cricket betting betway blog banner small
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 77

Thread: Does Australia really need an all-rounder?

  1. #1
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,127

    Does Australia really need an all-rounder?

    Ok I know virtually every other side has one and we all know what Andrew Flintoff has done, but given the lack of success Andrew Symonds at Test cricket and Shane Watson looking so far unconvicing at Test level and given that they don't really bowl as much as say a Flintoff or a Dwayne Bravo, my question is does an all-rounder really offer something to the Aussie Test team given the past success of Australia at Test cricket or is something that needs to be persisted with?
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  2. #2
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,195
    Well, a quality allrounder is a very useful addition to any side, but I wouldnt say that you really NEED one for a side to work successfully. If you have five quality performing batsmen in your side, and you are confident with them, then batting the keeper at #6 and playing five bowlers is perfectly acceptable. As is the reverse - if you have 4 quality performing bowlers in your side, and you are confident with them, then batting the keeper at #7 with a specialist batsman at #6 is also perfectly acceptable. Allrounders help this balance out somewhat, but they are not required. It all depends on what the strengths and weaknesses of a team are.

    As for the specific Australian situation, Symonds simply isnt of test standard, and I have stated this for years gone by. Watson, IMO, will eventually be good enough to command a spot in the side, but hes not quite good enough yet. The selectors will pick him though, to get him used to test cricket and gradually give him more responsibility, just as they have done in ODIs.

    Watson's the man - hes not quite ready yet, but he will be.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  3. #3
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,127
    Well the other suggestion I have heard of today on the ABC is that Adam Gilchrist gives up the gloves in both forms of the game and plays as a batsman.

    He could probably make it as a batsman alone but I doubt he would play the way that he does.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,195
    Well the other suggestion I have heard of today on the ABC is that Adam Gilchrist gives up the gloves in both forms of the game and plays as a batsman.
    I really dont see how that would fix the problem. If anything, it would create more balance problems as Australia would have more specialists....


  5. #5
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend andyc's Avatar
    Yeti Sports 1.5 Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    23,883
    Pity this wasn't a poll, but no, we do not need an allrounder. That said, if Watson's batting does keep growing as it has, it'd be great to have him in the team.
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Symonds will be good, he just needs a good innings to get his confidence up i reakon. his fielding is excellent too
    Member of CW Green
    Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator

  7. #7
    Cricketer Of The Year Robertinho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Testing Forums into the Sunset
    Posts
    8,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig
    Well the other suggestion I have heard of today on the ABC is that Adam Gilchrist gives up the gloves in both forms of the game and plays as a batsman.

    He could probably make it as a batsman alone but I doubt he would play the way that he does.
    Craig, how would that help? That one mean we have one less allrounder. Right now, Adam Gilchrist occupies both the wicket keeping and batsman role - meaning we don't need to sacrifice any batting in order to include a keeper. How would putting someone else in the side (ie; Haddin) who wouldn't make it as a specialist bat help?
    "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

  8. #8
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Robertinho
    Craig, how would that help? That one mean we have one less allrounder. Right now, Adam Gilchrist occupies both the wicket keeping and batsman role - meaning we don't need to sacrifice any batting in order to include a keeper. How would putting someone else in the side (ie; Haddin) who wouldn't make it as a specialist bat help?
    My thoughts exactly.

  9. #9
    BARNES OUT dontcloseyoureyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CW BLACK
    Posts
    32,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS
    As for the specific Australian situation, Symonds simply isnt of test standard, and I have stated this for years gone by. Watson, IMO, will eventually be good enough to command a spot in the side, but hes not quite good enough yet. The selectors will pick him though, to get him used to test cricket and gradually give him more responsibility, just as they have done in ODIs.

    Watson's the man - hes not quite ready yet, but he will be.
    100% on the money.

  10. #10
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    I think Craig confused himself there.

    Anyway the answer is obviously no, they don't need an allrounder. They didn't need one when they had the world record test match win streak going. They don't need one now. If Watson turns out to be able to fill that role, then its fine. But they shouldn't try and create one from a player who is obviously far from an allrounder at test level (Symonds).
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  11. #11
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Watson's bowling isn't good enough at test level.

  12. #12
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,195
    Quote Originally Posted by age_master
    Watson's bowling isn't good enough at test level.
    Not yet, but his batting is close enough IMO, and his bowling will gradually progress.

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    nah its not worth it, wait for Henriques to make it, or play Marto and he will have a bowl.

  14. #14
    BARNES OUT dontcloseyoureyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CW BLACK
    Posts
    32,982
    Quote Originally Posted by age_master
    Watson's bowling isn't good enough at test level.
    And in the beginning Flintoff's batting wasn't either.

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Flintoff isn't a number 6 still, his bowling is certainly classy though

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Oldest Test Team?
    By chaminda_00 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 13-09-2006, 10:01 PM
  2. Playing test cricket in their 40s
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27-11-2005, 09:13 PM
  3. The Future Champions of Test Cricket
    By Shawn Badyk in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-07-2003, 03:11 AM
  4. Who?
    By Rich2001 in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-07-2003, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •