The serviceable all-rounder

[Red]

As cricket followers, I think we expect a lot from all-rounders. We argue that they should be able to hold their place in the team with at least one of their chosen disciplines alone, while adding their other skill to it. And it's well known that there have been very few, if any, all-rounders through history who would have been chosen on the basis of either one of their skills. Perhaps the only ones who would have been chosen as a batsman OR a bowler were Miller and Botham. Kallis, Kapil, Imran, maybe. Sobers, possibly. Jack Gregory, possibly. Aubrey Faulkner, maybe. Gilchrist and Ames would have both been selected as batsmen without their keeping, but it's debatable that they'd have been selected on their keeping ability alone.

This topic is interesting to me. Sobers' bowling ability and Botham's all round ability are currently being discussed in other threads. The expectations on all-rounders are immense. We talk about the fact that very few have managed to combine both disciplines successfully at the same time. So the expectation is high.

Which leads me to consider two players from the 50s/60s: Ken Mackay and Trevor Bailey. They are two of my favourite cricketers. It strikes me that they were similar players with similar records. Both took a couple of wickets per test. Both had a batting average of about 30. Neither would be considered a great bowler, nor a great batsman. But both played a decent amount of tests, and from what I can gather from reading about them, both were highly valued by their captains.

These guys had both batting and bowling averages of around 30. Which leads me to a modern player like Shane Watson. I've been a critic of his for various reasons, but do we expect too much from a player like him? Is it enough to average 30 with the bat and 30 with the ball, taking 1 or 2 wickets per test?

I think of Mackay and Bailey as serviceable all-rounders. Should we think of Watson the same way, rather than expecting him to ever be a true great?

 

[NUFAN]

We should only think of Shane Watson as a serviceable all rounder when he is:
a) able to bowl
b) does more than just get a start and scores above 30 semi regularly.

I don't think anyone really minded Watson in our team when he was making regular enough contributions, they've just dried up of late to the point where he isn't serviceable.

 

[Coronis]

Tbh, I never expected Watson to be true great.

 

[Red]

Tbh, I never expected Watson to be true great.

I did, once. There was a test he played so that Australia could play both Warne and Macgill together. I really rate(d) him as a bowler.

 

[Hurricane]

If you can average 30 with the ball you deserve to be in the team as a bowler alone. Probably as the 3rd or 4th bowler on the team sheet.

 

[uvelocity]

watson is due for a service

 

[Top_Cat]

Watson wasn't destined to be a serviceable all-rounder, was a monster at underage and FC levels. Not many blokes have ever averaged 50 with the bat with shots everywhere and in the 20's with the ball bowling 140+. His skills were ridiculous. That he's ended up with a serviceable record is basically a failure.

I saw him play at Park 25 for the academy years back and he was super sharp with the ball and was a textbook look about him but he looked very 'constructed' even then. Skills to die for but did wonder how he'd go against better oppo than he faced.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

England tend to pick non-serviceable all-rounders like Chris Lewis and Derek Pringle.

 

[fredfertang]

England tend to pick non-serviceable all-rounders like Chris Lewis and Derek Pringle.

Slightly harsh on Pring - he was a lot better than the likes of Ronnie Irani, David Capel, Mark Ealham and Adam Hollioake

 

[bagapath]

Slightly harsh on Pring - he was a lot better than the likes of Ronnie Irani, David Capel, Mark Ealham and Adam Hollioake

my granny was better than all of them. that doesnt mean much in test cricket. pringle was not good to tie ravi shastri's shoe laces. and he, was a serviceable all rounder.

 

[fredfertang]

my granny was better than all of them. that doesnt mean much in test cricket. pringle was not good to tie ravi shastri's shoe laces. and he, was a serviceable all rounder.

I think Pring was a decent enough Test player - certainly not in the front rank but he did a job - worth bearing in mind he played a disproportionately high number of his Tests against the great West Indies sides of the 80s, and he did pretty well against them

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I still to this day think Peter May thought he would be in line for free crisps.

 

[Pothas]

Really want some Pringles now.

 

[bagapath]

I think Pring was a decent enough Test player - certainly not in the front rank but he did a job - worth bearing in mind he played a disproportionately high number of his Tests against the great West Indies sides of the 80s, and he did pretty well against them

Pringle < Irfan. What do you say?

 

[Dazinho]

At international level, Pringle was something of a 'reverse all-rounder', not quite good enough with either bat or ball. That said, he was clearly better than Capel, and probably the equal of Chris Lewis.

England had a particular obsession with all-rounders that was built largely around the Botham myth. The analysis of his career on here from other posters has been very concise - great for 3-4 years, good for another 3-4 and then a sorry mess after 1987.

We strove desparately to replace a player who never existed, to the detriment of solid specialists who were around at the same time. 1990s England selections are quite funny with the benefit of being able to look back, but no laughing matter at the time.

 

[Howe_zat]

How good was Craig White?

From Andy Zaltzman: "By the end, it was hard to work out if he had overachieved or underachieved with both bat and ball. Or done exactly as well as he should."

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How good was Craig White?

From Andy Zaltzman: "By the end, it was hard to work out if he had overachieved or underachieved with both bat and ball. Or done exactly as well as he should."

Given that he achieved bugger all for 7 years and then had an Indian summer for about a year at the end of his career I would say .............. it's hard to work out.

 

[Top_Cat]

That White wasn't the world-class all-rounder England were after in the end probably tells you how much he raised his game in the 2nd half of his career because before that, was well on track to be that serviceable type and nothing more.

 

[Dazinho]

That White wasn't the world-class all-rounder England were after in the end probably tells you how much he raised his game in the 2nd half of his career because before that, was well on track to be that serviceable type and nothing more.

Much better when played essentially as a fourth bowler who added a bit of batting.

Was picked way too early for England, on the basis of something silly like having bowled 120 first class overs at medium-fast. Pretty sure he started out as an off-break bowler or something like that?

Another botched 1990s selection from Illingworth's England...

 

[zaremba]

In theory I think there may well be a place in most teams for a "serviceable all-rounder" who isn't really good enough to get in the team as either a specialist batsman or specialist bowler. They have to be able to make a real contribution with bat and ball though and to have a degree of competence in both disciplines. Someone to bowl maybe second change and to bat at 7 or 8. To put it another way, once you've got 3 specialist bowlers the value starts to increase of a change bowler who can also contribute with the bat and therefore give balance to the team.

That said, I'm struggling to think of many real-life examples. Ashley Giles and Freddie Flintoff are the two that spring to mind. I suppose that at a pinch and at his peak Fred might have made the Test team as a pure bowler, but not for long. You look at his record across his FC and Test career and it's hardly outstanding. Probably Trevor Bailey is in a similar category - was he really a good enough bowler to find his way into that particular England team without his batting?