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

[GIMH]

Even a hard nosed Englishman like me would have to concede that Oz have been half decent at cricket over the years. In my time following the game they’ve had the best seamer (McGrath), spinner (Warne) and two of the best batsmen (Ponting and Smith).

Alas everyone knows all-rounders are the true superstars in Test Cricket. England were once mocked for trying to constantly find the next Botham but in the time that we’ve reeled out Flintoff, Stokes, Ali, Woakes, the best they can give us is Shane Watson, who averages about 46 with the ball.

Why are they so ****?

 

[Whistler]

They’ve never really needed an all-rounder. Perhaps the question should be why do England produce so many?

 

[Burgey]

Probably because their batting and bowling specialists are ordinary so they need the insurance

 

[Prince EWS]

I have two theories, both of which could be somewhat bullshit.

1. Most great allrounders take time and patience to develop after starts where they seem not good enough with either bat or ball. I think the English public has a lot more patience and hope during this early development phase, while the Australian public is much quicker to rubbish and ridicule under-performing allrounders. This not only puts pressure on selectors to get rid of them quicker, but creates a pretty stressful environment for the player even if the selectors have more faith (see: Watson, Marsh). The culture around allrounders in Australia is really damaging, and it's probably reinforced a bit by the limited history of good ones here. You're more willing to give a player rope if you think you might get Flintoff or Botham than if you think you're just going to get Marsh again.

2. English domestic cricket being easier to get a gig in means talented athletes are encouraged and incentivised more to develop more than one skill at that level. Even when the cream of the domestic talent in both countries is similar, there are definitely more absolute journeymen in English cricket which means talented batsmen end up bowling more and talented bowlers end up further up the order.

Sri Lankan cricket is a really great example of #2, IMO. The gap between the best and worst players in that competition is absolutely massive, so almost every talented batsman ends up either becoming a wicket keeper or an allrounder.

 

[ataraxia]

1. Most great allrounders take time and patience to develop after starts where they seem not good enough with either bat or bowl. I think the English public has a lot more patience and hope for this kind of early development phase, while the Australian public is much quicker to rubbish players like this. This not only puts pressure on selectors to get rid of them quicker, but creates a pretty stressful environment for the player even if the selectors have more faith (see: Watson, Marsh). The culture around allrounders in Australia is really damaging, and it's probably reinforced a bit by the limited history of them. You're more willing to give a player rope if you think you might get Flintoff or Botham than if you think you're just going to get Marsh again.

@mr_mister

 

[the big bambino]

Irani and Derek Pringle. Dom Cork. Enviable ...

 

[Athlai]

Frankly, they're not.

Far too few genuinely good Test allrounders to indicate anything more than random chance.

 

[Whistler]

Frankly, they're not.

Far too few genuinely good Test allrounders to indicate anything more than random chance.

Way better than anyone else produces though.

 

[honestbharani]

every talented batsman ends up either becoming a wicket keeper

This is true.. I am not sure about the AR side of it though.

 

[halba]

The answer is simple. UK has 2.5x the population of Aus, that will increase the chances of finding more talented cricketers eventually, despite being lesser overall temporarily pre 2014, assuming cricket systems are similar

After seeing the 3rd test, it's obvious England bench strength and talent is superior to Aus eg they also have Brook who is a new talent, Aus have no new batting talents

 

[Prince EWS]

This is true.. I am not sure about the AR side of it though.

Almost all the ones who don't keep end up with FC bowling averages below 35 as batting allrounders. They don't always end up bowling much internationally but in the domestic comp they play in, almost all the bats in Test contention either keep or get used as a regular bowling option.

 

[Starfighter]

England has a selection philosophy a lot more amenable to bits and pieces players and to selecting bowlers for their batting.

 

[Athlai]

Way better than anyone else produces though.

Nah not really. How many ATG allrounders do you think there are? England may have more, but they've played the most cricket.

They've had 3 great allrounders in 50 years, and that doesn't seem all that remarkable compared to most other Test nations. Aus not really even having one is a bit more interesting IMO.

 

[loterry1994]

They haven’t had much at test level but they’ve had some pretty good ones it the short formats

 

[Spark]

#1 in Cribb's post is spot on. The way we denigrate allrounders in this country if they aren't immediately putting up Gary Sobers numbers is ****ing deranged. People forget that the exact same pile-on that's going on with Green now happened with MMarsh earlier and then Watson before that. Even Symonds copped it for a few good years and he had the luxury of not really being considered a serious Text fixture for most of his career.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

My theory is for an All Rounder to truly develop to the best they can be , you've got to give them responsibility and be patient with them ..get them in the thick of the action and not treat them like luxury cricketers ..

England get the best out of their all rounders cause they give them a heap of responsibility ...Flintoff and Stokes have been captain of England (It didn't always work but it showed the faith they have) , I've seen English allrounders being given the new ball , moved up and down the batting order depending on what the team needs , bowl as many overs as specialist bowlers do .. This is what it's all about ..

 

[ataraxia]

They've had 3 great allrounders in 50 years, and that doesn't seem all that remarkable compared to most other Test nations.

4 – Greig.

 

[Howe_zat]

#1 in Cribb's post is spot on. The way we denigrate allrounders in this country if they aren't immediately putting up Gary Sobers numbers is ****ing deranged. People forget that the exact same pile-on that's going on with Green now happened with MMarsh earlier and then Watson before that. Even Symonds copped it for a few good years and he had the luxury of not really being considered a serious Text fixture for most of his career.

Reminds me of this discussion

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/threads/australia-time-to-end-the-all-rounder-thing.67537/

 

[Prince EWS]

4 – Greig.

@Red_Ink_Squid may provide an argument for a fifth...

 

[Shady Slim]

also watto is better than moeen and woakes and not thaaaaaat much behind freddy

england's got a deeper modern all rounder bench for sure but don't underestimate watto. roy great as well right