Does Australia really need an all-rounder?

[Craig]

Ok I know virtually every other side has one and we all know what Andrew Flintoff has done, but given the lack of success Andrew Symonds at Test cricket and Shane Watson looking so far unconvicing at Test level and given that they don't really bowl as much as say a Flintoff or a Dwayne Bravo, my question is does an all-rounder really offer something to the Aussie Test team given the past success of Australia at Test cricket or is something that needs to be persisted with?

 

[Prince EWS]

Well, a quality allrounder is a very useful addition to any side, but I wouldnt say that you really NEED one for a side to work successfully. If you have five quality performing batsmen in your side, and you are confident with them, then batting the keeper at #6 and playing five bowlers is perfectly acceptable. As is the reverse - if you have 4 quality performing bowlers in your side, and you are confident with them, then batting the keeper at #7 with a specialist batsman at #6 is also perfectly acceptable. Allrounders help this balance out somewhat, but they are not required. It all depends on what the strengths and weaknesses of a team are.

As for the specific Australian situation, Symonds simply isnt of test standard, and I have stated this for years gone by. Watson, IMO, will eventually be good enough to command a spot in the side, but hes not quite good enough yet. The selectors will pick him though, to get him used to test cricket and gradually give him more responsibility, just as they have done in ODIs.

Watson's the man - hes not quite ready yet, but he will be.

 

[Craig]

Well the other suggestion I have heard of today on the ABC is that Adam Gilchrist gives up the gloves in both forms of the game and plays as a batsman.

He could probably make it as a batsman alone but I doubt he would play the way that he does.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well the other suggestion I have heard of today on the ABC is that Adam Gilchrist gives up the gloves in both forms of the game and plays as a batsman.

I really dont see how that would fix the problem. If anything, it would create more balance problems as Australia would have more specialists....

 

[andyc]

Pity this wasn't a poll, but no, we do not need an allrounder. That said, if Watson's batting does keep growing as it has, it'd be great to have him in the team.

 

[age_master]

Symonds will be good, he just needs a good innings to get his confidence up i reakon. his fielding is excellent too

 

[Robertinho]

Well the other suggestion I have heard of today on the ABC is that Adam Gilchrist gives up the gloves in both forms of the game and plays as a batsman.

He could probably make it as a batsman alone but I doubt he would play the way that he does.

Craig, how would that help? That one mean we have one less allrounder. Right now, Adam Gilchrist occupies both the wicket keeping and batsman role - meaning we don't need to sacrifice any batting in order to include a keeper. How would putting someone else in the side (ie; Haddin) who wouldn't make it as a specialist bat help?

 

[Prince EWS]

Craig, how would that help? That one mean we have one less allrounder. Right now, Adam Gilchrist occupies both the wicket keeping and batsman role - meaning we don't need to sacrifice any batting in order to include a keeper. How would putting someone else in the side (ie; Haddin) who wouldn't make it as a specialist bat help?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

As for the specific Australian situation, Symonds simply isnt of test standard, and I have stated this for years gone by. Watson, IMO, will eventually be good enough to command a spot in the side, but hes not quite good enough yet. The selectors will pick him though, to get him used to test cricket and gradually give him more responsibility, just as they have done in ODIs.

Watson's the man - hes not quite ready yet, but he will be.

100% on the money.

 

[Jono]

I think Craig confused himself there.

Anyway the answer is obviously no, they don't need an allrounder. They didn't need one when they had the world record test match win streak going. They don't need one now. If Watson turns out to be able to fill that role, then its fine. But they shouldn't try and create one from a player who is obviously far from an allrounder at test level (Symonds).

 

[age_master]

Watson's bowling isn't good enough at test level.

 

[Prince EWS]

Watson's bowling isn't good enough at test level.

Not yet, but his batting is close enough IMO, and his bowling will gradually progress.

 

[age_master]

nah its not worth it, wait for Henriques to make it, or play Marto and he will have a bowl.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Watson's bowling isn't good enough at test level.

And in the beginning Flintoff's batting wasn't either.

 

[age_master]

Flintoff isn't a number 6 still, his bowling is certainly classy though

 

[Prince EWS]

And in the beginning Flintoff's batting wasn't either.

Neither was his bowling, but its a poor arguement.

You cant say "Because Flintoff was poor at the start, and so is Player X, then Player X will turn out to be like Flintoff!"

If Australia picked me right now, batted me at 6 and bowled me at first change, I'd be poor too, but we all know Im not going to end up like Flintoff.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Neither was his bowling, but its a poor arguement.

You cant say "Because Flintoff was poor at the start, and so is Player X, then Player X will turn out to be like Flintoff!"

If Australia picked me right now, batted me at 6 and bowled me at first change, I'd be poor too, but we all know Im not going to end up like Flintoff.

That's a terrible analogy, for starters.

I never said that Watson would turn out to be Flintoff because of his poor start to test cricket, you only inferred it. My point was that you cannot judge a young test player [relatively young] after 3 or 4 test matches, and they often take some time to mature. LIKE Andrew Flintoff.

 

[Deja moo]

Australia dont need one. Ponting certainly does seem to want one though...

 

[aussie]

currently we dont but Australia since it seems they are getting back to the days when 4 bowlers are enough to bowl sides out. But they definately should start grooming one in Shane Watson, since it will help in the preservation of Pigeon & Warney in the long run IMO.

If you look at the team now with Hodge & Hussey now cementating their place in the middle-order probably when Watson returns instead of the selectors picking Pup or Martyo, he could slot in a 6 while his bowling will gradually develop.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I think because the 6/4 Batsman to Bowlers thing that Australia has used religiously for years got found out in the Ashes by a quality bowling attack + an amazing all-rounder, Australia are looking for a man who can hold his own with the bat but be a GENUINE option with the ball. Symonds can do a job with the ball, but he isn't a wicket-taking option. Watson however, if he continues to improve and he keeps a hold on that 140 - 145kmph speed then he is a genuine option, and a definite test match mainstay.