Australia in West Indies, 2012 March 15, 2012

Watson content as Test No. 3

27

Shane Watson will happily return to Australia's Test team as a No. 3 batsman, having reasoned that he is no longer in a position to demand the opening spot he vacated due to injury in 2011.

Since Watson fell prey to hamstring and calf injuries, the contrasting David Warner and Ed Cowan have begun a fledgling top order partnership that shows all the signs of developing into a fruitful union. They are now set to resume opening duties in the Caribbean, as Watson slips into the No. 3 spot vacated by an under-performing Shaun Marsh.

A year ago Watson could have named his place - and his price - in an Australian team struggling to find successful practitioners in most positions. However now the team led by Michael Clarke has completed a successful home summer without him, Watson said he was grateful to have any kind of place in the team, and would have no qualms about walking out at No. 3.

"I'm happy to play anywhere to be honest after sitting out all the summer and seeing how successful the Test team was, there's no doubt that I'd love to fit in wherever I possibly can," Watson said in St Vincent. "I have really enjoyed opening the batting in Test cricket and all forms of the game, but in the end batting at No. 3 you're still certainly in the engine room with a newer ball potentially.

"So I'm happy to try and compliment the team wherever I possibly can, because it has been an extremely exciting and successful Test summer and I'd love to be a part of that."

Watson was given the first hint of his future position when he returned to the ODI XI at No. 3 during the home triangular series. He may yet return to opening in the West Indies in limited overs formats, as he and the coach Mickey Arthur formulate the best plan to attack the hosts.

"That's where I finished up this summer, batting at No. 3, and what we're working through at the moment is what's going to be the best balance for our batting line-up, not just with me but with the other guys we've got at our disposal as well," Watson said. "So that's what we're talking through at the moment, what's going to be the best balance and what we think the West Indies are going to throw at us as well."

Australia's reduced reliance on senior players has been part of the coaching and selection strategy across the summer, which Arthur said had been geared at building a squad of about 22 players capable of stepping into action at any given moment. He pointed to current absentees including Pat Cummins, Clarke and Mitchell Johnson as proof the team was now better equipped to cope with a relentless cycle of fixtures.

"One of the briefs at the start of the summer was to create depth, and I think that's really important to create a depth pool that you can choose from," Arthur said. "With the amount of cricket we play, there's injuries always crop up and obviously loss of form. I think we've realised that we need to manage our best players better in order to get better results from them, so we needed to create that depth.

"We wanted to create a depth pool of 22 players by the end of the summer and we've prettymuch done that, and that has been reflected in the Test selections. I'm very confident that every player who steps up now to the side has had the opportunity and knows what is expected of him, so it has been a pretty successful summer in that regard."

The West Indian team, led by Darren Sammy, can call on a strong record at the Arnos Vale Ground for confidence ahead of their first meeting with Watson's team. Sammy has enjoyed two of his better international displays at the venue, 4 for 26 in an ODI against Zimbabwe in 2010, and 5 for 70 against Bangladesh in a Test in 2009.

"So far St Vincent has been a very good ground for us, as a West Indies team we always get results in our favour here, and for me personally it is a happy hunting ground," Sammy said. "The last three games we've played here we won all three, so obviously what happened against India and Pakistan we're looking to repeat that and start this series off on a winning note.

"We know we're playing Australia and we're not going to go out and play names, we're just going to play good, positive cricket, and hopefully we can come out on top."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Meety on March 16, 2012, 0:11 GMT

    @RandyOz - maybe Pup will move up the order, IMO, I can't see the diff between batting @#4 or #5, (he does well @#4 or in ODIs), maybe he should shuffle up the order v WIndies? He may only need to have 1 good score in that position, to get the monkey off his back, but for mine I'm happy having him knock up double & triple tons from #5!!!!!! @landl47 - that was funny, credit where its due! Too bad the Ashes are going back down under where they belong!

