Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[Red]

Since 2005 Australia has wanted an allrounder in its test team for the most part. For the most part it's been Watson, and a bit of Symonds, and a little bit of Marsh.

Australia don't need an allrounder. We have an enviable fast bowling cartel, and we can rely on a combination of any 3 of Harris, Johnson, Hazelwood and Starc, plus Lyon to do the job, most of the time.

if anything is slightly shaky it's our batting, and Voges is showing in this test what a difference experienced, in form batsmen make to a test. Without Rogers injury Voges mightn't have played, which would've been a shame. Drop Watson and put Marsh on hold for 12 months (for tests). Play six bats, 4 bowlers and a keeper until Marsh demands selection as a top six bat.

Rogers
Warner
Smith
Clarke
S.Marsh
Voges
Haddin
Bowlers

Is a far better combo for England IMO.

 

[Spark]

Nah Watson's bowling provides a really crucial role for us. It's not about whether they can take wickets - particularly with Johnson being used as he is by Clarke, holding bowlers are critical for us.

 

[Gob]

Estraya's current bowling lineup is good and when harris returns it's very good but warne and mcgrath were a diffrent story.plus what sparkeh said.when mj bowls in such short bursts you need a 5th bowler not necessarily to take wickets but to make up overs while bowling with discipline.

 

[Red]

Nah Watson's bowling provides a really crucial role for us. It's not about whether they can take wickets - particularly with Johnson being used as he is by Clarke, holding bowlers are critical for us.

I get that. I really do. When Harris is also in the side it's handy to have a 4th seamer so Harris and Johnson can bowl short bursts. And I do think he'll be handy in England with the ball.

But seriously, Watson's time is up. How many times as a top six batsman has Watson made runs when it's counted? I think the selectors should be doing everything to get some solidity and consistency into that top order, and Voges should remain there for the next year or two, Our batting is still brittle and needs to be consolidated.

Rogers- will be gone post Ashes
Warner- solid
Smith- has been brilliant, hopefully can sustain that
Clarke- resume is obvious, only ever one bend away from breaking permanently though
S.Marsh- As good as anyone when on song, flaky as **** at other times though. Perhaps the Australian Carl Hooper?
Watson- never does much when it matters with the bat
Haddin- Teeters between brilliant and woeful.

Only two guys in six that I have long term confidence in tbh. Voges is old, but he's durable and smart.

 

[Spark]

Then pick MMarsh. An all-rounder is critical for the balance of the attack. When Haze gets more miles under the legs and Johnson/Harris have moved on that may change, but for now, it's a straight choice between those two - especially when the next choice batsman is Shaun Marsh.

 

[Red]

Estraya's current bowling lineup is good and when harris returns it's very good but warne and mcgrath were a diffrent story.plus what sparkeh said.when mj bowls in such short bursts you need a 5th bowler not necessarily to take wickets but to make up overs while bowling with discipline.

You don't have to have Warne and McGrath to only play 4 bowlers (plus someone handy like Smith).

 

[Red]

Then pick MMarsh. An all-rounder is critical for the balance of the attack. When Haze gets more miles under the legs and Johnson/Harris have moved on that may change, but for now, it's a straight choice between those two - especially when the next choice batsman is Shaun Marsh.

Look, I probably would. Actually think MMarsh could be a 40+ averaging batsman in test cricket, no probs. But for now, I'd prefer a couple of seasoned batsmen in the side. One important factor is that we don't want to dump heaps of pressure on Smith and Warner.

Really feel that we just have to back Harris 100% and let him bowl, and if his body fails in a test, it fails. And I do feel that Johnson is a different bowler to the one that needed Watson to displace Hughes as an opener because he was bowling so hot and cold.

 

[Spark]

It's not about Johnson bowling hot and cold. It's about the fact that he's most effective in short spells.

There's just far too little room for error with 4 bowlers. We'd be running into the same troubles as England have been running into over the last two years.

 

[Prince EWS]

You don't have to have Warne and McGrath to only play 4 bowlers (plus someone handy like Smith).

