Shane Watson

Shane Watson ... is he that important to Australian cricket? Photo: Reuters

ARE Cricket Australia selectors becoming obsessed with Shane Watson? Is Watson that important to Australian cricket? And what is this undying love for having an all-rounder in the team?

First, let us not forget that Australia recently defeated India 4-0 without the all-rounder Watson playing. And don't ignore the fact the two greatest Test teams since World War II - the West Indies in 1984 and Australia in 2000 - had no true all-rounders in their teams. Their all-rounders were the wicketkeepers, Jeff Dujon and Adam Gilchrist.

So why are the selectors so concerned about finding an all-rounder? Why is Watson being treated with kid gloves while others are not getting the same treatment?

Don't get me wrong, I think Watson is a wonderful player, especially in the one-day and Twenty20 formats. But let us not forget that Watson is first picked as a batsman, and has delivered only two Test hundreds in 35 Tests, while Phil Hughes has three to his name in 17 Tests. Does this Australian Test team revolve around Watson?

I nearly laughed when I heard that Cricket Australia had ordered Watson home from the Champions League due to workload. Why isn't Michael Hussey coming home? Surely he has played more.

CA is part-owner of this tournament, and it doesn't want one of its best players to compete because of fatigue and overloading? By dragging Watson home, surely this is weakening the product? No wonder the tournament is on its last legs.

So, are cricketers playing too much? Are they being too precious about how much they want to play?

In 2010, the Australian top cricketers played a total of about 130 days, including Tests, one-day internationals, Twenty20, first-class matches and domestic one-day matches. In 2011, they played a total of about 133 days.

From November 1, 2012, to November 1, 2013, Australia will play 15 Tests, 20 one-day internationals, five first-class matches and four Twenty20 matches. That is a total of 114 days. So why rest Watson if they are playing less?

Looking back to Australia's glory days of 1989, I played 11 Tests that year, 18 one-day internationals, 18 first-class matches, five domestic one-dayers and three club games. That's a total of 141 days. How can the players of today say they play too much compared to us?

At times during the tour of England in 1989 we would play 11 days in a row. It would start with a five-day Test, then we would travel that night, play a three-day first-class match, travel again, then play another three-day game. We did that three times!

I was exhausted after 1989; it was way too much. But we need to find a balance for today's cricketers. Is 120 days enough? Don't forget that with practice and travel, they are working about 280 days a a year.

In the AFL, technically they play only about 30 games a year, including the pre-season and if they make the finals. The NRL players would not be much different. One of our very best golfers, Geoff Ogilvy, plays on average only 25 tournaments a year. It's just all about the right balance.

I do understand players are different and have different needs. After speaking to many players, I know they want more time for remedial work on their techniques. Sometimes they need a two-week break to work on new shots or to arrest bad habits.

I understand CA needs the players to play more cricket so it can pay the big wages they are requesting. I have no problem with that, but how many playing days is enough?

From what I hear from players, they want to play more, with fewer practice sessions and meetings.

My problem is that the selectors send out mixed messages. As Watson is being sent home, we have the Australian captain, Michael Clarke, playing club cricket. This is unheard of in modern times. I loved it when I heard it. Clarke just wants to play more cricket at any level, and the game will be better for it.