Shane Watson and batting at three

A quick look at the best current and recent Test number three batsmen provides a number of clues as to why Shane Watson is a peculiar choice to come in at first drop in Australia's Test side.

Jonathan Trott, Kumar Sangakkara, Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting, Younis Khan and Hashim Amla all share a number of common attributes: selflessness, stability, reliability, a sound technique and the ability to score big runs.

Mr Vain does not possess any of these characteristics. Watson is far too absorbed with his own game to care a jot for others. He is neither stable nor reliable as evidenced by the fact that he has been involved (normally as the guilty party) in eight run outs in his 33 Tests. 

Whilst undoubtedly talented, Watson does not possess an especially sound technique being particularly susceptible to being caught in front on his crease. If Rahul Dravid's wall was made of bricks, Watson's is made of tracing paper.

Finally, in perhaps the most important category, Watson falls woefully short of what is required. He has passed fifty 18 times in Tests, but only twice has he gone to reach three figures. That is the performance of a number six or seven, not someone who bats in the top three.

All of his failings were on show in Bridgetown in his first attempt to prove he can flourish in this most pivotal of roles. He was lucky not to be given out when padding up to Darren Sammy, comically ran out a furious Ponting and then gave his wicket away once he had got to 39.

It's hard to get away from the feeling that Watson being higher up the order than Ponting, Michael Clarke and Mike Hussey is both incongruous and doomed to failure.

Where next?

County Championship XI of the week #1

David Warner doesn't do things by halves

Cricket Zeroes: Shane Watson

If you like this, follow us on Twitter @thereversesweep

Comments

[Ross Slater]

Yes I have to agree. The time has come for Watson to bat at number 6. He doesn't convert his starts into big scores as evidenced by his poor 50s to 100s ratio. His habit of getting out hit on the pads has been a concern since he starting opening in the 2009 Ashes. Watsons role as an all rounder also makes it a more sensible option for him to bat lower in the order - we can't all be Jaques Kallis.

The big question for Australia is who does bat at number 3? Having been spoilt with a dozen years of Ponting at first drop the options aren't looking great.
Usman Kawaja didn't set the Sheffield shield alight with runs this season but hopefully another stint of county cricket at Derbyshire this southern winter will see the runs return.
Shaun Marsh had a lamentable summer in test cricket making scores that resembled an international dialling code. Funny to think that on the eve of the test series v India he belted 99 not out in a Big Bash match.
Of Australia's current top 6 there don't seem to be any other options for number 3. Ponting has been purposely moved out of the position and Mike Hussey is not the solution for the future. Given his reduced output at 4 in the order it seems Clarkes best spot is no 5. Given he is captain and the senior batsmen in the team with years to play should he take on the responsibility of no 3?
Peter Forrest was earmarked during the triangular one day series as a future test bat and this was certainly warranted by the volume of shield runs prior to Christmas. Is he a test number 3? He appears to have a good temperament but he bats 4 for Queensland and may be more suited to a middle order role.

[Lolly]

Got to agree with the pointlessness of Watson at 3. The problem is that the only thing that they can do is stick Punter back down there if Watson moved to 6 and that will hardly help with stability as Ricky is on a short leash when it comes to time. Clarke needs to stay at 5 or his productivity melts like butter on hot tarmac.

I wouldn't say that Watson is that selfish, I think it's more that he's dumb and can't call or judge a run for toffee. Yep, it's mostly stupidity, that's also why he keeps getting out playing daft shots after he's set.

[The Reverse Sweep]

Lolly, I'd agree with you that Watson is not the sharpest tool in the box. His 50 yesterday was crucial but I sill see him as a number six. In my view Khawaja should get a decent run at three - he looks a very good prospect and I believe his Shield average is over 50.

Sent from my iPad

[The Reverse Sweep]

I've been impressed with Clarke as skipper - surprisingly impressed in fact. There is one school of thought which says that as captain he should take the extra responsibility and bat at first drop. The counter argument is that as you say, he is doing so well down at five that it would be foolish to move him. Watson is patently not a top order batsman - even with his crucial 2nd innings fifty yesterday (he still got out when we'll set). Personally I'd give Khawaja a decent run of games at 3.

Sent from my iPad