It's more about the style of bowlers they are than the quality of bowlers they are. You could have four worse bowlers than the current lot and not need an allrounder just because they were all comfortable with long spells.

Harris breaks easily, Johnson is much more effective in short bursts, Haze is new and even Lyon tends to get a bit more darty and predictable when he bowls really long spells. The attack functions much better when someone in the top seven can bowl a generally accurate and theoretically (even if not actually) threatening spell or two of seam-up stuff a day.

I hate this selection deontology going around that asserts you must pick a team to exact, defined balance rules because people are ideologically predisposed to a certain balance. Selection is not easy enough for the perfect balance to the be same with every set of players; it depends entirely on the cattle you've got as to which balance is going to give the best chance of winning. If Australia's best allrounder option was Gulbis then they'd be right in forgetting about it, but with the attack the way it is and the fact that Watson, Mitch Marsh and even Faulkner and Henriques are good cricketers, it does make sense to pick one of them, at least until that bowling attack changes... particularly when it's only Shaun Marsh they're keeping out of the side anyway.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Since 2005 Australia has wanted an allrounder in its test team for the most part. For the most part it's been Watson, and a bit of Symonds, and a little bit of Marsh.

Australia don't need an allrounder. We have an enviable fast bowling cartel, and we can rely on a combination of any 3 of Harris, Johnson, Hazelwood and Starc, plus Lyon to do the job, most of the time.

if anything is slightly shaky it's our batting, and Voges is showing in this test what a difference experienced, in form batsmen make to a test. Without Rogers injury Voges mightn't have played, which would've been a shame. Drop Watson and put Marsh on hold for 12 months (for tests). Play six bats, 4 bowlers and a keeper until Marsh demands selection as a top six bat.

Rogers
Warner
Smith
Clarke
S.Marsh
Voges
Haddin
Bowlers

Is a far better combo for England IMO.

I think that the only time an all rounder was wanted was so as to play both Warne and Macgill and have a third seamer allrounder. Australia tried that with Watson in his first two tests and repeatedly with Symonds in the early part of his career, and they were both probably knocking the door down with runs.

I don't think Australia cared for an all rounder bar the Warne and MacGill headache and the team was balanced quite nicely with 6 specialist bats and Gilly at 7.

I think the reason you have seen all rounders since is because they have been deemed to be in the 6 best bats available with Watson and Symonds. Australia's batting stocks at the moment are weak. Warner, Clarke and Smith are head and shoulders above the rest of the team.

Mitchell Marsh is a liability - I do not rate him at all as a player. Watto is frustrating for Australian fans.

The allrounder thing should only be relevant to playing two spinners- got a Warne and MacGill playing for Australia at the moment?

I have to admit, when I see one spinner in that Australian team and Mitchell Marsh - I chuckle.

 

[Spark]

MMarsh will be good enough to bat top 6 in his own right in a few years.

 

[Justo]

Personally I prefer a 6 bats, 4 bowler line up unless a side has an all rounder that's able to fill one role or the other on their own. In this case given that the alternative is Shaun Marsh I'd rather stick with Watson or M Marsh at 6 to have the extra bowling cover.

That said on spin friendly pitches with Voges, Smith and even Clarke able to get through tidy or threatening overs I could be tempted to run a 6/4 line up. Given our batting woes on spinning pitches it might even strengthen the side.

 

[Riggins]

It's more about the style of bowlers they are than the quality of bowlers they are. You could have four worse bowlers than the current lot and not need an allrounder just because they were all comfortable with long spells.

Harris breaks easily, Johnson is much more effective in short bursts, Haze is new and even Lyon tends to get a bit more darty and predictable when he bowls really long spells. The attack functions much better when someone in the top seven can bowl a generally accurate and theoretically (even if not actually) threatening spell or two of seam-up stuff a day.

