Australian all-rounder position

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well, the difference between FC and Test cricket is a bit like that between an apple and a green apple...
Most people, however, can tell the difference between domestic and international cricket.

All Test Cricket is FC cricket, but all FC cricket is not Test cricket. All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs etc. etc.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Personally, I'd much rather be an eternal pessimist than an eternal optimist. I find trying to see the best in everything highly embarrasing.

Uh, why?

 

[Richard]

Uh, why?

Don't know, it's just the way I am.
I just find the reluctance to criticise "young" players as "palpably substandard" strange when someone who makes his debut at 27 would unhesistantly be described as that if they looked it.
Richard Dawson was one of the worst selections I have ever seen for English Test cricket. Likewise, Jeremy Snape was one for ODIs. I don't let their ages mud my thinking (though I did once hear Snape described as "young"...:rolleyes: )
If someone hasn't got a good record I fail to see how they can be described as "promising". For me, the only judge of the game is the game itself. Not it's keenest follower. If someone has failed, at the lower level than you're thinking of picking him for (ie for county-cricket it would be Second XI, for Second XI club, etc.), you can't call him promising, even if he's only played one season. Once someone has achieved success, however, you can call him such.

 

[Rik]

Richard Dawson was one of the worst selections I have ever seen for English Test cricket. Likewise, Jeremy Snape was one for ODIs.

Hmmmm I do think Dawson was a very wierd selection, he's showing everyone that he's not even a county standard spinner at the moment. I didn't really think Snape did much wrong. He'd still be a useful player to keep around the squad I feel, a very good fielder, useful lower-order batsman to get you out of scrapes (more successful than Ealham) and a thoughtful spinner who was unorthodox in his method of bowling almost as slow as I can cycle.

 

[marc71178]

Like Marc, then.

And you Neil! :P

 

[marc71178]

Well explained - an all-rounder is someone who is approximately equal at both abilities. However good they are at both.

To me a true all-rounder has to be able to get in the side for one or other discipline alone.

Using your definition one could argue that Khaled is the only all rounder in World Cricket, since he's terrible at both!

 

[marc71178]

He is

It amazes me how this relative nobody (in the grand scheme of things) has become such a cult hero with people of almost all nationalities rooting for him to do well!

 

[Rik]

To me a true all-rounder has to be able to get in the side for one or other discipline alone.

That's basically an all-rounder in it's truest definition. But it has been used to encompass anyone who can do a bit of both or more.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And you Neil! :P

I'm a bowler :P

 

[The Argonaut]

I don't really see the need for Australia to have an all rounder. They've done well enough in recent times not to worry about it.

Even if Watson recovers from his injury his bowling will never be good enough. He doesn't bowl fast enough.

On a flat pitch it may be good to have another option but it should be a batsman who can bowl a bit of spin like Katich. He is not a high quality spinner but is really there for his batting first anyway.

There is currently only one quality all rounder at the moment and he is Jacques Kallis. He is good enough to be picked for each discipline alone. All the others are batsmen who can bowl a bit and bowlers that can bat a bit. As for Khaled he is equally inept at batting and bowling.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Has the Clarke argument in here been centered around Rikki Clarke for the poms this whole time? That woud be quite the mix up.

As for the whole gay reply, I have a newfound respect for Rik. No place for rubbish like that, it's not productive.

 

[Rik]

Has the Clarke argument in here been centered around Rikki Clarke for the poms this whole time? That woud be quite the mix up.

I can assure you it's not, we all know the only side in the world that make Rikki Clarke look like an all-rounder is Bangladesh and the only people who think he is an all-rounder are the England Selectors. Also Zimbabwe didn't have many problems with his bowling when they played him in the ODIs a year and a bit ago.

As for the whole gay reply, I have a newfound respect for Rik. No place for rubbish like that, it's not productive.

Thank you

 

[Richard]

Hmmmm I do think Dawson was a very wierd selection, he's showing everyone that he's not even a county standard spinner at the moment. I didn't really think Snape did much wrong. He'd still be a useful player to keep around the squad I feel, a very good fielder, useful lower-order batsman to get you out of scrapes (more successful than Ealham) and a thoughtful spinner who was unorthodox in his method of bowling almost as slow as I can cycle.

For me, Snape is a part-time bowler who rarely bowled his 9 overs in the National League while at Gloucs (even with Alleyne's embarrasment of riches you'd still expect an international bowler to be bowling his full overs most of the time in domestic games) and even if he's a useful lower-order batsman you can't justify picking a part-timer for international cricket!
Though Snape had every reason to feel aggrieved when left-out as his most recent 2 games have yielded 16 overs, 2 for 52. So did I who felt his was a very odd selection as I didn't get to see my point proved.

