Australia, time to end the all rounder thing?

[cnerd123]

The idea of "general selection blueprints" is part of the problem anyway. Pick the XI that is most likely to win you the Test. Literally nothing else matters. Sometimes that means 6+4. Sometimes it doesn't.

Yea. It's a futile exercise. Sure it's Cricket 101 and the first thing you teach to newcomers to the game, but as soon as you start following enough cricket you understand that that the 6-keeper-4 layout is a very rough guideline and not binding law. It's like The 4-4-2 in Football. It won't always be the best choice.

Would expect CW posters to all know better than that.

 

[Spark]

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.

Well there is a problem, and that is that Nathan Lyon is not Shane Warne. A top-quality spinner is the fundamental reason why four-man attacks can work, because they can be relied on to bowl 20+ overs a day in any conditions. (well, unless you're the WI of the 80s and don't actually need to bowl 20 overs a day very often)

As for the assessment - it's been done. Given that Mitchell Johnson is the reason we won 5-0 and won 2-1 in South Africa which no other team has done in, like, five years, I think it's safe to say that tradeoff is working well for us.

 

[cnerd123]

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.

Pattinson is fragile. And still recovering from injury. Assuming he was fit to play and bowling great, by picking him you risk picking two bowlers (Pattinson and Harris) who could break down mid-game. And if non of your top 6 can bowl a bit, you've basically lost the game as soon as one of them hobbles off the field. You also run the risk of incurring even more injuries by bowling the remaining 3 into the ground.

Again, given how that 6th batsman is probably SMarsh, you aren't losing much batting wise by playing MMarsh/Henriques over him. You could probably play SMarsh anyways given how Watson is one of the Top 6 batsmen and will be in that XI.

 

[Spark]

Pattinson is going to be amazing if he stays fit, but I'm not sure why he's being featured so heavily in this discussion tbh. Can barely make it through an FC game at the moment.

 

[cnerd123]

Also yea I just overlooked the obvious point that current day Mitch is a beast and no way is Pattinson going to be a more effective bowler. He is more likely to displace Hazlewood.

 

[cnerd123]

Well there is a problem, and that is that Nathan Lyon is not Shane Warne. A top-quality spinner is the fundamental reason why four-man attacks can work, because they can be relied on to bowl 20+ overs a day in any conditions. (well, unless you're the WI of the 80s and don't actually need to bowl 20 overs a day very often)

This is also a good point. Lyon featuring heavily on Days 1 and 2 in places like Eng/NZ/SA or even Aus does not bode well.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Yea. It's a futile exercise. Sure it's Cricket 101 and the first thing you teach to newcomers to the game, but as soon as you start following enough cricket you understand that that the 6-keeper-4 layout is a very rough guideline and not binding law. It's like The 4-4-2 in Football. It won't always be the best choice.

Would expect CW posters to all know better than that.

All I hear is you will get less overs out of the front line bowlers - easier for the opposition to score off and not lose their wicket. And you will do so at the expense of scoring less runs as you omit a better batsmen.

If Hadlee was not good enough for the NZ team unless he could bowl 20 overs in the day - I fail to see why Johnson could be considered at 15 overs in the day when their strike rates are almost identical and Australia has far better support acts and players waiting in the wings than New Zealand ever did.

Batsmen who can bowl are great. But manufacturing "batting allrounders" who just leak runs with the ball and score fewer runs with the bat are a liability.

I hope I'm wrong because I love watching Johnson bowl - but I do not think he has much left in the tank to bowl the way he does most effectively at his age. I do not think he will be around much past 18-24 months or so from now. Hope I'm wrong. he is great for cricket.

 

[Spark]

This is also a good point. Lyon featuring heavily on Days 1 and 2 in places like Eng/NZ/SA or even Aus does not bode well.

Yeah, Lyon is actually so underrated in this attack because he does exactly the same thing - holds up an end, builds pressure, allows the quicks to go at full bore for longer. But you can't rely on that all the time on the offspinner's graves which are Aus/Eng/NZ/Sa.