I hate this selection deontology going around that asserts you must pick a team to exact, defined balance rules because people are ideologically predisposed to a certain balance. Selection is not easy enough for the perfect balance to the be same with every set of players; it depends entirely on the cattle you've got as to which balance is going to give the best chance of winning. If Australia's best allrounder option was Gulbis then they'd be right in forgetting about it, but with the attack the way it is and the fact that Watson, Mitch Marsh and even Faulkner and Henriques are good cricketers, it does make sense to pick one of them, at least until that bowling attack changes... particularly when it's only Shaun Marsh they're keeping out of the side anyway.

love u man

 

[Pratters]

#bringbacktugga

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

It's more about the style of bowlers they are than the quality of bowlers they are. You could have four worse bowlers than the current lot and not need an allrounder just because they were all comfortable with long spells.

Harris breaks easily, Johnson is much more effective in short bursts, Haze is new and even Lyon tends to get a bit more darty and predictable when he bowls really long spells. The attack functions much better when someone in the top seven can bowl a generally accurate and theoretically (even if not actually) threatening spell or two of seam-up stuff a day.

I hate this selection deontology going around that asserts you must pick a team to exact, defined balance rules because people are ideologically predisposed to a certain balance. Selection is not easy enough for the perfect balance to the be same with every set of players; it depends entirely on the cattle you've got as to which balance is going to give the best chance of winning. If Australia's best allrounder option was Gulbis then they'd be right in forgetting about it, but with the attack the way it is and the fact that Watson, Mitch Marsh and even Faulkner and Henriques are good cricketers, it does make sense to pick one of them, at least until that bowling attack changes... particularly when it's only Shaun Marsh they're keeping out of the side anyway.

If they are good enough to be one of the four front line bowlers or 6 best batsmen then select them. But otherwise, you are weakening the quality of bowling at the crease because 4 bowlers can bowl 22 overs each in a day, especially when one is a spinner, and at the same time you are indisputably weakening the batting line up.

I am a massive Faulkner fan. I would like to see him in the whites for Australia. But he needs to improve his bowling or his batting to not disrupt the team balance. 6 best bats and 4 best bowlers and a wicket keeper is the most balanced side to win,

I agree Mitch Johnson is a problem as he gets older and tries to bowl the way that is most effective for him. It will be a challenge and he wont have long left. But then again - you have James Pattinson waiting for that role.

Food for thought, the 1980's was the decade of the great allrounders. The greatest team of the era, indisputably did not have one. Young Botham, Dev, Hadlee and Kahn were defiinitely in the four top bowlers in the country - and they batted 7 or 8 in an era that predated wicket keepers being quality batsmen who assumed the #7 slot almost automatically. Botham batted as high as 6 but with specialist batsmen like Gatting or Randall to bat after him.

You cannot manufacture a bits and pieces cricketer for test cricket and expect success the way you can in limited overs cricket. They're different games with different rules. There is no compulsory need for a fifth bowler in test cricket not to mention there is far differing degrees of focus on economy rates.

This whole "batting allrounder" is a deviation caused by Sobers and Kallis where people who try to replicate it do not appreciate that they were probably the teams best or better batsmen who had the bonus of being able to bowl well. They're freaks and not the norm. You cannot make a "freak". And the great WI (1980's) and Aus (2000's) teams show that they are not needed for a great team.

 

[Spark]

We can't have 4 bowlers bowling 22 overs a day though. That's the thing. That would weaken the quality of the bowling, massively so.

Again: look at England, and look at how much better balanced their attack looks with Stokes around. Take Stokes out of the picture and I'd be having red flags all over their attack.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Close the thread, Cribb ended it.

 

[Pratters]

Once PEWS has brought out the answer using his cricket software, there is not much to talk on it any more, yeah.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

We can't have 4 bowlers bowling 22 overs a day though. That's the thing. That would weaken the quality of the bowling, massively so.

Again: look at England, and look at how much better balanced their attack looks with Stokes around. Take Stokes out of the picture and I'd be having red flags all over their attack.

Oh gawd - one "Bothamesque" test at Lords and he becomes the rule does he? He is the fourth seamer and they have Ali at 8 to accomodate this in the batting department. Lets see if Stokes and three other seamers last the ashes. He has already been dropped once. and for the record, he has a bowling average presently of 43 (and a batting average of 35 - not good keys for success for an all rounder). NZ smashed him out the attack in the second innings at Headingly.