 

[Rik]

For me, Snape is a part-time bowler who rarely bowled his 9 overs in the National League while at Gloucs (even with Alleyne's embarrasment of riches you'd still expect an international bowler to be bowling his full overs most of the time in domestic games) and even if he's a useful lower-order batsman you can't justify picking a part-timer for international cricket!
Though Snape had every reason to feel aggrieved when left-out as his most recent 2 games have yielded 16 overs, 2 for 52. So did I who felt his was a very odd selection as I didn't get to see my point proved.

Hmmm, well, for a guy with 100 List A wickets, he's a pretty handy part-timer.

No he's not a part-timer, he's allways been a handy lower-order batsman who bowls spin, equal in ability with both in OD.

 

[Richard]

Hmmm, well, for a guy with 100 List A wickets, he's a pretty handy part-timer.

No he's not a part-timer, he's allways been a handy lower-order batsman who bowls spin, equal in ability with both in OD.

Hmm, fair enough.
For me, though, he's another Khaled Mahmud - an all-rounder maybe, but so useless at both codes that his selection for international cricket should be OOTQ.

 

[Rik]

Hmm, fair enough.
For me, though, he's another Khaled Mahmud - an all-rounder maybe, but so useless at both codes that his selection for international cricket should be OOTQ.

The difference is Snape CAN bowl and CAN bat...

 

[Richard]

To be fair, I'd say Khaled Mahmud can bowl better than plenty in ODIs. His action isn't great, but he's more accurate certainly than most Bangladeshis. And he's a good 30 mph quicker than Snape.
Snape is undoubtedly a better batsman in both forms of the game but really I'd say they're equally useless FC bowlers and equally accurate in the one-day game; Mahmud's pace gives him the edge.

 

[Rik]

To be fair, I'd say Khaled Mahmud can bowl better than plenty in ODIs. His action isn't great, but he's more accurate certainly than most Bangladeshis. And he's a good 30 mph quicker than Snape.
Snape is undoubtedly a better batsman in both forms of the game but really I'd say they're equally useless FC bowlers and equally accurate in the one-day game; Mahmud's pace gives him the edge.

The difference is that Snape is a spinner so he doesn't have to be as fast, but not only that he has a good Domestic List A OD record and his ODI record isn't the worst either...

 

[Richard]

The difference is that Snape is a spinner so he doesn't have to be as fast, but not only that he has a good Domestic List A OD record and his ODI record isn't the worst either...

No, it's not, but for me he hasn't played enough ODIs to sum him up properly. IMO circumstances conspired in his favour; he kept getting injured when a thrashing seemed to be in store. I wouldn't describe his List-A OD record as good, either. Not as bad as plenty of the excuses for bowlers coming through ATM, but not impressive either.
And I forgot to explain; for me, being a spinner is a disadvantage in one-day cricket. Bowling at in the early 50s (mph) gives batsmen time to come down the wicket so even if you're accurate you can still go for plenty if the batsmen use their feet. The only way to stop the use of feet is to make it more dangerous (ie turn the ball dangerously or bowl closer to 60 mph, like Dharmasena and Kumble).
For a seamer of 70-80 mph, the 'keeper can stand-up to the stumps and only an insane batsman will use his feet then. Hence, trying to attack accurate bowling becomes a risk that will almost inevitably cost the wicket sooner rather than later.

 

[Rik]

No, it's not, but for me he hasn't played enough ODIs to sum him up properly. IMO circumstances conspired in his favour; he kept getting injured when a thrashing seemed to be in store. I wouldn't describe his List-A OD record as good, either. Not as bad as plenty of the excuses for bowlers coming through ATM, but not impressive either.
And I forgot to explain; for me, being a spinner is a disadvantage in one-day cricket. Bowling at in the early 50s (mph) gives batsmen time to come down the wicket so even if you're accurate you can still go for plenty if the batsmen use their feet. The only way to stop the use of feet is to make it more dangerous (ie turn the ball dangerously or bowl closer to 60 mph, like Dharmasena and Kumble).
For a seamer of 70-80 mph, the 'keeper can stand-up to the stumps and only an insane batsman will use his feet then. Hence, trying to attack accurate bowling becomes a risk that will almost inevitably cost the wicket sooner rather than later.

Being a spinner isn't a disadvantage...

Murali, Warne, even Harbajan and Kumble have had success. Murali actually econs less than 4 an over, similer to Pollock. There's a place for all kinds of bowlers in OD cricket. Just look at the success of some of the spinners in the 20Twenty Cup last summer...

Snape did well in my opinion and deserved more chances. He looked likely to get thrashed by India when was over there but then, they murder spin bowling most of the time anyway. He bowled slowly but with his loop he tended to trick batsmen down the track or into playing too early.

Anyway this is about Australian all-rounders, or batsmen who bowl as we call them over here