 

[Spark]

All I hear is you will get less overs out of the front line bowlers - easier for the opposition to score off and not lose their wicket. And you will do so at the expense of scoring less runs as you omit a better batsmen.

If Hadlee was not good enough for the NZ team unless he could bowl 20 overs in the day - I fail to see why Johnson could be considered at 15 overs in the day when their strike rates are almost identical and Australia has far better support acts and players waiting in the wings than New Zealand ever did.

Batsmen who can bowl are great. But manufacturing "batting allrounders" who just leak runs with the ball and score fewer runs with the bat are a liability.

Yeah okay at this point I'm convinced you're just flat out not reading the posts so I'm going to end this here.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean you pick a 5th bowler because you bowl him when the situation calls for it. You aren't arbitrarily toss him the ball over the main 4. He bowls when everyone is tired or when he could actually pose a threat in the conditions. He bowls when he is legit the best option at that time. He isn't taking overs away from anyone. You pick him for the flexibility he offers.

 

[Spark]

Clarke does genuinely toss Watson the ball over the main 4 at times tbf for reasons which appear slightly arbitrary (usually to do with extracting swing). Then again, Clarke is a lunatic.

 

[cnerd123]

Clarke's a genius. He tosses the part-timer the ball when the batsman is looking for a release. Lures them into that rash shot. I love it.

And if he goes for runs, you just bring Mitch back and the balance is restored.

 

[Spark]

Clarke is actually the opposite of this general idea that you play according to pre-set plans, the way he captains. Even McCullum goes in following a pre-set mindset most of the time (attack attack attack). Clarke just does whatever the **** he feels like whenever he feels like it.

The way he captained on Day 1 is the absolute epitome of what Michael Clarke captaincy is like - incredibly precise, often strange looking fields which are somehow incredibly effective at keeping batsmen pinned down, deceptively simple bowling plans given the weird-as-**** fields (I think he had a short leg and two short midwickets after about four overs), and constant, constant bowling changes.

 

[Spark]

The hilarious thing ofc is that Warne et al praise Clarke for being so aggressive compared to Cook, when actually Clarke is far more likely to switch to a "defensive" (i.e. run-saving) field, to the point where that's almost his default, and Cook is more likely to have three slips and a gully in etc.

It's just that Clarke is much better at using his defensive fields to actually take wickets. It's the one aspect of Clarke's captaincy that the general media have completely failed to notice, and it's amazed me because it's been a constant of the vast majority of Tests Australia have played since 2011.

 

[Gob]

Yeah this is the sort of rigid selection deontology I was talking about when I made the post. It's nuts. I actually had you in mind when I made it.

For starters, bowlers are not robots. 18 Johnson overs, 18 Harris overs and 8 Watson overs would work better in this side than 22 Johnson overs and 22 Harris overs, despite the fact that Watson isn't as good a bowler as Johnson or Harris. This is true even when the conditions don't particularly suit Watson. It's not only just true that less tired bowlers bowl better, but also that fresh bowlers bowl better when they're not worried about getting tired. Moreover, Watson plays a completely different role; there are some circumstances where I'm sure Clarke would legitimately prefer Watson on to Johnson regardless of trying to manage Johnson.

But I'm not even trying to make a case for always picking an allrounder, or even necessarily for picking one here. I do believe Australia should pick one here, but I might be wrong. What I'm not wrong about is the fact that your position descends into complete absurdities if taken seriously. I mean, lets take what you straight up said in the first sentence of your post and 'test' it.



What if we really do take this seriously as an objective rule that can solve the problems faced by selectors and decades, and just apply it without thinking to every situation? Lets take a hypothetical player who is the seventh best batsman and the eighth best bowler in the country. He's almost as good as the sixth best batsman -- in fact he's eerily similar to the point where on average he'd only score one less run every 47 innings. From what you've said, you just wouldn't pick this guy. Not good enough to play as one of the bowlers; not one of the best six batsmen. Everyone else in the selection room would be picking him but you'd be stamping your feet, holding up the CaptainGrumpy Selection Bible that clearly states thou shalt not select players who aren't among the best six batsmen or best four bowlers unless as wicket keeper, and warning of coming apocalypse from the angry cricket gods.