If Australia get on top early in the Ashes he will need to become third seamer, score more runs or he will be replaced for a better batsman either through his own form or because Ali will get dropped as a spin bowler which will weaken the batting line up.

Stokes average 68.5 with the ball in the NZ series and you want to say he improved the attack? That is a tough sell sir.

England are effectively playing two "allrounders" to cancel each other out.

*For the record, Ali's bowling average is also higher than his batting average.

 

[Prince EWS]

If they are good enough to be one of the four front line bowlers or 6 best batsmen then select them. But otherwise, you are weakening the quality of bowling at the crease because 4 bowlers can bowl 22 overs each in a day, especially when one is a spinner, and at the same time you are indisputably weakening the batting line up.

I am a massive Faulkner fan. I would like to see him in the whites for Australia. But he needs to improve his bowling or his batting to not disrupt the team balance. 6 best bats and 4 best bowlers and a wicket keeper is the most balanced side to win,

I agree Mitch Johnson is a problem as he gets older and tries to bowl the way that is most effective for him. It will be a challenge and he wont have long left. But then again - you have James Pattinson waiting for that role.

Food for thought, the 1980's was the decade of the great allrounders. The greatest team of the era, indisputably did not have one. Young Botham, Dev, Hadlee and Kahn were defiinitely in the four top bowlers in the country - and they batted 7 or 8 in an era that predated wicket keepers being quality batsmen who assumed the #7 slot almost automatically.

You cannot manufacture a bits and pieces cricketer for test cricket and expect success the way you can in limited overs cricket.

Yeah this is the sort of rigid selection deontology I was talking about when I made the post. It's nuts. I actually had you in mind when I made it.

For starters, bowlers are not robots. 18 Johnson overs, 18 Harris overs and 8 Watson overs would work better in this side than 22 Johnson overs and 22 Harris overs, despite the fact that Watson isn't as good a bowler as Johnson or Harris. This is true even when the conditions don't particularly suit Watson. It's not only just true that less tired bowlers bowl better, but also that fresh bowlers bowl better when they're not worried about getting tired. Moreover, Watson plays a completely different role; there are some circumstances where I'm sure Clarke would legitimately prefer Watson on to Johnson regardless of trying to manage Johnson.

But I'm not even trying to make a case for always picking an allrounder, or even necessarily for picking one here. I do believe Australia should pick one here, but I might be wrong. What I'm not wrong about is the fact that your position descends into complete absurdities if taken seriously. I mean, lets take what you straight up said in the first sentence of your post and 'test' it.

If they are good enough to be one of the four front line bowlers or 6 best batsmen then select them. But otherwise (don't)

What if we really do take this seriously as an objective rule that can solve the problems faced by selectors and decades, and just apply it without thinking to every situation? Lets take a hypothetical player who is the seventh best batsman and the eighth best bowler in the country. He's almost as good as the sixth best batsman -- in fact he's eerily similar to the point where on average he'd only score one less run every 47 innings. From what you've said, you just wouldn't pick this guy. Not good enough to play as one of the bowlers; not one of the best six batsmen. Everyone else in the selection room would be picking him but you'd be stamping your feet, holding up the CaptainGrumpy Selection Bible that clearly states thou shalt not select players who aren't among the best six batsmen or best four bowlers unless as wicket keeper, and warning of coming apocalypse from the angry cricket gods.

From that I can only conclude that your goal is not to win or save as many Tests as possible. Your goal must be something else.. appeasing the cricketing gods, honouring an arrangement you made, creating some sort of employment pseduo-meritocracy where combined skill was considered cheating, adhering to the wishes of constituents from the cult you're apart of, or something else I can't even fathom. Anyone who was actually interested in winning would realise that your one-size-fits-all rule isn't actually conducive to it, because cricket wasn't designed in such a way where team balance was rigid.

Or maybe.. just maybe, you would pick that player. But then you'd be admitting that team balance was not rigid at all, and in fact a trade-off that you usually just took one side on, therefore requiring you to actually have to justify your position on a case by case basis... and that's not nearly as fun as making sweeping general statements that descend into absurdity when applied.