GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
There was no Ashes tour of 06/07
The three or four years where he averaged 40 with the bat and 27 with the ball probably justified his selection though.
-
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.
Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
The three or four years where he averaged 40 with the bat and 27 with the ball probably justified his selection though.
indiaholic
International Captain
You guys let go off kippax for this ****? Btw love me some PEWS. Write a book or something. I will pre-order it.
Spark
Global Moderator
nah but you see Mythical N. Six was averaging 41 with the bat and so clearly the 1 extra run per innings on average is worth more than an extra Test class bowler, increased pressure on the batsmen and increased intensity from the bowlers. i'm sure england would have won every test in that series if only for that 1 extra run.
cnerd123
likes this
And yea it's not 15 good 5 crap. It's 15 at 100% or 20 at 80%. And if you have a batsman who is a good enough bowler to hold up an end, only then will you play him over a slightly better batsman. That's why India haven't done it yet. They don't have any options. Every other team has adopted it.
BD FTR are loaded with allrounders. As are Zimbabwe. It is literally only India who stick to just 4 bowlers and it always backfires on them.
BD FTR are loaded with allrounders. As are Zimbabwe. It is literally only India who stick to just 4 bowlers and it always backfires on them.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Apples and Oranges.
I would select James Pattinson and a batsman at 6 (if Australia had 6 test quality bats) over Mitchell Johnson and Mitch Marsh at 6 if Johnson could only bowl 15 overs a day.
Watson is possibly in the selector's eyes in the 6 best test bats in Australia at the moment given his recent tries as opener and at 3. But he is slipping down the order.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
WI, but they aren't a decent side. And honestly they'll probably end up doing it anyway once Holder's batting improves a bit more.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Ha. Love your work. The batting allrounder does not average 30-35 in your eyes, but 40 or over. And the next best batsmen only averages 41. Love it. Brilliant stuff. Totally a fair comparison and assessment. You have quite some objectivity here.
Spark
Global Moderator
Almost no bowlers bowl 100% all the time. Dale Steyn is well-known for throttling it right back when he feels the conditions aren't quite there, and any theory on bowling which discounts Dale Steyn is automatically wrong.
The only bowler that bowls 100% in Tests literally all the time is 2013-4 Mitchell Johnson. And the only reason he was able to do that was the 5-man attack.
The only bowler that bowls 100% in Tests literally all the time is 2013-4 Mitchell Johnson. And the only reason he was able to do that was the 5-man attack.
Spark
Global Moderator
You mean you shouldn't just select the best six batsmen in the country regardless of any other considerations, but make a judgement based on what each player brings to the side in order to maximise winning chances?
What a shock! If only five different people hadn't said it about thirty times in the space of two hours...
not every bowler is capable of 100% at any time
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
Mitch Marsh is averaging 37 with the bat and 164 with the ball. Good luck with that.You mean you shouldn't just select the best six batsmen in the country regardless of any other considerations, but make a judgement based on what each player brings to the side in order to maximise winning chances?
What a shock! If only five different people hadn't said it about thirty times in the space of two hours...
not every bowler is capable of 100% at any time
If you have 6 batsmen averaging 45-50+ and you have a player batting at over 40, and bowling under 30 - I'm sure you could find a place in the team for them at 8, Johnson at 9, with Rhino and Lyon. Want to drop a batsman averaging 50 for a 5th bowler averaging 37 with the bat and bowling 164 with the ball? Be my guest.
I would rather bowl to him and face his bowling than someone like Pattinson.
End of.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
Have you noticed that we don't have six batsmen averaging 45-50? If we did then I would absolutely pick six batsmen and try to eke out a few via Clarke and Smith. But we don't.
You select teams based on the actual flesh and blood players you have, not on theoretical players you would like to have and assume fit into this prefabricated team you have built already.
If you think Mitch Marsh isn't good enough to fill that role that's an entirely different matter and a perfectly reasonable thing to argue, plenty would agree. But this theory you're advancing is that you pick your six best pure batsmen come rain hail or shine, even if (for example) you have a marginally worse batsman who brings extra bowling to the side is insane. As is this new theory that you should pick that marginally worse batsman as a third seamer instead of your actual third seamer which never, ever works in practice.
Notice the lack of "should we pick Mitch Marsh or James Pattinson/Josh Hazlewood/Mitch Starc" debates as a result.
You select teams based on the actual flesh and blood players you have, not on theoretical players you would like to have and assume fit into this prefabricated team you have built already.
If you think Mitch Marsh isn't good enough to fill that role that's an entirely different matter and a perfectly reasonable thing to argue, plenty would agree. But this theory you're advancing is that you pick your six best pure batsmen come rain hail or shine, even if (for example) you have a marginally worse batsman who brings extra bowling to the side is insane. As is this new theory that you should pick that marginally worse batsman as a third seamer instead of your actual third seamer which never, ever works in practice.
No ****ing ****. No one is arguing otherwise.
Notice the lack of "should we pick Mitch Marsh or James Pattinson/Josh Hazlewood/Mitch Starc" debates as a result.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
As you are more than well aware - there are no absolutes. Its a starting guideline. We all appreciate that the Australian batting line up is not as strong as it once was.
That said - "batting allrounders" who average 30-37 with the bat and worse with the ball in hand as a seamer if there is someone who can bat at 45-50 are in my opinion not required and do the team more harm than good.
People wanted the bowling allrounder at 7 or 8 desperately when the wicket keepers were not great bats at 7. Wicket keepers generally are far better bats now. The bowling allrounder is still sought after for the 8th batting spot. A batting allrounder is a bonus if they are excellent batsmen but not so desperately needed for the bowlers that they need to be 'manufactured' to give the team 'balance'.
Look at the batsmen - who has the talent to eventually average 45-50 to set up winning scores or bat two sessions on a final day to save a test and pick them over the more "cavalier" batting allrounder.
I still maintain that Kallis and Sobers were exceptions and not the rule. They were freaks and undeniably in the team's best 6 batsmen.
4 best bowlers and 6 best batsmen. It works far more effectively in the long term over the full wide array of scenarios than bits and pieces cricketers.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
Well at least we're getting somewhere.
Not every attack needs a batting all-rounder to balance. But this attack, for reasons fairly unique to this attack (I don't think any other bowler in the world is used like Johnson is preferably used by Clarke, and is as reliant on fragile bowlers), a fifth bowler is really, really useful. Not mandatory. Useful. More useful than a slightly better batsman would be.
Not every attack needs a batting all-rounder to balance. But this attack, for reasons fairly unique to this attack (I don't think any other bowler in the world is used like Johnson is preferably used by Clarke, and is as reliant on fragile bowlers), a fifth bowler is really, really useful. Not mandatory. Useful. More useful than a slightly better batsman would be.
cnerd123
likes this
I mean that's a bit of a cop out given how the thread is clearly titled "AUSTRALIA, time to end the allrounder thing"
No one is talking about a general blueprint that would work most effectively if applied to a vast array of squads of various compositions.
This thread is about the current Aussie team, and as everyone has said, this current attack benefits hugely by having a 5th bowler present. So much so it makes it worth getting Watson/Marsh/Henriques in the XI at the expense of a slightly better batsman. This is made even easier given how there are no real stand-out batting talents being kept out of the XI anyways.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
With 4 front line bowlers, no team should need a batting allrounder to balance. There is something going wrong with the attack should the need for a batting all rounder arise.
In that case you need to assess what Johnson combined with a batting allrounder is costing you over Pattinson and a specialist bat.