Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[CaptainGrumpy]

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 completely absurdities if taken seriously. I mean, lets take what you straight up said in the first sentence of your post and 'test' it.


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 extra 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.

Strawman.

 

[Spark]

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.

Johnson straight-up said as much before the Sydney Test this year.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Johnson straight-up said as much before the Sydney Test this year.

Interestingly a match that he missed with a younger whipper schnapper taking his place. See above.

Furthermore, with the depth of Australian seamers at the moment, you can rotate the third seamer if they get tired throughout a series. Most people in the world could not fathom how James Pattinson is not in the 3 best Australian bowlers. He is that good. But Hazlewood, Rhino, Johnson and Starc would argue otherwise.

Even better way to make use of your depth.

 

[cnerd123]

PEWS should do angry rants more. They are fantastic.

Best Four Bowlers != Best Bowling Attack

The attack is stronger with a fifth bowler in it. The lack of a fifth bowler is what hurts India so much, because Shami/Yadav aren't built to bowl 22 overs a day. You give them 15-17 overs a day and long breaks in between and they do a lot better.

England is another good example. Having a fourth seamer to bowl a few overs means the frontline three all bowl just that bit better.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

PEWS should do angry rants more. They are fantastic.

Best Four Bowlers != Best Bowling Attack

The attack is stronger with a fifth bowler in it. The lack of a fifth bowler is what hurts India so much, because Shami/Yadav aren't built to bowl 22 overs a day. You give them 15-17 overs a day and long breaks in between and they do a lot better.

England is another good example. Having a fourth seamer to bowl a few overs means the frontline three all bowl just that bit better.

If a seam bowler can only bowl 15 overs a day - they are a liability and not one of the best 4 bowlers.

New Zealand wouldn't select Hadlee unless he could bowl 20 overs in a day at a minimum.

 

[cnerd123]

If a seam bowler can only bowl 15 overs a day - they are a liability and not one of the best 4 bowlers.

New Zealand wouldn't select Hadlee unless he could bowl 20 overs in a day at a minimum.

I bet my NZ side with 15 Hadlee overs and 5 Reid overs would beat yours with 20 Chatfield overs.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Chats would give me 15 maidens and you'd be 0/5. The draw is looking good if your batsmen cannot score quickly enough to force a result. Besides - Reid was in the 6 best batsmen of his era easily.

 

[Prince EWS]

Besides - Reid was in the 6 best batsmen of his era easily.

Which would make it even sillier to leave Hadlee out if he could only bowl 19 overs...

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

New Zealand wouldn't select Hadlee unless he could bowl 20 overs in a day at a minimum.

You can't genuinely believe that haha.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Which would make it even sillier to leave Hadlee out if he could only bowl 19 overs...

When Hadlee was comming back from injury he was always told he would not be selected unless he could get through 20 overs. Not 19. Not 18. Twenty. The line in the sand was drawn there. Ideally 24/25 overs from him was wanted in a day.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

You can't genuinely believe that haha.

Yes. I do. Its the reported truth. No good having a guy who can only bowl 16 overs a day, even if they take 1 or more likely two wickets for 45 in the day.

You guys do realise that Hadlee shortened his run up to extend his career and the amount of balls he could bowl in a day roughly a decade before his retirement? Don't you? The public at first were not impressed. But it more than paid off.

The man was a consummate professional who more than understood his role in a team. Just didn't want to share his prizes.

 

[Spark]

Interestingly a match that he missed with a younger whipper schnapper taking his place. See above.

Furthermore, with the depth of Australian seamers at the moment, you can rotate the third seamer if they get tired throughout a series. Most people in the world could not fathom how James Pattinson is not in the 3 best Australian bowlers. He is that good. But Hazlewood, Rhino, Johnson and Starc would argue otherwise.

Even better way to make use of your depth.

yeah okay you're comprehensively failing to get the point here but oh well

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

yeah okay you're comprehensively failing to get the point here but oh well

That is the point. You don't have one.

Unless you're risking two spinners and think a third seamer batting all rounder is needed to lessen the risk, you should play the 6 best batsmen, wicket keeper and 4 best bowlers (who can bowl 20 overs a day minimum).

It gives you the best chance of performing well. You bat deep and have ensure quality bowling at the wicket.

