Ah, you legal types. Another source of the same damn info with the same conjecture doesn't make it twice as strong evidence. This:
On the face of it, if Watson - who has scored 2328 Test runs at 37.55 - is OK to bat but not bowl it makes little sense to select Rob Quiney ahead of him solely because the Victorian is capable of taking up some of the bowling slack with his gentle, if accurate seamers.
Is based on the assumption that he's good to bat but not to bowl. I'm telling you, if you've done your calf, you can't run and usually not for a while because it's a **** injury. If you can't run, you can't bat or
bowl and even if you can just
bat, the chances of blowing it again are pretty high the first time you take it for a test drive on a quick single. That coupled with the fact he's an injury risk anyway, he simply can't play, especially with the Tests so close together.
EDIT: Fully fit, the selectors said in that article he'd been considered as a bat only, incidentally. So it's nothing to do with whether they reckon he's good enough to hold his place with the bat alone.