleeaaazzeeee
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Sorry I certainly missed Hussey.
AlanKC
Guest
I suspect, old mate, that you are "projecting" when you suggest that "99%" of the public are "brainless" (you can google projection if you like). P.S. You shouldn't pick and choose your stats - first you say 85% of his home town don't want him as captain and then dismiss 99% of the public as brainless. So which is the one you want to use?
The Bush
Roar Guru
Sorry I clearly did say Bell was very average. Should read my own comments. I take it back, he's just "average" no need for an adjective.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Who cares where you bat in the order? In fact Watson wanted to bat up the order, he fundamentally failed batting down the order where it is supposedly so "easy". Clarke faced far more quality bowling over his career than Watson by virtue of the fact that Clarke played over a 100 Tests, nearly twice as many as Watson. When did Watson ever bat for 8 hours with a broken arm, score a massive century in South Africa against the best fast bowling battery going around? That's right he didn't.
The Bush
Roar Guru
TWAS, If we're being technical about it, Hussey averaged well over that and he played from 2007 to 2012, in fact the bulk of his career was post 2007. So since 2007 we had Clarke, Katich, Smith, Rogers, Warner and Hussey. In other words the bulk of the batsmen who played more than say 15 to 20 tests all averaged far more than Watson. I hear your argument that perhaps there weren't viable replacements, but the reality is that since 2007, only Watson has been selected for more than say 15 Tests whilst averaging well under 40. Other, younger batsmen haven't been afforded the same opportunity. Plus Australia hasn't exactly been a world beating side since 2007. If you look at what batsmen from the top sides like England, India and South Africa, have been averaging during this period, Watson's batting statistics look even more average. Also I didn't say Bell was very average, I just said he was average. And he is. England have had a lot of much better batsmen in their side for the last decade than him (Trott, KP, Cook and now Root).
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Well he actually happened to hit good Shield form well before that though. So it wasn't a one off anomaly. You don't hit 20 first class centuries across 137 matches without being a good player. Watson's century rate in FC cricket is close to that of Steve Waugh. What does that say? That Watson was never able to translate his success to test level in the same way.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You can call Bell very average, but how many Australian batsmen have been able to average above 40 at test level across their careers of more than 15 tests, where the bulk of their career has been since 2007? Warner, Rogers, Clarke, Katich and Smith basically. At best there have been 4 of Australia's top 6 capable of averaging 40+ at test level. Look at the replacements though? There's only about 6 that have FC averages above 40. 2 of them were Watson and Hughes. I think Lynn and Burns are the other two. Possibly Cowan and Voges also. I do understand your point that comparing averages across generations can be deceptive as you are not comparing apples with apples, but compared to what other Australian batsmen are scoring, it seems doubtful that any options were much better. And also you talk about the Windies attack which was brutal, but look at the difficulties many batsmen have had in India and England at times also. Those impact averages too. But they maintain high averages in spite of these difficult conditions. But like you said, perfectly acceptable all-rounder. I'd go one further and say decent Australian test batsman. Won't go down as a great one, or a really good one. Just a decent one.
sting
Guest
Please..... read my comment again. You are clearly unable to comprehend what i wrote. Stress on the part where i mentioned about.... (clarke bats lower the order when/where the ball is not quick & does not seam anymore).Also stress on the part... (google/youtube shane watson amir & watch the videos. Clarke never faced such quality bowling in his entire career coz he hides down the order).
The Bush
Roar Guru
Are you for real? Michael Clarke scored 7 centuries between the England Ashes in 2009 (Watson's promotion to opener) and Watson being injured at the end of 2011. Watson scored just 2. Of those 7, Clarke scored 2 in England, one in South Africa, one in Sri Lanka and one in New Zealand. Where exactly are these roads you're referring to? As for that 2009/2010 series in Australia against Pakistan that you suggest we google, during which Watto scored one of his only 4 centuries, guess who else got a century... Clarke and Watson's careers aren't in the same stratosphere for achievement.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Sssshhhh, remember everything that has gone wrong with cricket since 2005 is Clarke's fault. David Lord told me so.
The Bush
Roar Guru
The problem with comparing generations is that it is all about context. Whilst I think Watto shouldn't be dumped on endlessly, he was statistically a perfectly acceptable allrounder, lets not kid ourselves. Watto played in a generation when a lot of batsmen seem to average up to or around 50 and some very average players like Ian Bell average 43. If you are playing in the same generation as Bell and averaging 8 runs less than him, you're not exactly a lighting the world on fire as a batsman. Whilst Marsh and Hughes' statistics don't seem to stand the "test of time", they did play in the 80s and early 90s against some of the finest bowling ever, the great Windies side, Hadlee from NZD, Botham from England and some truly fantastic Pakistani sides, all whilst having to hit the ball all the way to the fence with a small piece of wood that would barely be acceptable as a fence picket these days...
