onemangang
Banned
Can't recall when was the last time when they had a genuine allrounder.They have brillinat batters, bowlers, Keepers, but struggles to find a decent allrounder.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
When will Aus come up with a quality allrounder??
- Thread starter onemangang
- Start date
sir middle stump
School Boy/Girl Captain
australia never had a genuine all rounder....unless you count in richie benaud .....maybe shane warne should concentrate a bit more on his batting.....maybe steve wa should get his back fixed and start bowling again....he could break into the 1 day side too that a way
by the way....brett lee isnt too bad with the bat too.......his batting should be looked at seriously...he aint exactly a number 11
[Edited on 7/24/02 by sir middle stump]
by the way....brett lee isnt too bad with the bat too.......his batting should be looked at seriously...he aint exactly a number 11
[Edited on 7/24/02 by sir middle stump]
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This has been a big deal in Aussie circles for a few years now.
The new kid on the block is undoubtably Shane Watson. I reckon he'll be BIG but we'll see.
We've had a few pretenders; Shane Lee, Ian Harvey, Brendon Julian etc. but the last genuine allrounder we had who was consistently successful was probably Steve Waugh when he bowled regularly.
The new kid on the block is undoubtably Shane Watson. I reckon he'll be BIG but we'll see.
We've had a few pretenders; Shane Lee, Ian Harvey, Brendon Julian etc. but the last genuine allrounder we had who was consistently successful was probably Steve Waugh when he bowled regularly.
onemangang
Banned
I think they had one before Waugh, can't get his name.
Watson looks a good prospect, Harvey was lousy, i mean all this talk of him being the best bowler in onedayer game was stupid really.
Watson looks a good prospect, Harvey was lousy, i mean all this talk of him being the best bowler in onedayer game was stupid really.
sir middle stump
School Boy/Girl Captain
point taken top_kat
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No worries, d00d. 
But it's a good point that Australia generally hasn't concentrated too much on allrounders over the years. Generally the typical Aussie team has a leggie, three quicks (including an opening 'partnership'), six batsmen and a keeper to bat at 7. Rarely do the Ausies deviate from this and that's been the case for decades.
But it's a good point that Australia generally hasn't concentrated too much on allrounders over the years. Generally the typical Aussie team has a leggie, three quicks (including an opening 'partnership'), six batsmen and a keeper to bat at 7. Rarely do the Ausies deviate from this and that's been the case for decades.
Eclipse
International Debutant
Brett lee could become an allrounder a bit like W Akram.
His test avrage is about 26 with two 50s
and his ODI avrage is 16 with one 50 and a strike rate of 90!!
I have seen him bat quite alot and his techneque is actualy pritty good (way better than warnes) hes also probably one of the hardest hitters in the Australian side I mean not many batsman can hit Allan Donald for 26 runs in one over including 3 sixes.
His test avrage is about 26 with two 50s
and his ODI avrage is 16 with one 50 and a strike rate of 90!!
I have seen him bat quite alot and his techneque is actualy pritty good (way better than warnes) hes also probably one of the hardest hitters in the Australian side I mean not many batsman can hit Allan Donald for 26 runs in one over including 3 sixes.
Very Faa-Kin Farkney
Cricket Spectator
It's hardly a problem for the australian team though at the moment...... Lets be honest
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
As I was going to say...
onemangang
Banned
Neil,
Gilli opens the innings in onedayers(we are talking about onedayers) Lee can bat and so can Warne bat they aren't genuine allrounder.
Who needs it? Aus captain and selectors feels they need it desperately.
Gilli opens the innings in onedayers(we are talking about onedayers) Lee can bat and so can Warne bat they aren't genuine allrounder.
