Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, but you mentioned it in this thread, implying it was a possible solution to the problem outlined in this thread.Craig said:
-
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
Craig
World Traveller
That's an interesting comment because Ian Chappell in the tea break was giving us an alternative that if Australia go in with 2 spinners at the MCG to chuck Lee in at 7 and bat him ahead of Warne at 8 on the basis of Lee's improvement with the bat.BoyBrumby said:
Thoughts?
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
Another problem with this five-bowlers concept is that Ponting doesn't really have the cricket brain to use all five effectively outside the ODI arena.
You'd think he'd have SOME faith in Symonds to get a wicket, instead of turning to Hodge.
You'd think he'd have SOME faith in Symonds to get a wicket, instead of turning to Hodge.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Australia probably don't need an allrounder right now, but they will in the future. Australia have been magnificently blessed over the last decade having Warne and McGrath in their side, both Warne and McGrath are worth 3 bowlers (combined) negating the real need for a fifth bowler. The last 6 years we've also had Gilchrist who is an allrounder of some sort (if he's keeping was better he might be then classed as a true allrounder 
) which has also helped our cause. However over the next 4 or 5 years, we will need someone who can be more than just a part time bowler. If they are not an 'out-and-out' allrounder they need to be able to bowl 15-20 overs in a day/innnings and be economical.
) which has also helped our cause. However over the next 4 or 5 years, we will need someone who can be more than just a part time bowler. If they are not an 'out-and-out' allrounder they need to be able to bowl 15-20 overs in a day/innnings and be economical.Hello 
1st post, and all i want to say is that i think Andrew Symonds just needs 1 good innings. I think that it could also help his bowling. He struggled in 1 day internationals when he 1st started, and i see this as the same thing, only this time he only has 1 or possibly 2 more matches to get it right. If he doesnt by then, i fear thats the end of his test career
.
Also, his bowling is less effective than Watsons, but how many extra runs does he stop in the field. Surely that has to count for something.
And then to answer the question of the thread. If Watson and Symonds are the allrounders and stay at there current form, then no Australia doesnt need an allrounder.
1st post, and all i want to say is that i think Andrew Symonds just needs 1 good innings. I think that it could also help his bowling. He struggled in 1 day internationals when he 1st started, and i see this as the same thing, only this time he only has 1 or possibly 2 more matches to get it right. If he doesnt by then, i fear thats the end of his test career
.Also, his bowling is less effective than Watsons, but how many extra runs does he stop in the field. Surely that has to count for something.
And then to answer the question of the thread. If Watson and Symonds are the allrounders and stay at there current form, then no Australia doesnt need an allrounder.
Dasa
International Vice-Captain
Welcome.nato said:Hello
1st post, and all i want to say is that i think Andrew Symonds just needs 1 good innings. I think that it could also help his bowling. He struggled in 1 day internationals when he 1st started, and i see this as the same thing, only this time he only has 1 or possibly 2 more matches to get it right. If he doesnt by then, i fear thats the end of his test career
Also, his bowling is less effective than Watsons, but how many extra runs does he stop in the field. Surely that has to count for something.
And then to answer the question of the thread. If Watson and Symonds are the allrounders and stay at there current form, then no Australia doesnt need an allrounder.
I wouldn't say Symonds' fielding should be something keeping him in the Aus side, the Aus side generally has pretty good fielders and I don't think he strengthens it to the extent to keep him in the team...his main role is as a batsman and he simply doesn't look upto it.
Slow Love™
International Captain
Does Australia really need an all-rounder? No. Do they desperately want one of Flintoff quality? Obviously. But until such a player presents themselves (and I really don't think either Symonds OR Watson is that player), let's just play our best specialists. If an all-rounder falls into one of those categories, all well and good.
The Argonaut
State Vice-Captain
It's fair to say that Watson and Symonds aren't test class bowlers. Both must be considered as batsmen who can bowl a bit. Watson is a good enough batsman to be brought in at no 6 and given experience for when Australia needs an allrounder. His bowling will improve.
The Symonds experiment is not working sadly. That said Ponting should have given him more of a go on day 5. An off spinner bowling into the footmarks outside a left handers off stump would have been dangerous. With the amount of bowling that Symonds is doing they would be better off replacing him with a batsman until Watson comes back.
The Symonds experiment is not working sadly. That said Ponting should have given him more of a go on day 5. An off spinner bowling into the footmarks outside a left handers off stump would have been dangerous. With the amount of bowling that Symonds is doing they would be better off replacing him with a batsman until Watson comes back.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hey, welcome to CW, hope you stick around.nato said:Hello
1st post, and all i want to say is that i think Andrew Symonds just needs 1 good innings. I think that it could also help his bowling. He struggled in 1 day internationals when he 1st started, and i see this as the same thing, only this time he only has 1 or possibly 2 more matches to get it right. If he doesnt by then, i fear thats the end of his test career
Also, his bowling is less effective than Watsons, but how many extra runs does he stop in the field. Surely that has to count for something.
And then to answer the question of the thread. If Watson and Symonds are the allrounders and stay at there current form, then no Australia doesnt need an allrounder.
I'm going to have to go with Dasa on this one. Yes, his fielding is a positive to his game, but while that is very important in one dayers, in tests good fielding is not enough to keep you in the side, unless you're Jonty Rhodes. The fact is, Damien Martyn was only given four poor tests before he was axed after averaging something like 80 for the rest of the season. Symonds has now played 5 tests, in which his highest score is 25. Come on, selectors.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Darren Lehmann?? But its certainly a stretch.SteveG said: