Australian all-rounder position

[Gaijin-san]

He says he's picked up a yard or two. :P

On this whole Aussie all-rounder position thing, I'm all for Symo in the OD team while he's performing so well in all crafts. But I think Watto is definitely the way for the tests. He can bat at 6 (though he can get into the top order in a few years). He averages right up there in FC cricket. He can build a big innings. I think he'd score more runs than Symonds in the test team. Plus I rate his bowling that much more than Symonds.

In conclusion:
OD team: Symo
Test team: Watto
For now: Cheerio.

 

[age_master]

Katich and Watson should be the all rounders in the Aussie side, Katich should probably bat at 5, Watson 6. unless symonds develops more patience he will never have too much sucess in the test team.

 

[Craig]

I would hardly call Katich's bowling good enough to be called an "all-rounder".

 

[Ferd]

two questions: Where does Watson bat in the Tassie line-up? And would anybody class a keeper who can bowl an all-rounder?

Symonds I think is more of a batting all-rounder. (after listening to the head of PE talk about the life and times of Andrew Symonds fro 20 mins today) Harvey is a bowler who can bat at best and Kaitch is a batsman who is a quality part timer. Watson is the only other all-rounder I can think of at the moment.

 

[Mingster]

Why does Aussie need allrounders?

I mean, playing 6 bat +1 wk and 4 bowlers is not bad to me. Having failed them for the past 4 years...

 

[marc71178]

Kaitch is a batsman who is a quality part timer.

I have my doubts as to how "quality" a bowler he really is.

Never done a great deal in County Cricket...

 

[Ferd]

Yes I agree he hasn't performed in England, but in the Australian Frist Class Comp. (Pura Cup) he has proved useful in breaking the big partnership.

 

[Gaijin-san]

two questions: Where does Watson bat in the Tassie line-up? And would anybody class a keeper who can bowl an all-rounder?

Watson bats at 3. Keepers who can bat are classified as allrounders. Keepers who bowl, if there is such a type of player, would not. Because they cannot do both in one game, they cannot harness allround ability. Unless you are going to play two keepers. But that would make you an idiot.

 

[pontingrulz]

Watsons crap and if anything is a good sunday afternoon second grade player. I think the Australian team already has a quality allrounder in Lehmann and they should just leave it as that. Symonds when in form is also a class alrounder

 

[age_master]

Watson can hold his own against most batsmen in FC cricket...

Boofs bowling is useful, but nowhere near as good as Watsons, same with Symonds

 

[Craig]

Watsons crap and if anything is a good sunday afternoon second grade player. I think the Australian team already has a quality allrounder in Lehmann and they should just leave it as that. Symonds when in form is also a class alrounder

Come of it will you :rolleyes:

I may not be his biggest fan but even I release he is good enough.

 

[Ferd]

Boof is a specialist batsmen not an Allrounder. He can bowl, yes but hes not an all-rounder. Australia dont even need a all-rounder.

 

[Linda]

Watsons crap...

Were you completely ignorant to the Domestic cricket season this year?

 

[Linda]

I think the Australian team already has a quality allrounder in Lehmann and they should just leave it as that.

The same 'quality allrounder' who bowled all of 2 overs in the 1st Test in Sri Lanka?

(Couldnt be bothered editing my last post, sorry :P)

 

[marc71178]

The same 'quality allrounder' who bowled all of 2 overs in the 1st Test in Sri Lanka?

As a 3rd spinner he's hardly needed when Warne's in that form!

 

[howardj]

I was thinking about this the other day when watching Pathan, and it occurred to me that Australia tend to go the wrong way in terms of developing all-rounders. Rather than concentrating on batsmen who can bowl (like Symonds and more particularly Watson) we should be looking at developing the batting skills of guys who can bowl, yet have some raw potential with the bat (guys like Lee and Johnson).

When you think about it, most of the truly great all-rounders start off as great bowlers and their batting blossoms later on. I think it's much easier to develop your batting and go about becoming an all-rounder that way. You can't develop your bowling unless you have the raw material to begin with.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Fair point, but I think most Aussie lower order players already seem to take their batting fairly seriously, with the occasional exceptions (Warne being the obvious one). Lee's batting average, for example, has been steadily creeping up as his bowling average has come down.

 

[Jono]

Wow old school thread.

Yeah but you could turn that from "taking it seriously" to "seriously being able to bat."

The issue of course is with so much for Johnson still to learn with the ball, you don't want to distract him with batting pressure. It may have been what sent Pathan on a downward spiral for most of 06/07.

 

[chaminda_00]

The thing is Pathan has always been better then average with the bat. Whereas guys like Lee and Johnson will always be decent number 8s at best. You got to have the potential to average 30 with the bat, to be worth developing as an all rounder. Both Lee and Johnson don't have that and even playing youth cricket didn't bat much higher then 7. Whereas someone like Pathan batted regularly as around 5 and batted regularly in the top 7 when he came into domestic cricket. There is a big difference between a bowler who can bat and a guy that capable of playing in the top 7, as an all rounder.

Mind you South Africa and New Zealand produce quite a few all rounders and they generally go with the bowling all rounder policy.

 

[Prince EWS]

The thing is Pathan has always been better then average with the bat. Whereas guys like Lee and Johnson will always be decent number 8s at best. You got to have the potential to average 30 with the bat, to be worth developing as an all rounder. Both Lee and Johnson don't have that and even playing youth cricket didn't bat much higher then 7. Whereas someone like Pathan batted regularly as around 5 and batted regularly in the top 7 when he came into domestic cricket. There is a big difference between a bowler who can bat and a guy that capable of playing in the top 7, as an all rounder.

Mind you South Africa and New Zealand produce quite a few all rounders and they generally go with the bowling all rounder policy.

Again though, a guy like James Franklin bats at 6 in first class cricket. It's not as simple as getting a guy in for his bowling and encouraging him to develop his batting. I'd liken to Pathan to a younger version of Ashley Noffke for example, rather than a Lee/Johnson type player.

There's also the fact that Australia have hopes for Johnson and Lee especially to be world class bowlers who can lead the attack. It's hard to do that and live up to your potential with the bat at the same time, as Pathan discovered. The same happened to Shaun Pollock to some degree as well.. sure, he averaged 30+ with the bat, but South Africa rarely factored his batting into selection as they knew they needed him to put most of his efforts and thoughts into his bowling.