  • Meety on March 16, 2012, 0:06 GMT

    @RandyOz - the belief that Clarke needs to bat @ #3 as captain lead from the front is not backed up by History mate. You have mentioned players like Border & Waugh did (on other threads). It is not true, Border as captain batted in 154 innings, 150 of those innings were from #4 or below, (75 were in the #4 position). Steve Waugh NEVER batted above #5 as captain of Oz, over half of Greg Chappell's captaincy was #4 or below. Clarke has played for NSW @ #3 & did score a century just prior to the recent Ashes, I think he has had a desire to take up the Oz tradition of having the best bat @ #3, unfortunately for Pup, his numbers in the #3 position have never been good for Oz, in 18 tests batting at #3 or #4 his ave would barely top 22, whereas his #5 ave is over 60. I would much rather have a bloke average 60 @ #5, & get some hacks fill in the other positions, then have a class batsmen like ave 22 @ #3 & some hacks filling in #5. (TBC)

  • Moppa on March 15, 2012, 22:49 GMT

    I don't understand the argument that he's an all-rounder so therefore he should bat at 6. Jacques Kallis, anyone? Watson's best spot long-term, for me, is 3 or 4. He's probably better off early in his innings against pace rather than spin, and has a very solid technique. Would be nice if he could convert more starts into big tons to be a true number 3. I also don't understand the argument that Clarke should bat at 3. Clarke and Hussey are far better against spin early in their innings compared to Ponting or Watson, and so ideally suited to 5 and 6. Steve Waugh never 'manned up' and moved from 5 to 3, and he seemed to go OK in Test cricket. Incidentally, I don't see why Ponting and Watson can't interchange between 3 and 4 during this transition phase. E.g. if Australia bowls first and Watson sends down 10+ overs, and then bats late on the first day, why should Punter pad up and come in at number 3, hopefully saving Watson to be fresh for the second morning?

  • Benster2 on March 15, 2012, 22:38 GMT

    Great news. Watson is perfect at no 3 bearing in mind that Ponting hasn't been handling no 3 well as of late (and seems to be doing well at no 4), Clarke doesn't really consistently bat well at 3 or 4 and Mr Cricket seems pretty at home at 6. Just need to make sure we are Haddin-free for the first test and it looks like a pretty good batting card.

  • jgoogly on March 15, 2012, 22:14 GMT

    Watson was groomed to be an all rounder batting at number 6 and that is his spot. He is injury prone and he is not an ideal opener.

  • montys_muse on March 15, 2012, 20:42 GMT

    Watson at no.5 or 6. It will give him a break after his bowling responsibilities and prevent injuries. Ponting or Clarke should be no.3.

  • on March 15, 2012, 19:55 GMT

    Watson is returning from an injury.. his injury record is not somethng tht befits a No 3.....Put Punter at 3........ Clarke..4 Hussey 5......Watto 6......given his experience against new ball........ he wud be handy handling the 2nd new ball......

  • Beertjie on March 15, 2012, 16:28 GMT

    @AdoSR: you are spot on there - Watto needs more rest. He probably doesn't want to bat too low, so I go along with the view of Luke Hantzis that he should bat 4. There he could do the kind of job Kallis has been doing for ages - reliable bat and fourth seamer. But if Clarke can't himself see the need to move up, none of this will happen. If he does the right thing, Punter and Hussey can be replaced by any number of batsmen who show over the next year that they've got what it takes by following up one good season with another. It would also be much easier for them coming in lower down than pushing them up at 3 or 4 and trying to get 'more' out of Watto by batting him at 6. Given all the depth in pacers we've got, it wouldn't half be good to see whether there's a Greg Mathews-type in the wings that could permit the selection of 4 quicks (although one needs to be a leftie to provide variety). Hope S'OK can rediscover his mojo.

  • on March 15, 2012, 12:26 GMT

    I think the Test batting line-up should be Warner, Cowan, Clarke, Watson, Hussey, Ponting, Wade/Haddin, Pattinson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Lyon. Ponting in at No. 6 would be fantastic. It's usually the 5th or 6th spot that provides real impetus in the form of an elder statesman nearing the end of their careers. Hussey and Ponting are the men to fill those positions up until they retire.

