Aw no, Watt0's retired (from Tests)

[NZTailender]

He obviously didnt have the technique for it though, which is why he averaged 30.

At number 6, I really think he could've got some nice downhill skiiing opportunities and improved his record.

Averaged 37 @ 3. Not outstanding but actually better than most who have been tried there since ponting

 

[NZTailender]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All hail smitteh tho. Also it's hard to ski downhill when you're 4 or 5 for not many due to a fragile top order.

 

[Burgey]

I really think if Watson hadn't been injured in 06-07 and batted at six as an all rounder in the side which flogged England, his whole career would have been different. He'd have had a good run in the middle order behind a great batting line up. I always thought he never played with any freedom in test cricket, because he always had to temper the sort of natural aggression he showed in his LO career.

I will miss his hilarious reviews though. Anyone else catch the irony in him telling his partner not to review an lbw the other night? And tbf he was right. He just couldn't quite bring himself to do the same when he was at the striker's end.

Also, is a gun LO player. Seriously gun.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Probably a good decision to go really. Only averaged 28 in Asia so might struggle in Bangladesh and just 20 against NZ. I expect Boult would've hit that front pad at will, so that have probably dropped further.

Quite amazing for a player of his undoubted ability that Watto didn't dominate anyone (only averaged 40+ against 2 teams -England & Pakistan). Even more amazing was that he didn't average over 40 in a single country.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[stephen]

Unfortunately Watto's brilliance in the limited overs forms of cricket have been overshadowed by his decided mediocrity in tests.

Which is unfair really because Michael Bevan's record in tests is remarkably similar to Watto's. It's just that he didn't get as many opportunities and was in a winning side when he got them, so people remember his ODI record and forget his tests.

Watto on the other hand would never have played anywhere near 60 tests if he was around during the 95-07 golden era.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Unfortunately Watto's brilliance in the limited overs forms of cricket have been overshadowed by his decided mediocrity in tests.

Which is unfair really because Michael Bevan's record in tests is remarkably similar to Watto's. It's just that he didn't get as many opportunities and was in a winning side when he got them, so people remember his ODI record and forget his tests.

Watto on the other hand would never have played anywhere near 60 tests if he was around during the 95-07 golden era.

He's still a statistically better player than Botham and Flintoff, despite not playing anywhere near to his potential and constantly being injured. Something to think about.

I get the feeling that Watson will be one of those players looked a lot more kindly on after his retirement than he was during his career.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

He's still a statistically better player than Botham

As what? A fielder?* That 1.65 runs per innings Watson averages more than Botham with the bat would almost entirely be swallowed up by the era average differences where Botham had to face the Windies Quartet, Khan, Wasim, Hadlee, Lillee et al in a generation where bowlers fared much better than the present generation for a whole host of reasons.

More significantly Botham took 383 wickets at 28 (3.75 per match) and Watto took 75 wickets (1.25 per match) at 33.68.

Watson is not in Botham's stratosphere statistically in test cricket.

*Nope, it would appear that Botham was catching more dismissals per match than Watson as well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

As what? A fielder?* That 1.65 runs per innings Watson averages more than Botham with the bat would almost entirely be swallowed up by the era average differences where Botham had to face the Windies Quartet, Khan, Wasim, Hadlee, Lillee et al in a generation where bowlers fared much better for a whole host of reasons.

More significantly Botham took 383 wickets at 28 (3.75 per match) and Watto took 75 wickets (1.25 per match) at 33.68.

Watson is not in Botham's stratosphere statistically in test cricket.

*Nope, it would appear that Botham was catching more dismissals per match than Watson as well.

meh, I was just reading off this

In defence of Shane Watson, whose record is better than his reputation

didn't really look into the stats myself. And I never said I thought Watson was a better player than the likes of Botham and Flintoff, but he's not as far off as many people think.

 

[hendrix]

Watson was pretty good. Should've stayed at 6. His record as opener is confusing because it coincides with the time that he peaked as a player. Would've been better served in the long run to remain at 6.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

meh, I was just reading off this

In defence of Shane Watson, whose record is better than his reputation

didn't really look into the stats myself. And I never said I thought Watson was a better player than the likes of Botham and Flintoff, but he's not as far off as many people think.

Poor man's Jacob Oram

 

[NZTailender]

Watson was pretty good. Should've stayed at 6. His record as opener is confusing because it coincides with the time that he peaked as a player. Would've been better served in the long run to remain at 6.

