Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[wellAlbidarned]

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?

This hypothetical scenario rarely happens IRL though. The only team to have six batsmen who are a genuine class above their all rounders is India. With every other team we're talking about selecting a mediocre unproven sixth batsman or a mediocre sixth batsman who can bowl fairly well.

 

[Debris]

This hypothetical scenario rarely happens IRL though. The only team to have six batsmen who are a genuine class above their all rounders is India. With every other team we're talking about selecting a mediocre unproven sixth batsman or a mediocre sixth batsman who can bowl fairly well.

So what you are telling me if that if two players have equivalent batting talent, you pick the one who can bowl?

 

[morgieb]

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's pretty rare that if you have 6 gun bats none of them can bowl. And even rarer that you don't have any decent all-rounders.

 

[Dan]

So what you are telling me if that if two players have equivalent batting talent, you pick the one who can bowl?

Yep. That's what people have been arguing this whole time (with 'equivalence' having a reasonable margin of error since stats, y'know, aren't 100% accurate representations of ability).

 

[Dan]

It's pretty rare that if you have 6 gun bats none of them can bowl. And even rarer that you don't have any decent all-rounders.

Yeah, if you're tossing up between a guy averaging 35 with the bat and a decent fifth bowler, or a guy averaging 50+ with the bat who can't bowl, odds are you pick the latter and make up the handful of overs per day out of your Michael Clarke, Ricky Ponting and Steven Smith-type guys. The net benefits to the side are greater.

35 with the bat and a decent fifth bowler up against a guy averaging 37 who can't bowl, the net benefit is greater by selecting the former.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

So what you are telling me if that if two players have equivalent batting talent, you pick the one who can bowl?

I'm saying that the hypothetical situation of a gun sixth batting option against a mediocre all-rounder isn't the situation for most teams. Usually the sixth batting option is ****, so teams go with with the guy who is **** but can bowl a bit.

 

[Debris]

Yep. That's what people have been arguing this whole time (with 'equivalence' having a reasonable margin of error since stats, y'know, aren't 100% accurate representations of ability).

I don't know what the argument actually is then. If two players are about the same with the bat, of course you pick the one who can bowl. I thought the argument was you pick a batsmen averaging 35 and bowling over a batsman who averages 45. That is always a mistake in my opinion.

 

[Valer]

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?

If the worst batsman on the Australian team was Warner I'd drop him for Watson Or MMarsh. Australia have been using ~16 overs/ innings from part timers / all rounders over the past 12 months. Everyone else has been far to expensive to hold up an end.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Its not that Watson or MMarsh get wickets... More that the don't cost you 5rpo to give your main bowlers some rest.

Feel free to suggest an Australian attack that doesn't need those 16 overs rest and is still as effective. Remember you are costing yourself 1.5-2 runs every over you need a part timer.

 

[honestbharani]

Worked well for the windies for awhile.

Maybe.. but I am not sure if you will get 4 ATG fast bowlers in every generation for every side... And did they even have the best FC records when they were picked, for starters? Even there, the picks may have been subjective depending on whom the selectors thought of as having long term potential.

 

[Dan]

I don't know what the argument actually is then. If two players are about the same with the bat, of course you pick the one who can bowl. I thought the argument was you pick a batsmen averaging 35 and bowling over a batsman who averages 45. That is always a mistake in my opinion.

Ben Stokes averages 35 in FC cricket, 35 in Test cricket. And he's a genuinely decent fourth seamer.
Jonny Bairstow averages 45 in FC cricket, 26 in Test cricket.

Should England be picking Bairstow because averages?

There's more to it than pure averages. Cricket isn't played on a spreadsheet. Hence the support for picking Mitch Marsh; his numbers aren't great but anyone with eyes recognises his potential (with both bat and ball), especially compared to the marginal batsman on offer -- his brother.

 

[Dan]

If the worst batsman on the Australian team was Warner I'd drop him for Watson Or MMarsh. Australia have been using ~16 overs/ innings from part timers / all rounders over the past 12 months. Everyone else has been far to expensive to hold up an end.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Its not that Watson or MMarsh get wickets... More that the don't cost you 5rpo to give your main bowlers some rest.

Feel free to suggest an Australian attack that doesn't need those 16 overs rest and is still as effective. Remember you are costing yourself 1.5-2 runs every over you need a part timer.

If Australia had 5 batsmen better than Warner, I think their team structure and tactics would be very, very different tbf.

 

[Valer]

If Australia had 5 batsmen better than Warner, I think their team structure and tactics would be very, very different tbf.

Sure. Take it this way then I'd take an all-rounder averaging ~30 with bat that bowls like Watto over someone averaging ~41-42. Probably even 45 to be honest.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Value of those Watson overs being massively overrated here. Another batsman averaging 45+ in the middle order is exactly what Australia are missing right now.

 

[morgieb]

Value of those Watson overs being massively overrated here. Another batsman averaging 45+ in the middle order is exactly what Australia are missing right now.

Trust me if we had a batsman that could average 45+, he'd be in there pronto.

 

[Shady Slim]

correct me if i am wrong but

hattricks watto was on in the australia vs india tests: 1
hattricks any of the indian bowlers were on in the australia vs india tests: 0

watto>any of the indian bowlers

 

[aussie tragic]

Trust me if we had a batsman that could average 45+, he'd be in there pronto.

Well now we do, Voges only got a Test because Rogers was injured...so now with Rogers back, who misses out between Smarsh, Watto and Voges?

 

[Flem274*]

marsh because he's ****ing ****

 

[Flametree]

No-one really engaged with my last contribution but I think the make-up of the Australian side is interesting so I'll have another go.

You have five batsmen, one of whom bowls a bit of pick 'n' mix legspin. You have a respectable keeper-batsman, though he's not as good as he was. You have two or three bowlers who could handle batting at number 8, and your number 11 averages 15.

If you then had to choose your 11th player - either a number 6 who'll average 34 with bat and ball, or another number 8 who'll average 27 with bat and ball, which would you choose? (In effect, if you could be certain they'd play to their career averages, would you pick Watson or Pattinson for the 11th position?) What would be needed to change either way? Eg, if either of those players were a second spinner rather than a fourth seamer, or if your keeper batted like Sarfraz Ahmed or BJ Watling of the last 18 months rather than Brad Haddin of the last 18 months, or if Pattinson's economy rate was closer to that of Watson.....

 

[morgieb]

If Haddin could get back to his best I'd have no qualms taking the 27/27 guy. As it stands though I'd have to go the 34/34 guy.

When Haddin and Harris retire a 6-11 of Nevill, Starc, Johnson, Pattinson, Lyon, Hazlewood could be a goer if Nevill is as good as he's shown at Shield level.

 

[Debris]

Ben Stokes averages 35 in FC cricket, 35 in Test cricket. And he's a genuinely decent fourth seamer.
Jonny Bairstow averages 45 in FC cricket, 26 in Test cricket.

Should England be picking Bairstow because averages?

There's more to it than pure averages. Cricket isn't played on a spreadsheet. Hence the support for picking Mitch Marsh; his numbers aren't great but anyone with eyes recognises his potential (with both bat and ball), especially compared to the marginal batsman on offer -- his brother.

That is a matter of talent identification, though, not picking the worse of two batsmen. It turns out, whether through luck or good management, that you have actually picked the better batsman. If the test batting averages were swapped then I would pick Bairstow.

I would actually pick Mitchell Marsh because I think he will be one of the best 6 bastsmen in the country and not because he can roll his arm over.