  • on March 15, 2012, 12:18 GMT

    Watson clearly wants to be at the top of the order. No.3 is perfect i think because it still allows him to do so. He is still Australia"s MVP

  • Meety on March 16, 2012, 0:11 GMT

    @RandyOz - maybe Pup will move up the order, IMO, I can't see the diff between batting @#4 or #5, (he does well @#4 or in ODIs), maybe he should shuffle up the order v WIndies? He may only need to have 1 good score in that position, to get the monkey off his back, but for mine I'm happy having him knock up double & triple tons from #5!!!!!! @landl47 - that was funny, credit where its due! Too bad the Ashes are going back down under where they belong!

  • Meety on March 16, 2012, 0:06 GMT

    @RandyOz - the belief that Clarke needs to bat @ #3 as captain lead from the front is not backed up by History mate. You have mentioned players like Border & Waugh did (on other threads). It is not true, Border as captain batted in 154 innings, 150 of those innings were from #4 or below, (75 were in the #4 position). Steve Waugh NEVER batted above #5 as captain of Oz, over half of Greg Chappell's captaincy was #4 or below. Clarke has played for NSW @ #3 & did score a century just prior to the recent Ashes, I think he has had a desire to take up the Oz tradition of having the best bat @ #3, unfortunately for Pup, his numbers in the #3 position have never been good for Oz, in 18 tests batting at #3 or #4 his ave would barely top 22, whereas his #5 ave is over 60. I would much rather have a bloke average 60 @ #5, & get some hacks fill in the other positions, then have a class batsmen like ave 22 @ #3 & some hacks filling in #5. (TBC)

  • Moppa on March 15, 2012, 22:49 GMT

    I don't understand the argument that he's an all-rounder so therefore he should bat at 6. Jacques Kallis, anyone? Watson's best spot long-term, for me, is 3 or 4. He's probably better off early in his innings against pace rather than spin, and has a very solid technique. Would be nice if he could convert more starts into big tons to be a true number 3. I also don't understand the argument that Clarke should bat at 3. Clarke and Hussey are far better against spin early in their innings compared to Ponting or Watson, and so ideally suited to 5 and 6. Steve Waugh never 'manned up' and moved from 5 to 3, and he seemed to go OK in Test cricket. Incidentally, I don't see why Ponting and Watson can't interchange between 3 and 4 during this transition phase. E.g. if Australia bowls first and Watson sends down 10+ overs, and then bats late on the first day, why should Punter pad up and come in at number 3, hopefully saving Watson to be fresh for the second morning?

  • Benster2 on March 15, 2012, 22:38 GMT

    Great news. Watson is perfect at no 3 bearing in mind that Ponting hasn't been handling no 3 well as of late (and seems to be doing well at no 4), Clarke doesn't really consistently bat well at 3 or 4 and Mr Cricket seems pretty at home at 6. Just need to make sure we are Haddin-free for the first test and it looks like a pretty good batting card.

  • jgoogly on March 15, 2012, 22:14 GMT

    Watson was groomed to be an all rounder batting at number 6 and that is his spot. He is injury prone and he is not an ideal opener.

  • montys_muse on March 15, 2012, 20:42 GMT

    Watson at no.5 or 6. It will give him a break after his bowling responsibilities and prevent injuries. Ponting or Clarke should be no.3.

  • on March 15, 2012, 19:55 GMT

    Watson is returning from an injury.. his injury record is not somethng tht befits a No 3.....Put Punter at 3........ Clarke..4 Hussey 5......Watto 6......given his experience against new ball........ he wud be handy handling the 2nd new ball......

  • Beertjie on March 15, 2012, 16:28 GMT

    @AdoSR: you are spot on there - Watto needs more rest. He probably doesn't want to bat too low, so I go along with the view of Luke Hantzis that he should bat 4. There he could do the kind of job Kallis has been doing for ages - reliable bat and fourth seamer. But if Clarke can't himself see the need to move up, none of this will happen. If he does the right thing, Punter and Hussey can be replaced by any number of batsmen who show over the next year that they've got what it takes by following up one good season with another. It would also be much easier for them coming in lower down than pushing them up at 3 or 4 and trying to get 'more' out of Watto by batting him at 6. Given all the depth in pacers we've got, it wouldn't half be good to see whether there's a Greg Mathews-type in the wings that could permit the selection of 4 quicks (although one needs to be a leftie to provide variety). Hope S'OK can rediscover his mojo.

