Australian all-rounder position

[Richard]

Don't think you've thought about this richard. Of course you can take credit if a batsman gives their wicket away, in most cases. The bowler can force a change in the batsmans mentality. Eg if they shut the batsman down and the scoring rate dries up, the batsman may try to do something stupid or play a risky shot. It is not every case, but many a time.

That's a perfectly fair argument in one-day-cricket, but only if the wicket-taking ball wasn't a genuinely bad one. If Tendulkar and Dravid both swung Long-Hops to square-leg, there's no credit to the bowler for that. If they tried scoring off a ball that wasn't there to be scored off and paid for it, clearly the bowler deserves that wicket in the one-day game.
In the First-Class game, though - argument unaffected.

 

[Richard]

If you think that batsmen play stupid shots for no reason I'd like to hear your rationalization!

If you think batsmen don't play stupid shots - shots that are stupid even in the one-day game - I'd sure like to hear your rationalisation!
I can't comment on whether Tendulkar and Dravid's shots were stupid as I didn't see the game, but all batsmen certainly play poor\stupid shots, even the best of them. I don't think the bowler deserves credit for stupid shots, and I don't think we should just look at statistics, success, to say whether someone "is good" \ "has done well".
To claim they don't is quite the strangest claim I've ever heard. Whether they have a reason, a valid reason or whatever, the simple fact of the matter is, they do.
If no batsman ever played a stupid shot in the longer form of the game most of them would average about 200, because there are so many flat wickets that don't offer seam or turn around ATM and so few bowlers who can exploit all conditions.

 

[Richard]

Picky Bast*rds!

Regard high standards as "picky" and you'll never get anywhere.
Not accusing you of having low standards, but quite simply, Harvey cannot possibly be called a one-day-international-standard all-rounder (his figures since WC2003 do suggest he must stay in the side) as his batting figures are not anywhere near equal to his bowling, even taking into account the fact that he's often batted in nothing-to-win situations.
Mark Ealham had exactly the same problem - because he was an all-rounder by county standards, people didn't get that he wasn't an all-rounder by ODI standards, he was a bowler who batted a bit. His batting average is OK for a bowler-who-bats-a-bit who often batted in nothing-to-win situations, but people refused to take any notice of how good his bowling was and accused him of not making enough runs, so naturally he was dropped.
Craig White in The Ashes had exactly the opposite problem - even though he was, for the most part, by a street England's best bowler, people called for his head because he hardly scored a run in the first 3 Tests. They didn't get that an all-rounder can also earn selection solely through one of his trades if he's good enough.
And before anyone jumps on my back about this - no, White wasn't bowling to the standards I would regard as Test, but he was doing well enough for the "better than the rest" argument to stand (for the first 3 Tests his average was below 35).

 

[Mr. P]

That's a perfectly fair argument in one-day-cricket, but only if the wicket-taking ball wasn't a genuinely bad one. If Tendulkar and Dravid both swung Long-Hops to square-leg, there's no credit to the bowler for that. If they tried scoring off a ball that wasn't there to be scored off and paid for it, clearly the bowler deserves that wicket in the one-day game.
In the First-Class game, though - argument unaffected.

True, but the same still applies even to a long hop. The bowler may put the batsman off guard, eg bowling many successive fuller deliveries and then they might send down a half tracker that the batsman wasn't expecting. In that case, the bowler deserves credit.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Regard high standards as "picky" and you'll never get anywhere.
Not accusing you of having low standards, but quite simply, Harvey cannot possibly be called a one-day-international-standard all-rounder (his figures since WC2003 do suggest he must stay in the side) as his batting figures are not anywhere near equal to his bowling, even taking into account the fact that he's often batted in nothing-to-win situations.
Mark Ealham had exactly the same problem - because he was an all-rounder by county standards, people didn't get that he wasn't an all-rounder by ODI standards, he was a bowler who batted a bit. His batting average is OK for a bowler-who-bats-a-bit who often batted in nothing-to-win situations, but people refused to take any notice of how good his bowling was and accused him of not making enough runs, so naturally he was dropped.
Craig White in The Ashes had exactly the opposite problem - even though he was, for the most part, by a street England's best bowler, people called for his head because he hardly scored a run in the first 3 Tests. They didn't get that an all-rounder can also earn selection solely through one of his trades if he's good enough.
And before anyone jumps on my back about this - no, White wasn't bowling to the standards I would regard as Test, but he was doing well enough for the "better than the rest" argument to stand (for the first 3 Tests his average was below 35).

good god man!

 

[Top_Cat]

He doesn't have enough patience,focus or mindset to save a game for aus consistently...he rides his luck too often...even his innings against pakistan in the world cup, there was a few risky shots he played...lucky for him,they came off on that day

How about his 80-odd against Sri Lanka? Very composed innings and if he'd really let loose, he would have scored his hundred. As it was, because Australia were in trouble, he restrained himself and he missed out on a hundred but Australia won the match.