And yet his record in the top order is better than his middle order record.

 

[hendrix]

And yet his record in the top order is better than his middle order record.

that was my point...

 

[NZTailender]

that was my point...

You said he should've stayed at 6. His record at 6 is poor, as is his position 4 & 5. He was a top order player domestically and clearly he did better there than in the lower order at Test level. I think he's better in that situation than in a 'match saving/downhill skier' situation.

 

[hendrix]

You said he should've stayed at 6. His record at 6 is poor, as is his position 4 & 5. He was a top order player domestically and clearly he did better there than in the lower order at Test level. I think he's better in that situation than in a 'match saving/downhill skier' situation.

He should have stayed at 6. He's not a good enough batsman to consistently bat up the order. At the absolute peak of his powers, he managed it - but that period lines up almost perfectly with every other batsman's career arc - after a few years in test cricket they find what works for them and do well.

He would have cashed in far more if he'd been batting at 6 and moreover wouldn't have been confused about his role thinking his batting position was the reason for his failures when he moved back to six.

Pretty much every decent test batsman should be batting up the order in domestic cricket. Just a reflection of the difference in quality.

 

[TheJediBrah]

^I sort of agree with both

His time opening did coincide with his best form, and also his longest uninjured stretch. However I don't think that's the only reason he was best at the top. I believe opening genuinely suited his game.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah he was good enough to open when in the form of his life but the bloke was a #6 imo. Should have been given a license to be the Botham/Kapil/Cairns/Flintoff/Oram hero down the order. We've seen what he can do when allowed to just attack in ODIs. He would have made a pretty good player if used differently imo.

 

[Top_Cat]

Watson was pretty good. Should've stayed at 6. His record as opener is confusing because it coincides with the time that he peaked as a player. Would've been better served in the long run to remain at 6.

Nope. Was awful starting against spin and was generally working his balls off to survive against decent spin anyway.

And that in a nutshell is why people look at him as enigmatic. Despite fairly immense physical gifts, was never able to figure out his best role in the side. Opener worked(-ish) for a while but was never going to be a long-term solution because of those big front pads, a problem that could strike at any time in his knocks let alone if he was out of form. Couldn't bat him lower than 4 because of the spin thing, couldn't bat him at 4 because he struggled to change gears and a balance between shots and defence, couldn't bat him at 7 and bowl him more because of hammie/calf twinges and long-standing back troubles and the overwhelming majority of heavy scoring knocks came when the air was sucked out of the contest. For a guy who had the potential to perform any role, didn't do any of them to a world-cass level.

 

[NZTailender]

His average was going south, then he started opening. Then he was in the form of his life.

Cricinfo - Statsguru - SR Watson - Test Batting - Innings by innings list

It's almost as if batting 3 and 4 at domestic level then moving up to open with an eye to Hayden's retirement helped him prepare and succeed in the role.

 

[hendrix]

Nope. Was awful starting against spin and was generally working his balls off to survive against decent spin anyway.

And that in a nutshell is why people look at him as enigmatic. Despite fairly immense physical gifts, was never able to figure out his best role in the side. Opener worked(-ish) for a while but was never going to be a long-term solution because of those big front pads, a problem that could strike at any time in his knocks let alone if he was out of form. Couldn't bat him lower than 4 because of the spin thing, couldn't bat him at 4 because he struggled to change gears and a balance between shots and defence, couldn't bat him at 7 and bowl him more because of hammie/calf twinges and long-standing back troubles and the overwhelming majority of heavy scoring knocks came when the air was sucked out of the contest. For a guy who had the potential to perform any role, didn't do any of them to a world-cass level.

Yeah he sucked against spin...so did a lot of Aussie batsmen of his generation. He might have had a chance to improve against it (or just smash the ****s like Symonds). In any case his place in the side was never truly questioned, so worst case would have been Australia having a few more experienced openers to pick from.

He was going to be in the side anyway. The not-quite-good-enough player sits better at 6 than at 1-3, IMO, even with a weakness against spin.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah he was good enough to open when in the form of his life but the bloke was a #6 imo. Should have been given a license to be the Botham/Kapil/Cairns/Flintoff/Oram hero down the order. We've seen what he can do when allowed to just attack in ODIs. He would have made a pretty good player if used differently imo.

really?