Part of the Solution, or, Part of the Problem

Just as the Australian selectors had seemingly painted themselves into reasonable corner they simply jimmied another can and painted a way out.

Shane Watson was not included in the last Test team because he wasn’t fit enough to bowl and was deemed not good enough as a batsman only. He’s our all-rounder, the selectors explained, and he needs to be functioning as such to be in the team, heck, we moved him down the order to ensure he’d be fresh to bowl.

Now, a mere two days after the match and series has finished, they have proclaimed the exact opposite, offering the somewhat circular reasoning that Watson cannot hold his place as a batter because of his bowling duties, so he will only bowl once his batting is good enough to prove that he doesn’t have to.

It’s a maddening argument that offers no real hope of disproval until Watson himself, free from the burden of 4 or 5 overs of medium pace, produces the final corroboration in the form of another series average below Mitchell Johnson’s. (Batting average, that is, not bowling.) 

This, however, was not the only revelation. It was also made known that a return by Watson to the opener’s spot was not off the table either: Another confusing admission from the national coach who is presumably trying to build momentum towards looming back-to-back Ashes series and not undermine the current top order.

The move of Watson to the middle order was originally made with three clear rationales in mind: 1) to alleviate the over abundance of opening bats in the team; 2) to strengthen the middle order preparing for the departure of Ponting and Hussey; and 3) to set aside more recovery time between innings to allow Watson to bowl and provide the elusive all-round option Australia has long been searching for.

The current news is in complete contradiction to this solution and thus raises the truly pertinent question: Is Watson worth it?

Let’s compare some numbers. In 38 Tests, Watson averages 37, with nineteen 50s and two centuries, the same number as Matthew Wade. A good comparison, as someone who moved up and down the order (as well as in and out of the team) is Simon Katich, who in 56 Tests made twenty-five 50s, ten 100s and averaged 45, mostly while seemingly on the verge of being dropped, funnily enough, for Shane Watson.  

Opening batsmen are always going to be susceptible to getting out early; it is part of what makes the role so challenging and unique. However, it's not unreasonable to expect an opening bat to average above 40 and, importantly, to convert more starts into big scores.

The great openers in Australian history, however, had the ability to go and get huge scores once they were in: Mark Taylor, Justin Langer and Matthew Hayden all easily come to mind. Guys who couldn’t get a consistent game like Matthew Elliot, Phil Jacques, Martin Love, Brad Hodge and Chris Rogers had this trait. I believe Phil Hughes has it. But, clearly, Shane Watson does not.

The selectors had it right last week; he either finds his place in the middle order and as the fifth bowler or he’ll find there’s no place for him at all.