By Adrian Meredith
MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 16, 2012: There has been a lot of talk, especially amongst Australian fans, that Shane Watson isn't good enough to make the team, or they want him to bat at 7 or 8 - or lower.
So I'd like to look at just how good Shane Watson is, and why I rate him as Australia's best ever all-rounder.
Firstly, let's look at his statistics:
Test batting avg 36.92 bowling avg 29.20 ODI batting avg 41.48 SR 88.27 bowling avg 28.83 econ 4.80 T20 batting avg 30.62 SR 148.48 bowling avg 20.42 econ 7.19 FC batting avg 44.11 bowling avg 27.69
That equates to +7.72 in tests, +12.65 in ODIs, +10.20 in T20s, +16.42 in FC.
The first test of the quality all-rounder is that they have a higher batting average than bowling average. Shane Watson *easily* accomplishes this. The second test is that they bowl regularly - Watson has bowled in 90% of innings that he has played in, across all formats (which is why someone like Michael Clarke, who bowls less than 10% of the time, cannot be considered an all-rounder). The third test is that they take wickets regularly - Watson has 3 5 wicket innings in 36 test matches. The fourth test is that they score big runs regularly - Watson has scored 2 test centuries and 18 half centuries across 36 matches and 66 innings.
There is no question that, as it stands, Watson has performed better in T20s and ODIs than in tests. +12.65 in ODIs and +10.20 in T20s are a lot better than +7.72 in tests. Not to mention that his batting strike rate of 88.27 in ODIs and an amazing 148.48 in T20s are very impressive. But +7.72 is still pretty good. And his first class record, of +16.42, suggests that he can improve. +16.42 is up there with the best in the world.
Watson is also ranked amongst the best all-rounders in the world. In tests, Jacques Kallis is the indisputed number 1, but in ODIs and T20s Watson is either 1st or 2nd, sometimes behind Bangladesh's best ever player, Shakib al Hasan. And there is no shame in being behind Shakib!
Watson has won matches with the bat and won matches with the ball.
Now, let's compare with other great all-rounders in Australian cricket.
In the past 30 years, or in my living memory and the living memory of most people reading this, the following players have been tried in Australia as all-rounders:
Andrew Symonds - Did okay in ODIs and was good at times in T20s but really struggled in tests and was unable to take regular wickets. He rarely bowled, and when he did it was mainly just to support the regular bowlers. Not really an all-rounder but more a batsman who bowled a bit.
Greg Matthews - Was meant to be a bowler who could bat a bit but ended up with a test batting average of just over 40 and, unfortunately, his bowling average was about the same. Was carried most of the time and not particularly useful.
Steve Waugh - Believe it or not, Waugh started off as an all-rounder. He didn't bat particularly well and while his bowling was useful it wasn't great. He turned it around and ended up with a great batting average - largely because he stopped bowling. Injuries led to him often being unable to bowl. Not truly an all-rounder because he didn't bowl often enough.
Mark Waugh - Bowled a bit more often than Steve Waugh but mostly it was just to ease the workload of the regular bowlers. Didn't do enough to be considered a true all rounder - rather he was a batsman who bowled a bit.
Simon O'Donnell - Most well known for surviving cancer, and for tonking it, he wasn't a particularly good bowler and was a mediocre batsman, albeit one who could smash it a mile.
Now, going back a bit further, Australia did have proper all-rounders, so let's compare Watson to them as well:
Richie Benaud - Similar style to Andrew Symonds in that he batted and bowled and also bowled both pace and spin - though Symonds went one further by also being able to bowl both left and right handed. He is incorrectly recorded in the stats books as a spinner only - yet was well known to bowl part of an over pace and part of the over spin. His canny tactics (including changing bowling action) led to great results for the team but personally he averaged just 24 with the bat and 28 with the ball, or -4 overall! - far worse than Watson!
Alan Davison - Played at the same time as Benaud, some 50 years ago, who ended up with pretty good returns, though he wasn't really much of a batsman. He ended up with an average of 24 with the bat and just 20 with the ball, or +4 overall, superior to Benaud, but few regard him as superior to Benaud. He never scored a test century and never won Australia a game with his bat.
And then there is the one true contender to Watson's title as the greatest ever all-rounder in Australia:
Keith Miller - Averaged 36 with the bat and 22 with the ball, +14, ahead of Watson's +7, and he was +26 in FC cricket (48 and 22). He formed an opening bowling team in 55 tests, taking 3 wickets per test, and also batted at number 4. A true fast bowler, unlike Watson he didn't break down.
So why do I consider Watson to be superior to Miller?
It is easy to say that Watson is better than the others. But Miller is a tough one. But perhaps this is the thing - Miller didn't play all that often, just 55 tests, and hence didn't suffer the kinds of injuries that Watson did. He also didn't bowl all that often.
Look, maybe Miller is superior, but Watson single handedly won Australia 4 matches in a row in the recent World T20 and all but took them to the title.
If I just consider tests, sure, Miller is ahead. I'd like to think that Watson will improve. I think that Watson should finish with a test batting average of 50, or at least mid 40s, and a test bowling average of around 27 or 28 (i.e. about what it is now). But what sets Watson ahead is his ability in ODIs and T20s, where he has been amazing.
Even considering this, Watson is still a long way behind the two greatest of all time, Sobers and Kallis. He is even behind at least 3 of the 4 great all-rounders of the 1980s, in Hadlee, Imran Khan and Botham - though he may be ahead of Kapil Dev.
I can say without hesitation that Watson is the best all-rounder for over 50 years. At worst, he is the 2nd best of all time for Australia, behind Keith Miller. But I'd like to think that, considering ODIs and T20s, he is actually ahead.
0 comments:
Post a Comment