Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Well no one ever said that or implied it so that's just your problem tbh

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Well I'm Kiwi and this is an Australian thread so lets look at the New Zealanders and Australians.

MMarsh, CAnderson, Neesham,

C Anderson has averaged 50 with the ball and 28 with the bat of late. Personally I thought the NZ team looked far better when he was "injured" and replaced by Watling as a specialist bat who is averaging mid forties the last couple of years and brought in another good wicket keeper bat.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Corey's recent bowling has been worse than his batting. 28 over the same period.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Jimmy Neesham did look like he was arguably in the best 6 batsmen in the New Zealand until he met Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Then this happened.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

M Marsh has averaged 160 odd with the ball and 37 with the bat. Watto is like 32 with the bat and 50 with the ball the last few years.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo



Neesham may well have been in the 6 best batsmen in NZ until his problems with spin were found out. Hopefully this is remedied. But selecting the likes of Anderson as a batting allrounder in test cricket is not smart. A proper batsman is the better bet.

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.

He is selected as the country's best spinner and bats 8. Not as a "batting allrounder" batting 6. So you cannot include him. It is ridiculous to even try.

Plenty of sides doing just fine by picking a 6th batsman who can bowl over a marginally better 6th batting option... 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.

There is no comity of nations in selection. There is no need for the blind to follow the blind. If everyone jumped off a bridge, do you need to jump off a bridge? If you do not have a Sobers or Kallis then you cannot make one out of Corey Anderson or Mitchell Marsh.

 

[Debris]

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.

Your sample size there is terrible. Smtih is a leggie and is there to get wickets, not to block up and end. The other part-times have bowled a grand total of 27 overs and are conceding less than 5 runs an over anyway. Michael Clarke has a career economy rate of 2.91 so I am sure he can hold up an end and pretty confident that Voges could do the same.

I would say the current Australian attack does not that many overs rest. The captain probably feels that he has to bowl these all-rounders to justify their selection. I am sure the WI were delighted every time they saw Watson trundling in. Feel free to explain to me why having the frontline bowlers bowl an extra 2 overs each a day is going to kill their effectiveness. You only need part-timers to fill in 8 overs at that point.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Well no one ever said that or implied it so that's just your problem tbh

Some of you have been advocating for "batting allrounders" doing worse than 35 with the bat.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

@grumpy

do the words "picked on potential" mean anything? We don't have any obvious candidates for our sixth batsman, so we might as well make a a long term project out of the guy who has talent bursting out of every crevice.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

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

Keith Miller batted at 5 and spent most his career opening the bowling. If he was arguably not in the best 6 bats for most his career, he was in the 4 best bowlers.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

@grumpy

do the words "picked on potential" mean anything? We don't have any obvious candidates for our sixth batsman, so we might as well make a a long term project out of the guy who has talent bursting out of every crevice.

I don't see the potential of Corey Anderson as a test cricketer if he is your "long term project". I do see more potential in Jimmy Neesham, for what it is worth though.

Corey Anderson would be one of the first names anyone in New Zealand would select for a ODI XI. Much like Glen Maxwell would be for Australia. But test cricket...

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I don't see the potential of Corey Anderson as a test cricketer if he is your "long term project". I do see more potential in Jimmy Neesham, though.

Corey Anderson would be one of the first names anyone in New Zealand would select for a ODI XI. But test cricket...

I love jimmy too, but he really needs to sort out his issue of falling away in the action, because it seriously blunts him as a test bowler. On the whole I see them as equals with the bat (though jimmy obviously has had a superior start to his career) and anderson edging him in bowling due to having a better action. I have to admit I was rather disappointed by Corey's bowling efforts in the lords test, although he clearly was a bit undercooked.

edit: blatant thread derail is blatant. I will stop here.

 

[Dan]

Yeah nobody is suggesting that any side play a bloke who will average 30 his entire career at #6. Picking guys who average 30-35 now, but are likely to bump that up over time (e.g. Anderson, Marsh, Stokes) is a completely different thing entirely. We're not advocating guys who are disgraces to batsmanship to play as batsmen because they can roll their arms over too; we're suggesting that proper batsman who can also contribute with the ball can be more valuable to the team than a marginally better batsman.

The problem here is that Grumpy is taking tiny sample sized averages as gospel, while Debris acknowledges averages aren't everything -- so I think we agree with you more than you might think, Debris.

Also, 8 overs from Watson >>>>> 3 overs from Smith, 2 overs from Clarke, 3 overs from Voges. Meanwhile SMarsh > Watson with the bat, but only just; in this particular situation (which isn't, like Grumpy seems to believe, a hypothetical, since Rogers will presumably come back for one of Marsh or Watson) Watson adds more to the team. And it utterly pains me to say that.

I have to ask, if you wanted to play two spinners in the Second Test coming up, would you still think Watson should be left out for a pure bat, especially since there's no first change seamer then?

6. Watson or SMarsh
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Hazlewood
10. Lyon
11. Fawad

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

@grumpy

do the words "picked on potential" mean anything? We don't have any obvious candidates for our sixth batsman, so we might as well make a a long term project out of the guy who has talent bursting out of every crevice.

Jesse Ryder at 6 is a nice pipe dream. That is my preferred. But may never happen. There is also Watling at 6 and Ronchi keeping which worked quite well last test. You're naive if you do not think it will be debated for the tour of Australia by the New Zealand selectors.

I would like to see Munro given an real opportunity at 6. And if all else fails, prefer Neesham to Anderson. Be nice for someone in domestic cricket to really step up and make a ton of runs because I believe there is a vacancy at 6 for a batsman.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

The problem here is that Grumpy is taking tiny sample sized averages as gospel,

Ha. As my homie Najvot Sidhu said, I use statistics the same way a man leans upon a lamp post, for support not illumination.

