dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
To add, batting Watson at 7 was ridiculous. The man is good enough to command a top of the order spot, and should have been given the #4 position instead of Clarke.
-
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.
Does Australia really need an all-rounder?
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
Josh
International Regular
If Australia wants to play 2 spinners, yes they do. Unless they think of Lee as the all-rounder. In that case they can play 3 seamers (including Lee).
When not relying on 2 spinners, the all-rounder loses value.
With the persistance to play both MacGill and Warne, an all-rounder is needed if they want to keep batting depth.
When not relying on 2 spinners, the all-rounder loses value.
With the persistance to play both MacGill and Warne, an all-rounder is needed if they want to keep batting depth.
howardj
International Coach
We've managed to do pretty well the whole summer without one - Watson and Symonds' contribution with the ball has been, at best, negligible. My argument RE Watson is that he is good enough to hold down a top-six batting slot, independently of his bowling. Therefore, once fit, I think they should make every effort to squeeze him into the line-up, which would give Australia the luxury of his (somewhat gun barell straight, yet improving) fast mediums.Linda said:
Linda
International Vice-Captain
Yeah, I was just being topical...howardj said:
As for Watson, I dont like the idea of playing him on the basis of his bowling having potential. He should be showing us what he can do playing for Queensland. Whilst weve got McGrath and Warne, we should continue (ie pre Ashes) to play the extra batsman, and if Watson is good enough he will make the team as a genuine allrounder.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Because Clarke did a much better job with it, right?Josh said:
Granted, Martyn shouldn't have been dropped, and Hodge, at least for the moment, commands the spot, but at that point in time Watson should have got the position. Watson has a tight, top-four style technique whereas Clarke has a flashier [much better to watch] style that is much better in the 5 or 6 position.
howardj
International Coach
I just dont see what material difference the absence of Watson or Symonds' bowling would have made in either Hobart or Adelaide. People are set in their ways, and seem to believe that there's no possible way that you can go in with only the two spinners, and two quicks. Normally, they may have a point, but not when the personnel is McGrath, Lee (in present form), Warne and McGill. This is the quartet that Australia should rely on to win the Ashes. If you pick this attack, then you have the luxury of being able to pick just the six best batsmen. If one of them bowls, that's a bonus. If not, we'll still take 20 wickets.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I think the obvious answer is that Australia have had a world-class all-rounder for several years! He's in a rough trot just now, but Gilchrist is more than capable of holding down a top six spot.
I've always thought that playing him at seven was a pretty conservative tactic anyway. I don't think Lee is quite a test 7, but he must be bordering on it in his current form. Warne & (say) Gillespie are both decent enough with the willow too, which leaves McGrath & MacGill as the specialist bowlers at 10 & 11.
If Australia want McGrath & Warne to keep going (and that seems a no-brainer to me!) I think another genuine test class bowler to spread to workload around must help prolong their careers.
I've always thought that playing him at seven was a pretty conservative tactic anyway. I don't think Lee is quite a test 7, but he must be bordering on it in his current form. Warne & (say) Gillespie are both decent enough with the willow too, which leaves McGrath & MacGill as the specialist bowlers at 10 & 11.
If Australia want McGrath & Warne to keep going (and that seems a no-brainer to me!) I think another genuine test class bowler to spread to workload around must help prolong their careers.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
i dont think the selectors will risk weakening the batting to accomodate another bowler, thats why when fit Watson fits in their perfectly, hopefully he'll be ready for the return series in SA.BoyBrumby said:
Whats wrong with this line-up:
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Hodge
Hussey
Watson
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie or Bracken/MacGill
McGrath
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
The second innings is 36 overs old, and he hasnt bowled yet in the whole match. For the purposes of this match, Jaques Rudolph is more of an allrounder than Symonds, who seems to be picked as a specialist fielder.marc71178 said:
Last edited:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I guess the one good thing about Symonds being in the side is that, in combination with the inclusion of Hussey and Hodge, Australia has a lot more life in it as a fielding unit.
