-
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.
Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/272450.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings
I found this interesting. Especially Watson's bowling performance over the last 3.5 years.
Bowling average of 50. I am not sure he qualifies as a "batting allrounder" - just a batsman really. And Mitchell Marsh at 164 - well less said the better.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/272450.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings
I found this interesting. Especially Watson's bowling performance over the last 3.5 years.
Bowling average of 50. I am not sure he qualifies as a "batting allrounder" - just a batsman really. And Mitchell Marsh at 164 - well less said the better.
Last edited:
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
ER is pretty good. But yeah he's lost a bit of his spark since injury and has played more of a containing role. Which works as I've often seen a Watson spell lead to a key batsman falling.
Before 2012 he was a world-class all-rounder. Since then he's been lucky to hold onto his spot for so long IMHO.
cnerd123
likes this
If you're looking to Watson and MMarsh to take wickets then you have bigger issues than whether or not to play allrounders IMO.
First 4 bowlers should be getting wickets, the 5th is there to just ensure they can have a break. If they're maintaining a tight economy and occasionally bowl a threatening spell, it enough.
Watson's been doing that brilliantly of late.
First 4 bowlers should be getting wickets, the 5th is there to just ensure they can have a break. If they're maintaining a tight economy and occasionally bowl a threatening spell, it enough.
Watson's been doing that brilliantly of late.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Haha. So let me get this right - "Batting allrounders" are to just give the opposition some free runs to get through the day's overs and weaken the batting line up so as to do it?
Sounds like a great strategy for victory.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Although your reasoning here is a little off the mark given how Johnson bowls short spells and how fragile Harris can be, for different circumstances, fifth bowling duties could have been taken over by a combination of Clarke, Smith, and Voges.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
You're making my point for me. I like the way you think.
Flem274*
123/5
Pretty sure he praised a kiwi Blocky has it in for, but he's certainly what I shall dub a Blockyite.
Anyway...
Pretty obvious why every team has or is looking for a test quality allrounder. Even in times where teams have had more batting depth than they do now (I can't think of anyone with test standard reserve batsmen right now anyway) they were looking for them. Why? Test class batsman and test class bowler in one package, or at least even better than test class in one and good enough to bat down the order or be the fifth bowler.
Everyone wants test class allrounders, a batsman who can bowl and a bowler who can seriously bat because they give you an edge.
Australia, NZ and England (just from the top of my head to name some teams) don't have a reserve batsman good enough to make dropping the allrounder worth it anyway. Why pick Shaun Marsh, Joe Burns or whoever when you can pick Mitch Marsh or Twatto? Why pick Hamish Rutherford or Dean Brownlie when you can pick Anderson or Neesham?
Anyway...
Pretty obvious why every team has or is looking for a test quality allrounder. Even in times where teams have had more batting depth than they do now (I can't think of anyone with test standard reserve batsmen right now anyway) they were looking for them. Why? Test class batsman and test class bowler in one package, or at least even better than test class in one and good enough to bat down the order or be the fifth bowler.
Everyone wants test class allrounders, a batsman who can bowl and a bowler who can seriously bat because they give you an edge.
Australia, NZ and England (just from the top of my head to name some teams) don't have a reserve batsman good enough to make dropping the allrounder worth it anyway. Why pick Shaun Marsh, Joe Burns or whoever when you can pick Mitch Marsh or Twatto? Why pick Hamish Rutherford or Dean Brownlie when you can pick Anderson or Neesham?
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Criminally underrating the value of Watson's bowling here. There are no free runs when he's sending them down mate...........he's one of the stingiest bowlers getting around. He might not be the one grabbing the wickets but he certainly drys up the runs from his end which creates opportunities for the likes of Johnson and Harris at the other.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Lets be logical Daemon and be clear.