I used the last 2.5 years for Watson, and half of Corey and Jimmy's careers - the most recent half.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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

This guy knows what's up.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yeah nobody is suggesting that any side play a bloke who will average 30 his entire career at #6. Picking guys who average 30-35 now, but are likely to bump that up over time (e.g. Anderson, Marsh, Stokes) is a completely different thing entirely. We're not advocating guys who are disgraces to batsmanship to play as batsmen because they can roll their arms over too; we're suggesting that proper batsman who can also contribute with the ball can be more valuable to the team than a marginally better batsman.

The problem here is that Grumpy is taking tiny sample sized averages as gospel, while Debris acknowledges averages aren't everything -- so I think we agree with you more than you might think, Debris.

Also, 8 overs from Watson >>>>> 3 overs from Smith, 2 overs from Clarke, 3 overs from Voges. Meanwhile SMarsh > Watson with the bat, but only just; in this particular situation (which isn't, like Grumpy seems to believe, a hypothetical, since Rogers will presumably come back for one of Marsh or Watson) Watson adds more to the team. And it utterly pains me to say that.

I have to ask, if you wanted to play two spinners in the Second Test coming up, would you still think Watson should be left out for a pure bat, especially since there's no first change seamer then?

6. Watson or SMarsh
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Hazlewood
10. Lyon
11. Fawad

I do not understand why you think Stokes will up his test average from 35 when his first class average (made up mostly of county cricket) is 34. Sooner or later people will realise he is not weak against short pitch bowling. Mitch Marsh is averaging less than 30 in first class cricket. Corey is going at 35 in first class cricket too, and I do not see any improvement in his batting technique. I really do not rate Mitch Marsh. Maybe I will be in one of those "I was wrong threads" but for now - I do not rate him as a test cricketer. And he is well below Faulkner and Maxwell in the ODI team for mine. Well below.

The 2 spinner dilemna has been discussed previously. Watson and Symonds all got tried initially for a Warne & MacGill combined headache. Read back.

 

[Daemon]

This guy knows what's up.

Did watto get anyone caught at leg slip? I think not.

 

[Dan]

I do not understand why you think Stokes will up his test average from 35 when his first class average (made up mostly of county cricket) is 34. Mitch Marsh is averaging less than 30 in first class cricket. Corey is going at 35 in first class cricket too, and I do not see any improvement in his batting technique.

The 2 spinner dilemna has been discussed previously. Watson and Symonds all got tried initially for a Warne & MacGill combined headache. Read back.

...have you ever actually watched Mitchell Marsh and Ben Stokes bat?

Stokes has an uncomplicated technique, good hands and has natural power and timing. He'll up his averages as he gets older and wiser. Same things apply to Mitchell Marsh -- all the physical and technical tools to do well, they're just both developing into their games.

If Coriander Sun can get his body right, I suspect he'll improve somewhat too. Even if Corey only matches his current FC average in Tests, he'll, at worst, be the 6th or 7th best middle order batting option available (Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Watling, Neesham & maybe Brownlie are better than him). This is all moot because our boi Jimmeh will nail down that #6 slot anyway, and he genuinely is the fifth best middle order option in the country these days (AFAIC).

Munro is the exact bits-and-pieces selection you're advocating against. He's not one of the best five middle order batsmen in the country, and his bowling shouldn't factor in to his selection. He doesn't have the technique to succeed in Test cricket, at least not in the short-term.

 

[Dan]

tl;dr eyes > spreadsheets

 

[wellAlbidarned]

tl;dr eyes > spreadsheets

tbf munro doesn't play a heck of a lot differently to candy

 

[Dan]

Hence advocating Neesham > Corey

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Hence advocating Neesham > Corey

he doesn't look like he's constantly trying to hit the ball into the kupier belt but he's equally as suspect on defense

edit: if a mod derails a thread it's okay. Lesson learned.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

...have you ever actually watched Mitchell Marsh and Ben Stokes bat?

Unfortunately endured this more often and for far too long. Southee bowling short to Stokes was particularly painful, especially at Lords. Great effort from Stokes on the final day at Headingly. Top shelf.

I did enjoy watching him at Perth, though. But that was more because of the way the series was panning out.

Stokes has an uncomplicated technique, good hands and has natural power and timing. He'll up his averages as he gets older and wiser.

We'll see just how much reliance he has on hand eye over time won't we?

Same things apply to Mitchell Marsh -- all the physical and technical tools to do well, they're just both developing into their games.

My view on Mitchell Marsh has been stated. I could well be wrong.

f Coriander Sun can get his body right, I suspect he'll improve somewhat too. Even if Corey only matches his current FC average in Tests, he'll, at worst, be the 6th or 7th best middle order batting option available (Williamson, Taylor, McCullum, Watling, Neesham & maybe Brownlie are better than him).

I would be open to Brownlie having a recall ahead of Corey. We obviously watch different Corey Anderson's bat in test cricket.

Munro is the exact bits-and-pieces selection you're advocating against. He's not one of the best five middle order batsmen in the country, and his bowling shouldn't factor in to his selection. He doesn't have the technique to succeed in Test cricket, at least not in the short-term.

Runs. Worked for Gilly. I do not advocate that some has to bat at a SR of 50 to be a test batter. Results based selection I have no issue with. Munro appears to hit the ball more successfully to cow corner more often than Corey. And some of his shots are pure class.

What would you do with a young Viv Richards... I am not for one second suggesting that Munro is in the same realm as Viv. But you have someone who will power the ball through the leg side, go aerial regularly and score at rates previously not thought of as a 'built for success'. Do you play them to find out whether they can do it at a higher level. Or leave them blasting in domestic cricket?