The news
that Shane Watson will be self-limiting his bowling should come as no great
surprise. He has done so before, many
times, with the first occurrence dating back nearly a decade to the year before
the infamous haunted-mansion Ashes Tour of 2005.
Watson, despite
his bulging physique and American Dad!-style
chin, just isn’t made for bowling long spells.
He sends the ball down well and over the past decade has increased his
movement both through the air and off the pitch. He is one of the few part-timers with the
ability to change a match. However, the forty-eight
overs he sent down in Hobart have likely put him out of the rest of the
International summer.
In
response, Watson elected to remove himself semi-permanently from the Australian
attack. This comes in spite of the
rather extreme circumstances of Hobart. Those
four dozen overs were by far the most he’s bowled in a Test: before Bellerive, the most Watson had ever bowled
in five-day competition was 35 overs at Nagpur during Jason Krezja’s match.
It’s
damning for Watson that rather than moderating his bowling, he has turned his
back on the leather altogether. Not so
much for his character but his Test career, because flinging the leather is
perhaps the one thing that differentiates him from his “competition” for a position
in Australia’s top order.
While
said competition is hardly beating at the door with force, Watson has voluntarily removed his single most
attractive, marketable skill. Selectors
make selections based on the amount of currency held by players: players gain
those bargaining chips by accumulating runs or wickets, by boasting a legacy or
a posing unique threat to the opposition.
Only two
years from being anointed the next great one, Watson has none of these.
It has
been nearly 2 ½ years since he made his second – and
last, til now – Test ton. Over that
span, his average has been 35.7, near enough his career number of 37. If one was to hazard a guess at what replacement-level at Test level was, 35 might well be it:
capable of some excellence and a shedload of utter mediocrity.
Whether
any putative successors could actually reach this theoretical replacement level
is very much up for debate. Usman
Khawaja seems to have first dibs on Mike Hussey’s vacated no. 6 position,
leaving Watson’s challengers the likes of of Alex Doolan, Joe Burns and Glenn
Maxwell. Not only does each of these
players have some domestic currency to present the selectors, but each also hints
at the unique promise of future glories.
Watson, with his pedestrian batsmanship and now shorn of his bowling,
presents an argument based heavily upon incumbency and seniority.
The long term (post-war) replacement level for top- batsmen in Australia is about ~33. It is closer to 23 for New Zealand, which explains many things. A post on why I can access that information really easily is pending...
ReplyDeleteBack when Watson was averaging 50 I ran some numbers that suggested he was exceptionally lucky to hold that average. Namely, that he got lots and lots of starts, and didn't go on. Though it was possible that the problem with going on would be rectified, correcting the average upwards, I think the first argument is closer to reality. In England, his bowling has been very valuable. Without it, it isn't clear what he brings.
I really look forward to that oncoming post, Russ!!
Delete