• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
OverratedSanity said:
Their averages may be similar but Watson's not made one significant innings in pressure situations/tricky conditions in test cricket. The majority of his runs have been the softest imaginable. Will be glad if someone pointed out an innings that fits the description.
Click to expand...
Yeah, hence why I'm suggesting Smarsh is a better pure bat even if they average the same.

And yes, I realise 'is a better Test batsman than Shane Watson' is about as faint as praise can get.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
OverratedSanity said:
Their averages may be similar but Watson's not made one significant innings in pressure situations/tricky conditions in test cricket. The majority of his runs have been the softest imaginable. Will be glad if someone pointed out an innings that fits the description.
Click to expand...
Yep. Get someone else to do the work. You're more effective in short bursts with some pie chucker to do some posting for you so you can have a break.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
OverratedSanity said:
**** isn't a name I'd be happy to have.
Click to expand...
Meh, dun bother me.

Look, my point was not really that we don't need a fifth bowler, it was that Watson isn't a top six batsman, and that's naught to do with his batting average. It's to do with the lack of ability to play a clutch innings when required, ever. Voges innings showed how important that is. Batted to conditions and put us into a position to win this test. Watson never does that stuff. Watson is even more of a liability at 6 than he was at 3, if that's even imaginable.
 
F

Flametree

International 12th Man
Is there a keeper in Australia who could conceivably average 40 with the bat? Cos given the batting talents of Pattinson, Johnson, Harris, Starc, and now Hazlewood (and Lyon has long been the world's best number xi), would it possibly be better to have 5x batsman, a keeper who could cope at 6, and 5 genuine bowlers, starting with Pattinson at 7, rather than the current 5x batsmen, a number 6 who might not be quite good enough at either, and four bowlers?

Again trying to tailor the shape of the side to the players available rather than some preconceived notion of what's best. If there's no keeper who looks like he could be a top 6 batsman, then that option isn't viable.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Flametree said:
Is there a keeper in Australia who could conceivably average 40 with the bat? Cos given the batting talents of Pattinson, Johnson, Harris, Starc, and now Hazlewood (and Lyon has long been the world's best number xi), would it possibly be better to have 5x batsman, a keeper who could cope at 6, and 5 genuine bowlers, starting with Pattinson at 7, rather than the current 5x batsmen, a number 6 who might not be quite good enough at either, and four bowlers?

Again trying to tailor the shape of the side to the players available rather than some preconceived notion of what's best. If there's no keeper who looks like he could be a top 6 batsman, then that option isn't viable.
Click to expand...
Nevill.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Flametree said:
Is there a keeper in Australia who could conceivably average 40 with the bat? Cos given the batting talents of Pattinson, Johnson, Harris, Starc, and now Hazlewood (and Lyon has long been the world's best number xi), would it possibly be better to have 5x batsman, a keeper who could cope at 6, and 5 genuine bowlers, starting with Pattinson at 7, rather than the current 5x batsmen, a number 6 who might not be quite good enough at either, and four bowlers?

Again trying to tailor the shape of the side to the players available rather than some preconceived notion of what's best. If there's no keeper who looks like he could be a top 6 batsman, then that option isn't viable.
Click to expand...
Nevill, Wade, Paine, Whiteman
 
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
I hate this selection deontology going around that asserts you must pick a team to exact, defined balance rules because people are ideologically predisposed to a certain balance. Selection is not easy enough for the perfect balance to the be same with every set of players; it depends entirely on the cattle you've got as to which balance is going to give the best chance of winning. If Australia's best allrounder option was Gulbis then they'd be right in forgetting about it, but with the attack the way it is and the fact that Watson, Mitch Marsh and even Faulkner and Henriques are good cricketers, it does make sense to pick one of them, at least until that bowling attack changes... particularly when it's only Shaun Marsh they're keeping out of the side anyway.
Click to expand...
Now come on, you knew this before March 2015 didn't you?
 
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Yep, a guy with 1 FC ton to his name and who has been a shadow of his past self for the past two-three years is a top six bat.

None of the 'keepers are Test #6s, unless your Test #7 is a genuine all-rounder and you're shifting Nev up for workload reasons or whatever.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
RE: England.

Is Stokes potentially as good a batsman as their next best in (e.g. Taylor)? Probably.

Is Stokes' first five four overs going to be better than Broad's last four overs? Yeah.

Done.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
OverratedSanity said:
Their averages may be similar but Watson's not made one significant innings in pressure situations/tricky conditions in test cricket. The majority of his runs have been the softest imaginable. Will be glad if someone pointed out an innings that fits the description.
Click to expand...
His hundred in India was a good knock, even if it didn't end up winning us a game.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Even when we were only playing four bowlers, we were still trying to get five or so overs out of a Mike Hussey per day.

Additionally, taking each Test in isolation, then the four man attack sounds better. But with series' being played in such a short amount of time, it places a far greater premium on a fifth bowler being able to contribute than 10 to 20 years ago.
 
Shady Slim

Shady Slim

International Coach
i see it more as watson and mmarsh are able to be selected as bats with bowling as a plus, which gives them a selection edge in my mind over smarsh
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
vic_orthdox said:
RE: England.

Is Stokes potentially as good a batsman as their next best in (e.g. Taylor)? Probably.

Is Stokes' first five four overs going to be better than Broad's last four overs? Yeah.

Done.
Click to expand...
Haha, yep. Its simple really.
 
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I advocate picking your two best bowlers and just have them bowl all day because cricket is like a video game where everyone bowls 100% all the time.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
RossTaylorsBox said:
I advocate picking your two best bowlers and just have them bowl all day because cricket is like a video game where everyone bowls 100% all the time.
Click to expand...
Yep. If someone's not capable of bowling 45 overs a day without tiring then he's not one of your best two bowlers and shouldn't be selected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top