Seriously though - there's not much question that Shane Watson is a very very good cricketer. Whether he'll turn into a very very good international cricketer is yet to be seen.
Clarke is clearly an immensely talented batsman, with what seems like an immensely impetuous temperament at the crease in tests. His ODI record is amazing, but in tests he has been dismissed in irresponsible fashion many times.
Watson gives the team the luxury of including a risky bowler such as Tait or Johnson - which many of you have been arguing for (one or the other). If Clarke was at #6, then I don't think the selectors would consider including Tait or Johnson in the XI.
Regardless, it's funny that Australians and Kiwis bag players that have been picked to play for their country. At times it almost seems like failure is being wished upon them. At the end of the day Watson is a cricketer with a lot of talent who's been picked for Australia, which I assume is his dream, and he desperately will want to contribute to Australia's winning.
The selector's logic seems pretty obvious to me, I just wish selectors and coaches in this part of the world would communicate their reasoning better, or media analysts would be a bit more focused on what their thinking is. If you have a problem with Watson being in the team, it's not him that should be criticised it's the selectors...
And locky - perhaps you could provide some evidence to back your claim that you're usually right