And as Mxzy said, he did very well in the WI.

It's pretty clear that Symonds isn't just a slogger but a genuine batsman. He may ride his luck a little but that's what hes in the side for. Leave the solid stuff for your Haydens, Pontings and Bevans; Symonds is in the side to play shots and I think he's finally figured that out.

 

[Rik]

Mr Pontings got it. People don't just play stupid shots.

Yes they do, and it's often followed by an expletive...

Imagine what 1 billion people in India would think if you accused Sachin Tendulkar of playing a stupid shot.

Either it's:

A: Bad luck, or
B: Better luck next time

It's unheard of, even I can admit that and I'm not a fan of his.

Not a fan of the best modern batsman? Either you have never watched him bat or you find Matthew Hayden's style pure silk. I'd take the former.

The bowler (in this case Clarke) has to have done something that is reflected in the batsman's strokeplay. Whether that be that he has worn the batsman down or lulled him into a false sense of security or otherwise. The bowler has to use what they've got and that's exactly what Michael Clarke did last night.

No, he just bowled the ball. From what I've heard they gave their wickets away with stupid shots. If the shot is a bad shot then the ball could be of any type, good, bad, average, it doesn't really have to do anything. I've seen appauling shots off rank rubbish balls and they have resulted in wickets. Clarke could have bowled the worst ball in the world yet the batsman could have still played a stupid shot and got out. If bad shots allways came off good balls, then there wouldn't be any bad shots because the bowler would have tricked them every time, and that, I think you'll find, is almost impossibly unlikely.

If you think that batsmen play stupid shots for no reason I'd like to hear your rationalization!

Distractions, not concentrating, thinking about other things than the game, something a fielder said, a rush of blood to the head, the bat slipping out of the grip...

Well bowled Clarkey!!

Well bowled, but it doesn't make him an all-rounder.

 

[Rik]

Yet you've often championed him as a great batsman and bowler...

Better than any spinner in England if I remember correctly, along with Lehmann...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

thinking about other things than the game... a rush of blood to the head, the bat slipping out of the grip

Por ejemplo: Marlon Samuels.

 

[marc71178]

Mark Ealham had exactly the same problem - because he was an all-rounder by county standards, people didn't get that he wasn't an all-rounder by ODI standards, he was a bowler who batted a bit.

Hmm, wonder what Kent fans would've described him as (before he left of course)

Not that I'd wager.

 

[Eclipse]

I would be hesitant to call Lee and Gillespie 'batting'.

Lee is a decent enough low order batsman good enough to ether stick around or hit out and is capable of macking 50's

ODI avrage is about 17 with a strike rate of about 85 with one 51* off 34 balls.

Test Avrage is 20 with 2-3 fifrys and a few 40*

He's no mug with the bat at all.

 

[Mr. P]

and might i add that Jason Gillespie has the worlds best defence.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Rik, hypocrasy is a dangerous thing. You admitted you didn't see his spell, yet at the end you say well bowled, but he's not an allrounder. You're not entitled to say anything about it if you did not see it. And if you bowl well, you are a talented bowler. Last I knew talented bowlers could be all rounders if they batted well.

But the real icing on the cake is that you decide to slag off what i said about Clarke's bowling when I saw how his wickets came and you admitted you didn't. That's just plain stupid. You are stupid.

 

[Eclipse]

and might i add that Jason Gillespie has the worlds best defence.

dito.

he has an exellent deffence I mean for those who dont know it is seriously very good better than many top order batsman.
He does not have many shots though but as we saw last summer his basball style slogging can be effecitive.

 

[Mr. P]

dito.

he has an exellent deffence I mean for those who dont know it is seriously very good better than many top order batsman.
He does not have many shots though but as we saw last summer his basball style slogging can be effecitive.

Yeah i remember that! Absolutely classic and very classy. Some of those shots were hilarious, can't believe they came off. What did he make, 31?

 

[Eclipse]

Yeah i remember that! Absolutely classic and very classy. Some of those shots were hilarious, can't believe they came off. What did he make, 31?

yeah about that he also played a few other little cameo's that summer with some 20*s etc..

 

[Gaijin-san]

i think he had the third highest average for the ashes.. not bad hehe. granted, though, he only got dismissed once i think

 

[age_master]

my aussie ODI lineup ( no injuries)


Hayden
Gilchrist+
Ponting *
Martyn
Clarke
Bevan
Symonds/Watson
Hogg/Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath


symonds or watson depending on the pitch dependsing on how watson goes with the bat.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Looks like a decent lineup. My only problem is that around about Hogg/Warne, there seems to be a little bit of a problem with the batting. Just seems a little exposed to me. Of course I have no other suggestion at the moment because it looks a fair lineup.

The Aussies have a talented lower order, it just doesn't always fire when they really need it to.

 

[Andre]

my aussie ODI lineup ( no injuries)
Martyn

Age-master selecting Martyn?

Are you ill my friend? You mean, you can now stand Martyn?