From that I can only conclude that your goal is not to win or save as many Tests as possible. Your goal must be something else.. appeasing the cricketing gods, honouring an arrangement you made, creating some sort of employment pseduo-meritocracy where combined skill was considered cheating, adhering to the wishes of constituents from the cult you're apart of, or something else I can't even fathom. Anyone who was actually interested in winning would realise that your one-size-fits-all rule isn't actually conducive to it, because cricket wasn't designed in such a way where team balance was rigid.

Or maybe.. just maybe, you would pick that player. But then you'd be admitting that team balance was not rigid at all, and in fact a trade-off that you usually just took one side on, therefore requiring you to actually have to justify your position on a case by case basis... and that's not nearly as fun as making sweeping general statements that descend into absurdity when applied.

You are the jeff winger of the forum. Just need some background music

 

[Dan]

All I hear is you will get less overs out of the front line bowlers - easier for the opposition to score off and not lose their wicket. And you will do so at the expense of scoring less runs as you omit a better batsmen.

No, harder for the opposition to survive and score runs, because your bowlers can operate in short, sharp bursts without the fear that they won't get long enough to recover between spells.


Marsh and Watson have basically identical Test batting averages -- 35.something each. In spite of that, I think we'd all admit Marsh is more likely to score runs -- Marsh 36, Watson 34 probably fair for the purposes of comparison.

Watson gives you 10 quality overs per day that build pressure and helps the bloke down the other end take wickets, while also allowing the frontline quicks to bowl their hearts out, focus their energies better, and be all-round better bowlers.

Marsh gives you nothing with the ball, and the bowlers shoulder a heavier workload so aren't operating at their peak as often. The captain can't maximise his resources for the optimal outcome.

You're giving up all those benefits from being able to manage your bowlers better and have them operating at their absolute best more often, for an average of four runs per match over an entire career. If Shaun Marsh was a 50+ averaging batsman, the point is irrelevant. But he isn't, and nobody in the Shield is either. You have a guy who averages 36 and doesn't bowl, or a guy who averages 34 and does bowl. Give me the latter every time.

It isn't a "Johnson's unfit" thing either, ffs; the dude is a freak and probably could bowl 25 overs in the day in 6-7 over spells at 145km/h if he wanted to. Heck, he could bowl left arm orthodox at 135 km/h for 30 overs a day if he wanted to. But he's far more effective when he's used in short bursts to dominate batsmen at 150km/h.

And anyway, 15 Johnson overs >> 20 Pattinson overs (even accepting the assumption that Patto can get through 20 overs in a day at the moment).

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

So lazy unfit frontline bowlers coupled with regular pie chucking and mediocre batting from "batting allrounders" is Australia's future that their fans want.

I get it now.

Dan because Shane Watson averages more than Smarsh in test cricket and significantly more in first class cricket as a batsman I am not going engage in your rubbish hypothetical which is unnecessary.

 

[Dan]

So lazy unfit frontline bowlers coupled with regular pie chucking and mediocre batting from "batting allrounders" is Australia's future that their fans want.

I get it now.

Dan because Shane Watson averages more than Smarsh in test cricket and significantly more in first class cricket as a batsman I am not going engage in your rubbish hypothetical which is unnecessary.

Yep, Grumpy be trollin'

 

[cnerd123]

I like Grumpy. I was starting to miss Blocky and now he pops up

 

[OverratedSanity]

Their averages may be similar but Watson's not made one significant innings in pressure situations/tricky conditions in test cricket. The majority of his runs have been the softest imaginable. Will be glad if someone pointed out an innings that fits the description.