Why are England so much better at producing all rounders than Australia?

[Owzat]

Aye. Flintoff's peak was short but it was a seriously high peak. One of the absolute best players in the world for a few years.

1. Woakes
2. Botham
3. Stokes
4. Grieg
5. Flintoff

Think Woakes is a generous inclusion, his 28 batting average is thanks in no small part to 1/5 of his innings being not out, averages 22 runs per innings and yes I know the 'argument' about runs that he might have scored if he'd been able to continue batting but doesn't detract from the fact 1/5 is a lot of innings to be not out and impacts figures.

the rest of your list, no surprise, average (all but in the case of Flintoff) 32+ and without as much reliance on not outs. I'll cut him slack on less hundreds given his batting position, Flintoff next lowest with 5 and he really should have scored more hundreds and taken a 10wi (not just 3 5wis)

Pretty sure they also could play outside of England, Woakes' average with ball outside these shores is 51.89 so great bowling in England/UK and handy with the bat. Swann might have cut it as an all-rounder if England hadn't kept him down the order, perhaps realising his bowling was the bigger asset to the team

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Australia may not produce all rounders but they have regularly produced good bowlers who are handy with the bat. Warne, Lee, Johnson, Starc, Cummins

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

PEWS had such a great effortpost rant in that thread. Too bad he's just become a guy who posts stale memes and in-jokes now. Just a Warneresque decline.

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS had such a great effortpost rant in that thread. Too bad he's just become a guy who posts stale memes and in-jokes now. Just a Warneresque decline.

I made somewhat of an effortpost in this thread too tbf.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Bowlers are weak if they can't bowl 20 quality overs per day lmao

 

[GIMH]

Bowlers are weak if they can't bowl 20 quality overs per day lmao

It’s the sort of analysis that winds me up across all sorts of sports. Even if you believe that..fine they’re weak, what next?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It means he wanted them out of the squad so he could get picked because he had more FC wickets than Mark Craig.

 

[Spark]

It’s the sort of analysis that winds me up across all sorts of sports. Even if you believe that..fine they’re weak, what next?

There's literally an example of this in the other thread aws! It's such a stupid line of punditry.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Bowlers are weak if they can't bowl 20 quality overs per day lmao

That's why bowling all rounders are better

 

[91Jmay]

pretty much anyone who can bat and can bowl is classed as an "all-rounder", but those who could make the side on one skill alone is much smaller.

I doubt Woakes and Ali could, they can bat and can bowl respectively, but holding down a place on their weakest skill would be hard.

as has been said aussies have good enough bowlers they don't need to rely heavily on all-rounders, most Test sides would include one of quality enough but you actually want batsmen to score runs and bowlers to take wickets, not stick in a few bits n pieces cricketers who might take 2-3 wickets or might score a fifty

pick your best 4-5 batsmen, pick your best 2-3 bowlers, if any happen to have bowling and batting respectively in their locker then that's great but maybe the likes of Curran and Ali were meant to play LOIs more than Tests. Not to say in England Woakes at #8 isn't capable of playing his part as one of four quicks

All-rounders needing to hold down a spot with either discipline is just not true though. If you contribute more net to a team than a specialist would then it is fine to be 10% lower in each aspect, say.

 

[Howe_zat]

Think Woakes is a generous inclusion, his 28 batting average is thanks in no small part to 1/5 of his innings being not out, averages 22 runs per innings and yes I know the 'argument' about runs that he might have scored if he'd been able to continue batting but doesn't detract from the fact 1/5 is a lot of innings to be not out and impacts figures.

the rest of your list, no surprise, average (all but in the case of Flintoff) 32+ and without as much reliance on not outs. I'll cut him slack on less hundreds given his batting position, Flintoff next lowest with 5 and he really should have scored more hundreds and taken a 10wi (not just 3 5wis)

Pretty sure they also could play outside of England, Woakes' average with ball outside these shores is 51.89 so great bowling in England/UK and handy with the bat. Swann might have cut it as an all-rounder if England hadn't kept him down the order, perhaps realising his bowling was the bigger asset to the team

Quoting RIS with this post is like telling a toddler Father Christmas isn't real ftr

 

[Ali TT]

Reckon English team selection from club level upwards involves hedging your bets a bit. In all likelihood, conditions will favour seam-swing bowling but you can't really rule out that a spinner will also be needed. So you want to have 4 quicks and a spinner in your attack which means at least one of them has to be able to bat too.

I disagree that the Aussies don't produce all-rounders at all - SWaugh and Smith for example both started as such but then later specialised as batters. Suggests the onus is on specialism and Australia has generally produced enough of these that are good enough such that an all rounder is generally a weaker option.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Quoting RIS with this post is like telling a toddler Father Christmas isn't real ftr

He's posting stats about how frequently opposition find themselves completely unable to dismiss Woakes when he's batting. What I'm hearing is that Father Christmas can shoot lasers from his eyes, and has a pet dinosaur.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Australia hasn't needed allrounders in the last 50 years, while England is 3rd = with India in that time for allrounders.

SA 1, NZ 2, Eng & Ind 3=

 

[Fuller Pilch]

After all this talk about the lack of Aussie allrounders it would be hilarious if Australia stacked the batting and played all 3 of Green, Marsh, and Nesser:

Khawaja
Head (or open with Marnus)
Labuschagne
Smith
Green
Marsh
Carey
Nesser
Starc
Cummins
Murphy

 

[GIMH]

Australia hasn't needed allrounders in the last 50 years, while England is 3rd = with India in that time for allrounders.

SA 1, NZ 2, Eng & Ind 3=

ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Anthony Clayden]

Australia has as many all rounders in the ICC top 20 ratings as England

4 Miller 572
5 Benaud 532
17 Davidson 473
20 Noble 450

 

[Fuller Pilch]

1. McMillan, S Pollock, Kallis, Klusener as well as Procter and Rice. (Greig* would've played for them too if not for apartheid). Late career Barlow was not considered.

2. Hadlee, Cairns, Oram, Vettori, De Grandhomme (late career Taylor was not considered).

3= Greig*, Botham, Flintoff, Stokes,

3= Kapil, Ashwin, Jadeja, Axar

Klusener was the worst of those listed above but still better than the likes of Prabhakar, Shastri, Craig, Santner, Woakes, Ali etc

 

[Fuller Pilch]

1. McMillan, S Pollock, Kallis, Klusener as well as Procter and Rice. (Greig* would've played for them too if not for apartheid). Late career Barlow was not considered.

2. Hadlee, Cairns, Oram, Vettori, De Grandhomme (late career Taylor was not considered).

3= Greig*, Botham, Flintoff, Stokes,

3= Kapil, Ashwin, Jadeja, Axar

Klusener was the worst of those listed above but still better than the likes of Prabhakar, Shastri, Craig, Santner, Woakes, Ali etc

Also the thread has the word "produced", so I must admit that NZ did not produce De Grandhomme just as England didn't produce Greig and Stokes.

 

[GIMH]

Also the thread has the word "produced", so I must admit that NZ did not produce De Grandhomme just as England didn't produce Greig and Stokes.

English cricket produced Stokes.