Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

No surprise but it's official now.


Not going to review his decision either.

never again will we see

Welcome back to Hampshire, Shane

(although not official yet)

To be honest, I think Watson gets a far harder time than is really merited.

So long, Twatto. A player who never fulfilled his potential, not in the Test arena anyway.

Funny Test career. Batted in all sorts of positions, never truly made a position his own. Average of 35 is below par for a batsman but very good for an all rounder. But he was an all rounder who opened the batting and didn't like bowling, he seemed to want to be a specialist batsman. Had trouble making tons, converting only 4 of 28 half centuries (compared to 16 of 46 at first class level, minus the Test innings). His bowling average is better than many front line bowlers, and he has more fivefers thsn Flintoff.

England fans will only remember him for one thing. Not sure about Australians. Probably that he was an okay Test player, but a much better limited overs player.

The problem with Watson is he wanted to be viewed as a top order batsman, not an all rounder. His batting was never good enough to justify a place in the top six, but when he was fit enough to bowl he was a player that most sides would want to have at 7 or 8 in their Test team.

As a limited overs player he was superb.

he would have been a perfect counter attacking number 6, but was stubborn and refused to move down the order

Watson had a curious impact on me as an Aussie player in games against England. At first he seemed a sort of Freddie doll, a pretend facsimile of Flintoff manufactured in his image. And then for a period, after Flintoff's body gave way and in the aftermath of the Ashes 5-0 and the fredalo fiasco, it seemed Watson was going to far outstrip the England all rounder. But I don't think that ever happened.

Given Watson averages 42 versus England against an allcomers 35, I'd expect to feel that he did ok in Ashes contests. If you look at his scores, he had an extraordinary number of strong starts, until something went wrong. The full Watto, from the 2010-11 Ashes series involved his getting involved in his partner's run out, and then getting out shortly afterwards himself, for maximum points, lbw. He got an influential 95 in Perth in the Australian win in that 3-1 home defeat, but mostly perished at the head of a second wave of wickets to the reverse swinging ball.

In the last winning whitewash, his hundred at Perth felt like a proper, leading man contribution, in the first innings. Briefly it seemed like his contributions were coming into focus and his runs didn't need explaining or putting into context. But it was a brief and passing moment. His only other Ashes ton was a big, end of series, dead rubber ton at the Oval, in a Test that became an exhibition game in 2013. He seemed to average 42 in Ashes cricket with little real impact. I'd say his most memorable innings was his eighty-something not out in the whitewash at Melbourne, flailing England's demoralised attack to no great actual end. Third innings runs augmenting a big first innings lead.

It often felt Watson was influential with the ball, tying an end up, taking a wicket, breaking a partnership. But it's odd that he never took more than a 1-fer in the Ashes. Again, his talent doesn't seem to transfer to the page. He never quite found a role in the team in Ashes cricket, for all his brilliant ODI exploits.

I like this thread.