  • on March 15, 2012, 12:26 GMT

    I think the Test batting line-up should be Warner, Cowan, Clarke, Watson, Hussey, Ponting, Wade/Haddin, Pattinson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Lyon. Ponting in at No. 6 would be fantastic. It's usually the 5th or 6th spot that provides real impetus in the form of an elder statesman nearing the end of their careers. Hussey and Ponting are the men to fill those positions up until they retire.

  • on March 15, 2012, 12:18 GMT

    Watson clearly wants to be at the top of the order. No.3 is perfect i think because it still allows him to do so. He is still Australia"s MVP

  • Aussasinator on March 15, 2012, 10:53 GMT

    Cowan and Warner make the best openers right now. Clarke should play at No. 3 as the best batsman in the side, followed by Watson.

  • RandyOZ on March 15, 2012, 10:33 GMT

    As all have said definitely needs to bat at 5 or 6. If Clarke wants the type of respect Punter got he needs to man up and bat at 3, He has the technique, but does he have the mental ability? My guess is no.

  • zenboomerang on March 15, 2012, 9:03 GMT

    Use to be a time that no.3 batsmen were the best batters in the team & won this position from further down the order... On current form that would be either Clarke, Ponting or Hussey... Watson will not be saved from the spinners at no.3 ... Still I hope he does well where ever he bats...

  • othello22 on March 15, 2012, 9:03 GMT

    About time. He is the ideal candidate for number 3 - Plays all the strokes, good defensive technique, has priceless experience against the new and moving ball, solid player of spin, good at playing the counter-attacking innings... Ticks all the boxes. To those saying he should move down the order and bowl more, it aint gonna happen. He is an excellent reverse swing medium pacer but it takes too much of a toll on his body. Ponting learned to manage it and his batting blossomed, Clarke started overbowling him and not only did his batting suffer but his body crumbled, which was one of Pup's few genuine blunders since taking over as skipper. It's either bat or walk for Watto, good a bowler as he is, his body wont allow him to do it.

  • ali00 on March 15, 2012, 8:53 GMT

    I'm so excited about Shane Watson is batting at No.3 and i love to see how is he performing. i think he will do well and maybe bring up his maiden test double century. cant we to see Watson bat no.3

  • on March 15, 2012, 8:06 GMT

    Watson is best at no.6 plus bowling more overs as a bowler giving some rest to the likes of Harris and Pattinson.Clarke should bat at no.3 being in the form of his life when he returns for tests.odis it should be Peter Forrest.

  • ajayrcs on March 15, 2012, 7:40 GMT

    Watson is not that good what people consider.Where was he when Australia was on top, I sure you will get answer. He never performed better against good bowling attack. Not good enough.

  • wix99 on March 15, 2012, 6:33 GMT

    Michael Clarke should bat at No. 3. He is the best batsman in the side. Put Watson down to No. 5 or No. 6 which would allow him to bowl more and be a genuine allrounder.

  • schleppo on March 15, 2012, 6:11 GMT

    The aussie test batting lineup looks balanced and powerful with matchwinners in all BATTING positions if they go with WARNER,COWAN,WATSON,PONTING,CLARKE,M.HUSSEY,WADE/HADDIN,PATTINSON,SIDDLE,HILFENHAUS,LYON.

  • MinusZero on March 15, 2012, 5:46 GMT

    IMO, still too high in the order. Clarke should be at 3 and watson down at 5 or 6. How many number 3 batsmen only average 38? He needs to improve or drop down the order further.

  • AdoSR on March 15, 2012, 5:34 GMT

    No man's land. He may as well open as No 3 still doesn't allow him sufficient rest after bowling (it could be as little as a 1 ball rest). Australia needs to bowl him to get full value from this talented allrounder. His value as a bowler has outstripped his value as a batsman over the last 12 months. Not taking advantage of that is simply a waste of a good cricketer. He should bat at 5 or 6.

