Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[TheJediBrah]

Maxwell's bowling is pretty useless except to make up some quick overs in ODIs and shows little sign of being able to improve either IMO

 

[Red]

Maxwell's bowling is pretty useless except to make up some quick overs in ODIs and shows little sign of being able to improve either IMO

Disagree that it's useless I think it's pretty handy and I don't see why it couldn't get better

 

[Debris]

The whole point of an all-rounder is that they should be either in the best 6 batsmen or best 4 bowlers in the country. Really most batsmen can roll their arm over fairly competently and most bowlers can score a few runs so most test cricketers are all-rounders to some extent. Players should not be considered an all-rounder unless they are in the best 6 batsmen and best 4 bowlers for their country. Countries run into trouble when they pick players who are neither.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

The whole point of an all-rounder is that they should be either in the best 6 batsmen or best 4 bowlers in the country. Really most batsmen can roll their arm over fairly competently and most bowlers can score a few runs so most test cricketers are all-rounders to some extent. Players should not be considered an all-rounder unless they are in the best 6 batsmen and best 4 bowlers for their country. Countries run into trouble when they pick players who are neither.

Wow. Someone else gets it. Well said Debris - we are in the minority of majority opinion, though. But then so was Galileo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Disagree that it's useless I think it's pretty handy and I don't see why it couldn't get better

From what I can see his bowling action is ordinary and unlikely to facilitate him being able to turn the ball much or allow for any variations. At best he might be able to improve on his accuracy and pace variations but he'll never be more useful than a Darren Lehmann-type bowler. Even Michael Clarke's bowling was more dangerous than Maxwell's will ever be IMO.

 

[cnerd123]

Players should not be considered an all-rounder unless they are in the best 6 batsmen and best 4 bowlers for their country. Countries run into trouble when they pick players who are neither.

Sigh.

Assuming you count Watson, Mathews, Dilshan and Duminy as amongst the best 6 batsmen in their countries, you still have:
Stokes, Ali, MMarsh, CAnderson, Neesham, Hafeez.

You could also include guys like Craig if you consider being the best spinner in the country not the same as being amongst best bowlers in the country.

Plenty of sides doing just fine by picking a 6th batsman who can bowl over a marginally better 6th batting option. Having a competent 5th bowling option means you can get more out of your best 4 bowlers, who can bowl fewer overs in a day with higher intensity. You could have your part-timers trundle in, but that's just giving out free runs - all the names I've mentioned up there are better bowlers than the Clarke/ABDV/Williamson/Kohli/Raina variety. They'll be more economical and occasionally even bowl wicket-taking spells.

I don't understand how hard this concept is so hard to grasp.

 

[Dan]

Maxwell actually has pretty decent action mechanics for a part-timer, IMO. I'm sure vic or BFP can shed a bit more light on him from that standpoint, but he strikes me as a guy who gets good body shape through the crease (mainly from around the wicket), and drives through with his back leg quite strongly.

He's raw and never going to be a world-beater, but the fundamentals are enough for him to be a viable 5th bowling option in ODIs.

 

[cnerd123]

From what I can see his bowling action is ordinary and unlikely to facilitate him being able to turn the ball much or allow for any variations. At best he might be able to improve on his accuracy and pace variations but he'll never be more useful than a Darren Lehmann-type bowler. Even Michael Clarke's bowling was more dangerous than Maxwell's will ever be IMO.

I think his action is alright, he can definitely get more turn. He needs to get a bit more side on and pivot more. But he has a good grip, approaches the crease well, has good height.

Clarke's probably a much better bowler, agree, but Maxwell can be useful.

 

[Dan]

Clarke would be a genuinely good left arm spinner if he had a functioning back, tbf. Very nice action.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea Clarke's quality. Definitely could have been a Test-standard spinner. It's a shame that we never got to see guys like him, Sehwag or Graeme Smith bowl more. All highly underrated spinners.

 

[watson]

There is always room for a part-time bowler partnership breaker in any Test side;

Sachin Tendulkar dismissed by;
Allan Donald 5 times
Hansie Cronje 5 times

Don Bradman dismissed by;
Bill Voce 2 times
Wally Hammond 3 times

Viv Richards dismissed by;
Wasim Akram 4 times
Ravi Shastri 4 times

Greg Chappell dismissed by;
Joel Garner 2 times
Bevan Congdon 3 times

Neil Harvey dismissed by;
Wes Hall 3 times
Frank Worrell 5 times

 

[Dan]

Also, under Grumpy's deontological selection formula, Keith Miller would never have played Test cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yea Clarke's quality. Definitely could have been a Test-standard spinner. It's a shame that we never got to see guys like him, Sehwag or Graeme Smith bowl more. All highly underrated spinners.

really?

Wow. Someone else gets it. Well said Debris - we are in the minority of majority opinion, though.

Probably because what you're saying is just plainly and obviously wrong

 

[Shady Slim]

watto's stingier than a poor man with a mortgage still to pay, he is an asset to the team even if his batting form is slumping

 

[Valer]

You're making my point for me. I like the way you think.

Excellent so you admit there is use for a 5th bowler??

Okay. For Mitch Marsh to save more runs for the team over say Smith bowling he only needs to send down 9 overs / innings...

(The only things taken into account here are batting average and ER)

Realistically your 6th batsman is only likely to average say 43. Marsh would only need to send down 4 overs instead of Smith to cover that.

Even in the case that Harris / Johnson / Haze / Lyon all send down 20 you still need 10 more.

 

[honestbharani]

There is a problem when you start thinking that you can just get pick 4 bowlers with the best bowling averages and strike rates and put them together and think they are gonna bowl out every side... IT isn ever the case simply because averages and strike rates can give you the numbers but never the "how" behind those numbers.. For instance, I think Kallis benefitted immensely by being the bowler batsmen tried to get after because they had had to see off Donald and Pollock and co. If you stick him in the Indian side, I just do not see him having the numbers he did. Similarly Anil Kumble was brilliant at mopping up the tail but if he had played for, say, South Africa, his record would have been a lot worse because they usually Donald to do that job. There is such a huge percentage of subjectiveness to cricket that somehow escapes so many of us who just want to view numbers and draw conclusions.. Come to think of it, it is just as bad in the corporate sector too..

 

[Antihippy]

Worked well for the windies for awhile.

 

[Debris]

Sigh.

Assuming you count Watson, Mathews, Dilshan and Duminy as amongst the best 6 batsmen in their countries, you still have:
Stokes, Ali, MMarsh, CAnderson, Neesham, Hafeez.

You could also include guys like Craig if you consider being the best spinner in the country not the same as being amongst best bowlers in the country.

Plenty of sides doing just fine by picking a 6th batsman who can bowl over a marginally better 6th batting option. Having a competent 5th bowling option means you can get more out of your best 4 bowlers, who can bowl fewer overs in a day with higher intensity. You could have your part-timers trundle in, but that's just giving out free runs - all the names I've mentioned up there are better bowlers than the Clarke/ABDV/Williamson/Kohli/Raina variety. They'll be more economical and occasionally even bowl wicket-taking spells.

I don't understand how hard this concept is so hard to grasp.

The key word there is marginally. Would you pick an all-rounder over a batsman who is significantly better but can't bowl at all?

 

[Shady Slim]

The key word there is marginally. Would you pick an all-rounder over a batsman who is significantly better but can't bowl at all?

it depends on the current team team balance

ali's great for england because he is a batsman and a spinner - two things that england need but they have limited spots to accomodate them

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Worked well for the windies for awhile.

If you've got four ATG express pace bowlers in your side everything tends to be simpler.