Timmuh
Roar Guru
He has no such claim. He happened to hit form while opening. The rest of the time he was simply not a good player. It was form, not position, that determined he was not worth slecting for most of his career. Injury probably led into that, but in the end form did not warrant selection anywhere. And when he did open in the later phases, he failed, showing it was not about the position.
sting
Guest
Is that up for a debate?? The answer is plain & simple. Michael clarke. From the moment he became captain (2011), his number 1 agenda is to destroy watson. The other thing to notice here is.. watson is a huge star in international cricket (maybe not in australia). Outside of australia, watson was a huge star. Vice-captain, Highest paid, Highest number of fanpages in fb (along with gayle),... He was a threat for the clarke's captaincy post. Even before clarke became captain, public (of clarke's hometown) wanted watson or katich as captains. Google 'Fans say they don't want Michael Clarke as Australian cricket captain' & see the poll. 85% from clarke's hometown did not want him as captain. While watson & katich got approved from clarke's hometown public. Watson averaged 49.88 as opener during 2009-11 in tests. In shorter formats he was the undisputed king as opener. Averaged 45 (australian record for a opener) at SR 92 in ODIs. Had SR 151 as opener in T20Is (world record for a opener who played atleast 30 matches). The only weapon clarke had was.. to remove him from his opener slot, injure him by bowling him more (eg: made him bowl 47 overs in a test dec 2012), strip his vice-captaincy. He did it all. After 2011, watson's best came in the absence of clarke (in T20Is & IPL). And if one sees the time period of all these events. It was perfectly set. There are atleast a dozen events to show how he destroyed him. Google 'clarke friends and foes' & several former cricketers who all say 'we have not seen the best of watson after ponting retired' For example, recent interview of katich in which he says the same thing. Google 'Simon Katich discusses Shane Watson’s retirement.' Even some of the public who had a brain knew what happened. When the whole world knew that watson is performing well as a opener & is getting injured frequently due to bowling, clarke wanted him to bowl more & bat down the order. What has australia achieved with this? Nothing but, slow death of australian cricket & watson. There are several examples where he publicly criticised watson in press. Instead of appreciating watson for helping australia by scoring consistently, he criticized him with a ridiculous statement "watson should convert 50s to 100s". Brainless public ate it. First averaging 49.88 in tests is a GREAT CONTRIBUTION to the team at a time when everyone else (except katich) were failing. Thats why he got AB medals. For a team score, he & katich contributed a lot than others. And watson 's strike rate was better than others. Instead of taking blame on himself & ones who got scored from 0-30, he criticized a player (watson) who scored 50-99. There were several scores in 80s & 90s. And the brainless public still talk about converting 50s. FACT: Watson contributed much more to the team than others witn bat alone during that period. Yet brainless people talk about some meaningless things. And stats only tell half the story. The don't tell about the pitches on which they are scored. For example, clarke's scores came on roads & he even bats lower at no.4 & no.5 when the ball is not quick & does not seam. The quality The quality of pitches in last 2 decades is far worse than earlier. And the quality of pitches in last 3 years is the worst in history. Just google/youtube 'shane watson amir' & watch the quality of bowling watson faced Vs Amir/pakistan. In general, watson faced 10 times better quality bowling in that 2 yr period (2009-11) than clarke's entire career & still fared much better than clarke during 2009-11. Bottomline: Majority (99%) of the public are brainless. Thats why they ate whatever cr. p the media & clarke have fed them.
Andrew Smyth-Kirk
Roar Guru
Totally agree. The only person Shane Watson can blame is Shane Watson, and he is/was the first person to question his position, to understand the reasons why he would get dropped. He showed us all how hard it was to crack elite sport but he never stopped trying to get there. I think he should be exalted for his continued commitment and effort. Good on you Watto!
JoM
Roar Rookie
Ponting was captain when Katich and Watson were openers. Mr Clarke had nothing to do with it.
MJ
Guest
Well said
Red Kev
Roar Guru
He wasn't even captain at that point.
Really
Guest
So clearly that points to the Australian coaching and training staff being the issue. Not scoring runs or taking wickets is the players fault. Repeatedly succoming to niggling injuries and some blame should rightly go to the training staff
Dave Richardson
Roar Guru
Hello Harvey, no great difference in the number overs bowled. Phase 365 overs in 24 tests with a Strike rate of 52.14. Phase 3 388 overs in 27 tests with a Strike rate of 122.47.