Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[watson]

...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.

Really hope that England leave Stokes at No.6 and let his batting develop. Exciting allround player.

 

[Dan]

Really hope that England leave Stokes at No.6 and let his batting develop. Exciting allround player.

Yeah, I'm not going to claim this as objective fact or anything, but I reckon he has a higher ceiling than Flintoff. Less likely to reach it though.

 

[Dan]

Technique and temperament =/= strike rate.

 

[watson]

Just thought of Trevor Bailey who is highly relevant to this thread.....

Trevor Bailey averaged 29.74 with the bat, 29.21 with ball, and spent most of his time at No.6 in the order. Clearly, having such a mediocre batsman in the middle-order didn't hurt the England team of the mid-1950s as it was arguably the greatest England team of all-time.

Perhaps it was Bailey's 'tough as nails' character that inspired his fellow team mates and improved the side. Or perhaps his talents balanced the side better and made it more competitive. Either of which, character or balance, you can't put a stat on.

 

[watson]

Yeah, I'm not going to claim this as objective fact or anything, but I reckon he has a higher ceiling than Flintoff. Less likely to reach it though.

I think that Stokes can eclipse Flintoff's batting in most respects. However, while Stokes may finish his career with a better bowling average than Freddie (32.79) he will never have the same impact because he lacks Freddie's pace and fire-power. When he was fully switched-on there were few better fast bowlers in world cricket.

 

[Dan]

Stokes can be geniuinely quick, tbf. 140-145km/h is stock. Freddie wasn't exactly consistently bowling 150+ either, despite what GIMH would have you believe.

 

[Debris]

Just thought of Trevor Bailey who is highly relevant to this thread.....

Trevor Bailey averaged 29.74 with the bat, 29.21 with ball, and spent most of his time at No.6 in the order. Clearly, having such a mediocre batsman in the middle-order didn't hurt the England team of the mid-1950s as it was arguably the greatest England team of all-time.

Perhaps it was Bailey's 'tough as nails' character that inspired his fellow team mates and improved the side. Or perhaps his talents balanced the side better and made it more competitive. Either of which, character or balance, you can't put a stat on.

Australia had their own version in Ken 'Slasher' Mackay who averaged 33.48 with the bat and 34.42 with the ball so they may have cancelled each other out.

 

[Debris]

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 am a bit of a speedist in that I don't think you should pick 2 spinners unless it is a filthy turner (at which point Clarke and Smith become the backup). I look around at the moment and I am not sure there is a better batsman to bat at 6 than Watson or Marsh regardless of whether they bowl. I am trying to think of a good example of a player from the recent past who I would bat at 6 over Watson in this situation without being silly (everyone would pick a Martyn, S. Waugh or Lehmann I am assuming), The best example I can think of is Andrew Symonds.

 

[weldone]

Yeah, I'm not going to claim this as objective fact or anything, but I reckon he has a higher ceiling than Flintoff. Less likely to reach it though.

Not sure about higher ceiling, but he certainly can be more consistent than Flintoff

 

[Red]

Just thought of Trevor Bailey who is highly relevant to this thread.....

Trevor Bailey averaged 29.74 with the bat, 29.21 with ball, and spent most of his time at No.6 in the order. Clearly, having such a mediocre batsman in the middle-order didn't hurt the England team of the mid-1950s as it was arguably the greatest England team of all-time.

Perhaps it was Bailey's 'tough as nails' character that inspired his fellow team mates and improved the side. Or perhaps his talents balanced the side better and made it more competitive. Either of which, character or balance, you can't put a stat on.

Fair call on a comparison with Watson, but I'd argue Bailey did more with the bat when it mattered than Watson ever did. And correct me if I'm wrong but the make up of that team was often two quicks, two spinners, plus Bailey.

On Mitch Marsh, he'll be a 40+ averaging test batsman, no probs. I'd be inclined to say his ceiling is even higher than that with the bat. Could become a test #3 IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

and there's no real batting options that average much more than that anyway.

This has already been explained at length several times

 

[Flem274*]

Just going to put it out there that if we ever have munro handy and the two wonder kids are both injured again, I'd give him a run.

I mean when someone makes fc look so easy that they can just stand there and smoke double tons at a run a ball that they could translate at least a little of it to tests batting at #7

 

[watson]

Fair call on a comparison with Watson, but I'd argue Bailey did more with the bat when it mattered than Watson ever did. And correct me if I'm wrong but the make up of that team was often two quicks, two spinners, plus Bailey.

On Mitch Marsh, he'll be a 40+ averaging test batsman, no probs. I'd be inclined to say his ceiling is even higher than that with the bat. Could become a test #3 IMO.

I think that you'll probably right which is why I find Watson so damned annoying and wouldn't have him in the side irrespective of the numbers.

 

[cnerd123]

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

Bit late but if you are going to use Navjot Sing Sidhu's quotes as a basis for your argument then I cannot take you seriously anymore.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Bit late but if you are going to use Navjot Sing Sidhu's quotes as a basis for your argument then I cannot take you seriously anymore.

You struggle with idioms, metaphors and analogies huh?

I would rather listen to Sidhu commentate than Danny Morrison.

New Zealand owes the world an apology for Danny Morrison commentary. Hands down the worst commentator in cricket.

As a New Zealander, I apologise.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'd be inclined to say his ceiling is even higher than that with the bat. Could become a test #3 IMO.

You're off your head, IMO.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

New Zealand owes the world an apology for Danny Morrison commentary. Hands down the worst commentator in cricket..

No ****ing way there's like 4 people who are employed by C9 that are worse. Healy, Slater, Warne and Brayshaw are all significantly worse than Danny. Danny is a pretty **** commentator and a bit of a cheerleader but he's not a patch on those four.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're off your head, IMO.

A regular Ben Cummins.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Hahahahahaha. Best video.

 

[Red]

You're off your head, IMO.

Why? Cos I think a young guy with a good technique could become a test #3? Kmate.