Mitchell Johnson:
You asked does he bowl better in shorter spells. He could potentially bowl 30 '1 over spells' throughout the day. Do you mean shorter spells or less overs in a day? Shorter spells does not entail that you need an extra bowler. He could bowl 4 or 5 '5 over spells'. If you mean less overs then it might mean that you need an extra bowler at the crease. So do you mean does Johnson bowl better when he bowls less overs in a day? If you do, how many overs do you expect Mitch to bowl on day 1 of a test if the innings is not concluded? Out of the 90 overs in a days play and assuming all 90 overs are bowled - what is your ideal for Mitch Johnson to bowl?
Ryan Harris Injury:
Read the previous pages. It has been discussed from the negative mind set of selecting a team on the basis that someone might get injured, through to not selecting a player who is likely to be injured in a test. The 'majority poster' said that the 'batting allrounder' was not about injuries. You're raising a dead duck issue.
Last edited:
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Criminally underrating the value of scoring runs at 50 runs per wicket but isn't Watson in the top 6 test batsmen available regardless?
Last edited:
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Johnson:
I think you knew what I meant. Out of interest, could you answer your own question? I haven't made up my mind on whether there's an actual ideal for him.
Harris:
I'm not advocating an allrounder be selected as a cover in case of a Ryan Harris injury, my point was an allrounder is useful because Harris cannot bowl too many overs in a day without the chances of his injuries resurfacing increasing. You could argue that Smith, Clarke and other bit part timers be used but then that's gifting free runs which I note you're not particularly fond of.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
I am not a mind reader nor profess to be one. Hence why I asked you to be logical and clear.
Well at least Smith and Clarke are not costing you runs when you bat unlike a "batting allrounder" does and will probably be bowled far more discerningly by a captain than a "batting allrounder" would be.
But if you're suggesting that both Johnson and Rhino need to bowl fewer overs than a young buck to be effective, then you must look at their personal performances with a grain of salt when analysing their effectiveness for the team. Are they really better options than say Starc or Pattinson when they need a "batting allrounder" in the side to get through their work load which costs you runs at the crease when you bat, and gifts away runs when you bowl?
But the Ryan Harris that I am a fan of appears to be a lion hearted bowler who pulls his weight, bowls immaculately and wouldn't play if he thought he was to be injured. So it appears redundant to me that "he cannot bowl too many overs in a day without the chances of his injuries resurfacing increasing". He missed out on the World Cup and West Indies so as to be fit for the Ashes. He and the ACB are managing his workload quite well and selectively. But if it gets to the point where he cannot bowl his share of the overs and pull his weight, with Australian depth in seam bowling, I think his retirement or non-selection would be imminent.
If you cannot get through 20 overs each minimum from your opening bowlers on the first day of the test - why would you bother to select them?
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
The ideal batting allrounder for Australia should be a spinner IMO. Someone like a younger and 100% fit Michael Clarke maybe
I haven't seen too much of Steve Smith's bowling. Can he play the role?
Johnson-Harris-Haze-Lyon-another spinner : This attack will be good on most pitches.
I haven't seen too much of Steve Smith's bowling. Can he play the role?
Johnson-Harris-Haze-Lyon-another spinner : This attack will be good on most pitches.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe because they can take twice as many wickets in 12-15 overs than the next best guy could take in 20
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Johnson SR 50.6 (between 8 and 9 overs)
Harris SR 50.7 (between 8 and 9 overs)
Pattinson SR 50.0 (between 8 and 9 overs)
Starc 59.5 (between 9 and 10 overs)
Bird SR 48.6 (Between 8 and 9 overs)
Bollinger SR 48.0 (overs)
Cummins 37 (from 1 test) (Between 6 and 7 overs)
Siddle SR 61 (Between 10 and 11 overs)
Yeah, nah.
Out of interest...
Bond SR 38.7
Younis SR 43.4
Donald SR 47.0
Marshall 46.7 SR 46.7
Steyn SR 41.6
Philander SR 47.2
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
No. Pretending they are the same batsman...
I'd rather have Watson's bowling in most countries, except the subcontinent, as the fifth bowler than Maxwell.