 

[Spark]

That is the point. You don't have one.

yeah there's only a half dozen posts in this thread making literally the same point again and again

 

[Spikey]

As for actual ending it, it's not gonna happen anytime soon. Lehmann is on record saying that unless he's got a high quality spinner, he wants an all-rounder in there. You look to the states and almost every team has got a keeper at 6 and 5 bowling options. England have started doing the same thing. It's the direction things are going

 

[Spark]

Inverarity pushed that really hard during his time IIRC

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

yeah there's only a half dozen posts in this thread making literally the same point again and again

Then give me the gist. Batting allrounders should play because modern day seam bowlers are soft and can only bowl 15 overs a day? So you need 30 overs a day of pies? A weaker batsmen is better than a better batsmen?

 

[cnerd123]

Lets do some math

Lets assign each over a 'quality' value from 0-100

Say Mitch is told he has to only bowl 15 overs a day, with Watson filling in 5 for his 'quota'. Knowing this, he runs in and gives you a quality of 100 spread over 15 overs. Watson delivers a quality of 70 over his 5. That gives us an average of 92.5 per over.

Now lets say Mitch is told he has to give us the full 20. So he cuts back and gives us 85 over those 20 overs, because his body and mind can't handle delivering 100 over such a long period. Heck lets say he's having a good day and gives us 90 over 20 overs. That's still less average quality that we would have gotten had we used him for fewer overs and let Watto fill in.

Lets add onto this argument by saying that Watson is only inferior to the 6th best batsman by 5 runs per innings.

So you sacrifice 10 runs per match for a 2.5% improvement in the bowling attack.

See how this trade-off makes sense?

 

[Spark]

Then give me the gist. Batting allrounders should play because modern day seam bowlers are soft and can only bowl 15 overs a day? So you need 30 overs a day of pies? A weaker batsmen is better than a better batsmen?

Batting allrounders should play in this Australian side, because it allows Clarke to use all his bowlers in their most effective ways and in the ways he naturally likes to use bowlers anyway: short, sharp bursts where they bowl at their maximum effectiveness, rather than trying to fill a quota. This is particularly true for Mitchell Johnson who we have actually seen has to consciously limit his bowling to less than his best (which is natural, his absolute best is completely unsustainable over long, 5-6 over spells) when he knows that he won't be used in 3,4-over bursts. Of course this weakens the batting slightly, but this is more than compensated by the attack as a whole being significantly more effective when all the bowlers have more freedom, with the 5th bowler - be it Watson or MMarsh - holding up an end and building pressure. Perhaps the weakened batting would be a serious problem if the batsman being kept out were AB de Villiers, but it isn't.

In the end I, nor Michael Clarke, really cares who or how you get 20 wickets, so long as they come as quickly as possible.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Lets do some math

Lets assign each over a 'quality' value from 0-100

Say Mitch is told he has to only bowl 15 overs a day, with Watson filling in 5 for his 'quota'. Knowing this, he runs in and gives you a quality of 100 spread over 15 overs. Watson delivers a quality of 70 over his 5. That gives us an average of 92.5 per over.

Now lets say Mitch is told he has to give us the full 20. So he cuts back and gives us 85 over those 20 overs, because his body and mind can't handle delivering 100 over such a long period. Heck lets say he's having a good day and gives us 90 over 20 overs. That's still less average quality that we would have gotten had we used him for fewer overs and let Watto fill in.

Lets add onto this argument by saying that Watson is only inferior to the 6th best batsman by 5 runs per innings.

So you sacrifice 10 runs per match for a 2.5% improvement in the bowling attack.

See how this trade-off makes sense?

No. Mitchell Johnson if he needs to be carried by an allrounder to bowl his alloted overs can be replaced far more effectively by James Pattinson or Mitchell Starc than weakening the batting and having 10-15 overs of pies a day served up by a "batting allrounder" like Mitch Marsh. Watson is probably regarded by the selectors in the 6 best batsmen of Australia right now given his selection at 3 and opener in recent times and if he remains so, can "carry" some of the Johnson load as Watson is quite a good bowler.

If Watson is not in the best 6 batsmen - he should be dropped. Then you need to look at the Johnson situation. Is he fit enough to give you 20 good overs a day? If not, the selectors must then consider Pattinson, Starc, or maybe even Cummins.