Who needs it? Aus captain and selectors feels they need it desperately.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
At one-day level that's possibly accurate (if only for one more bowling option) but the selectors have gone about it stupidly by making guys who should be specialist batsmen making appearances at the bowling crease. Andy Symonds should NEVER have been picked as an allrounder. Same with Tom Moody (anyone remember him? Didn't think so!)and Greg Blewett. They should either have been picked as specialist batsmen or not at all, particularly Symonds. I mean the guy has been making noises about his talent for years and he hit 250-odd with 16 6's in England as well as a few interstate centuries yet when it came down to being picked, what do the selectors say? "Improve your bowling". That was nuts because he's one of the most naturally talented batsmen of his generation and it's almost insulting that his batting wasn't considered enough.
Either way, the Aussies don't seem to be looking for a Test allrounder at this stage. Mind you, when they have come along, they've been looked upon as more a bonus than a necessity.
So what do you guys believe the role is of the wicketkeeper in the test and one-day teams nowdays??
Has the wicketkeeper's role changed? Do we just assume that he should be a wicketkeeper/batsman.... and if so, isn't this an all-rounder???
btw, I agree with Top_Cat about Symonds... but then again, he'd never have been selected to play any one-dayers if he'd come in as a specialist batsman... Aussie batting in recent years has been too stong.
Has the wicketkeeper's role changed? Do we just assume that he should be a wicketkeeper/batsman.... and if so, isn't this an all-rounder???
btw, I agree with Top_Cat about Symonds... but then again, he'd never have been selected to play any one-dayers if he'd come in as a specialist batsman... Aussie batting in recent years has been too stong.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I definitely agree with MrPerko's implication here.
A test side should always look to pick their best keeper available within reason. As far as ODI's are concerned, the feeling nowadays seems to be 'oh, Fred'll do it', but that, I believe, is a mistake. Bits-n-pieces bowlers, maybe, but bits-n-pieces keepers? No thanks. Best keeper available.
If he turns out to be an excellent batsman, that is a great bonus. In Gilchrist's case, he is a devastating hitter. That'll do for me. What a bonus. All-rounder?
Definitely.
A test side should always look to pick their best keeper available within reason. As far as ODI's are concerned, the feeling nowadays seems to be 'oh, Fred'll do it', but that, I believe, is a mistake. Bits-n-pieces bowlers, maybe, but bits-n-pieces keepers? No thanks. Best keeper available.
If he turns out to be an excellent batsman, that is a great bonus. In Gilchrist's case, he is a devastating hitter. That'll do for me. What a bonus. All-rounder?
Definitely.
Hmmm... yeah, I'd like to agree with you, LuckyEddie, but if you look at it this way...
Let's say that a part-time keeper (Dravid - as an example) is selected, and say he might drop one half-chance and contribute a few byes more a game than your "full-time" keeper... my view is that on average, Dravid will score more runs than he "lost" (if you understand me) so, in that sense, selecting Dravid in the Indian O.Day team makes sense....
Tests -however - when wickets are all important, is when you need someone who can keep well to Warnie on a low, turning, fifth-day pitch.
Let's say that a part-time keeper (Dravid - as an example) is selected, and say he might drop one half-chance and contribute a few byes more a game than your "full-time" keeper... my view is that on average, Dravid will score more runs than he "lost" (if you understand me) so, in that sense, selecting Dravid in the Indian O.Day team makes sense....
Tests -however - when wickets are all important, is when you need someone who can keep well to Warnie on a low, turning, fifth-day pitch.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
A cogent paradigm ( ). Then again, whereas Dravid isn't too bad, how much worse is he than India's best keeper?
I suppose that a keeper only comes into his own when standing up to a quality spinner. That's when technique comes in. As you so rightly say, it matters in proper cricket, as opposed to 'electric rounders', where the 'bits n pieces' cricketer comes into his own.
). Then again, whereas Dravid isn't too bad, how much worse is he than India's best keeper?I suppose that a keeper only comes into his own when standing up to a quality spinner. That's when technique comes in. As you so rightly say, it matters in proper cricket, as opposed to 'electric rounders', where the 'bits n pieces' cricketer comes into his own.