  • Chris_Howard on March 15, 2012, 5:18 GMT

    I don't know what it is, but I never liked Watto as a Test opener. But I do like him as a number 3. I liked it in the ODIs and I like the idea in Tests. And I do like the Cowan/Warner contrasting styles opening partnership.

  • redneck on March 15, 2012, 4:29 GMT

    didnt aus smash the windies last time they met at this ground? marsh made 80 odd on debut if memory serves? cant blame the west indies for enjoying the venue though the ground looks quite the sight in photos and on tv! up there with cape town with the views in the background.

  • jonesy2 on March 15, 2012, 3:54 GMT

    this australian team is so strong with so much depth that a guy like cowan who has played well in every game he has played, doesnt have a secure spot in the side

  • jonesy2 on March 15, 2012, 3:53 GMT

    he is the perfect number 3. this will benfit the team and watto, bowling wise and batting wise.

  • bobagorof on March 15, 2012, 3:25 GMT

    Well that's a refreshing turnaround from a couple of months ago, when Watson was saying that he expected to come in as an opener. Nice to see a player (at least publicly) saying that they're happy to play anywhere and just get a game. Not sure it's the ideal spot for him long-term, but if that's what's available then I hope he is able to do a decent job.

  • landl47 on March 15, 2012, 3:17 GMT

    I'm sure Watson will be able to compliment the team. Saying how well the team played is the easy part. Whether he will be able to complement the team is a different story.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • landl47 on March 15, 2012, 3:17 GMT

    I'm sure Watson will be able to compliment the team. Saying how well the team played is the easy part. Whether he will be able to complement the team is a different story.

  • bobagorof on March 15, 2012, 3:25 GMT

    Well that's a refreshing turnaround from a couple of months ago, when Watson was saying that he expected to come in as an opener. Nice to see a player (at least publicly) saying that they're happy to play anywhere and just get a game. Not sure it's the ideal spot for him long-term, but if that's what's available then I hope he is able to do a decent job.

  • jonesy2 on March 15, 2012, 3:53 GMT

    he is the perfect number 3. this will benfit the team and watto, bowling wise and batting wise.

  • jonesy2 on March 15, 2012, 3:54 GMT

    this australian team is so strong with so much depth that a guy like cowan who has played well in every game he has played, doesnt have a secure spot in the side

  • redneck on March 15, 2012, 4:29 GMT

    didnt aus smash the windies last time they met at this ground? marsh made 80 odd on debut if memory serves? cant blame the west indies for enjoying the venue though the ground looks quite the sight in photos and on tv! up there with cape town with the views in the background.

  • Chris_Howard on March 15, 2012, 5:18 GMT

    I don't know what it is, but I never liked Watto as a Test opener. But I do like him as a number 3. I liked it in the ODIs and I like the idea in Tests. And I do like the Cowan/Warner contrasting styles opening partnership.

  • AdoSR on March 15, 2012, 5:34 GMT

    No man's land. He may as well open as No 3 still doesn't allow him sufficient rest after bowling (it could be as little as a 1 ball rest). Australia needs to bowl him to get full value from this talented allrounder. His value as a bowler has outstripped his value as a batsman over the last 12 months. Not taking advantage of that is simply a waste of a good cricketer. He should bat at 5 or 6.

  • MinusZero on March 15, 2012, 5:46 GMT

    IMO, still too high in the order. Clarke should be at 3 and watson down at 5 or 6. How many number 3 batsmen only average 38? He needs to improve or drop down the order further.

  • schleppo on March 15, 2012, 6:11 GMT

    The aussie test batting lineup looks balanced and powerful with matchwinners in all BATTING positions if they go with WARNER,COWAN,WATSON,PONTING,CLARKE,M.HUSSEY,WADE/HADDIN,PATTINSON,SIDDLE,HILFENHAUS,LYON.

  • wix99 on March 15, 2012, 6:33 GMT

    Michael Clarke should bat at No. 3. He is the best batsman in the side. Put Watson down to No. 5 or No. 6 which would allow him to bowl more and be a genuine allrounder.