Does Australia really need an all-rounder?

[chaminda_00]

While Australia have Warne and McGarth they don't really need a all rounder, but once they retire they really need 5 bowlers to bowl out the better batting line up in the world. Watson or Henqries are the only player really capable of filling this role though (if either of them reach their potential). As there is no point in picking players unless they can make the side as a front line batsmen or bowler in Test Cricket. The best all rounders in the world recently could all make their sides as a batsmen or bowler.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

A foreboding sign for this Australian team is the ability to take 20 wickets on flat decks. The only bowler aside from Warne and McGrath to do this consistently for Australia was Gillespie, who was peerless in India and Sri Lanka.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Steve Waugh used to loathe having "bits and pieces" players in Test cricket teams. I think his view is being verified at the moment.

 

[SteveG]

I think the fact that no-one has come up with a 'true' Australian all-rounder, who consistantly played in the test team shows that their is no need to include one.

BTW, the only one I could think of was Greg Matthews, and you couldn't say he ever set the world on fire with his batting or bowling. Don't get me wrong, he was a good player...just not great.

There were a few I thought of but they only played a handful of test matches.

 

[Robertinho]

I don't know, Keith Miller was close.

 

[SteveG]

I don't know, Keith Miller was close.

Miller was our last true all-rounder...but, I was thinking of modern day cricket.

 

[andyc]

At what point does a player stop being a bowler who can bat and become a bowling allrounder?
And at what point does a player stop being a batsman who can bowl and become a batting allrounder?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think the fact that no-one has come up with a 'true' Australian all-rounder, who consistantly played in the test team shows that their is no need to include one.

BTW, the only one I could think of was Greg Matthews, and you couldn't say he ever set the world on fire with his batting or bowling. Don't get me wrong, he was a good player...just not great.

There were a few I thought of but they only played a handful of test matches.

Mo did average 40 with the bat. Unfortunately he also averaged 40 with the ball.

 

[aussie]

Miller was our last true all-rounder...but, I was thinking of modern day cricket.

allan Davidson?

 

[Mister Wright]

At what point does a player stop being a bowler who can bat and become a bowling allrounder?
And at what point does a player stop being a batsman who can bowl and become a batting allrounder?

I guess it comes to that when they can either be selected on both disciplines or a bowler who is competing with another bowler can edge out that bowler with their batting ability and vice versa for a batsman.

 

[luckyeddie]

Stock answer:

If you haven't got a genuine all-rounder, don't pick a player as one - go with 6 batsmen, 4 bowlers and a keeper (your keeper then would have to be a decent batter, and it would help if one of your bowlers was a spinner or a 'stamina merchant').

I can see so many holes and problems in my statement above, don't worry. I tried to make it really simple so that even I could understand it, but it just goes to show the problems and dilemmas faced by selectors.

Real answer:

Judgement calls are a biatch, aren't they?

 

[mavric41]

I see the world's need for instant gratification has infiltrated this forum. If a player doesn't doesn't score a hundred or take 5 wickets every 3 or 4 tests they are either not good enough, in bad form or past it depending on what stage their career they are in. Some players need a bit longer to develop some confidence. One great shot, a couple of wickets taken off great catches and a player can be away while the opposite can also happen. In the past players were given time to develop but now the push by the media to change the team for the sake of change seems to be overwhelming the selectors and the general public.

The question is not that does Australia need an all rounder, but, as someone else also said in this thread, does Australia need a new captain with a bit more imagination. Ponting has made some bad tactical errors as captain in the past few months.

 

[BoyBrumby]

"Australia need proper all-rounder to beat England" - Lillee

From today's Telegraph. Link here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ma...t26.xml&sSheet=/sport/2005/12/26/ixcrick.html

Australia will not defeat England and win back the Ashes next winter unless they find a proper all-rounder, according to Dennis Lillee.

The former Australia fast-bowler, the scourge of England in so many Ashes series, said the selectors should drop Andrew Symonds, a player who enhanced his reputation in England last summer with a string of fine innings for Lancashire.

In The West Australian newspaper Lillee said flaws in the side had to be rectified, adding that Symonds was not good enough to play Test cricket, and he reckoned Glenn McGrath would struggle to complete an Ashes series because he "looked tired" during the recent Test against South Africa at Perth.

Lillee felt that playing Symonds as an all-rounder, with Ricky Ponting reluctant to use his bowling, highlighted McGrath's gradual deterioration as he approached 36.

Lillee said: "If Australia want to employ an all-rounder - and they are crying out for a bowling all-rounder - Symonds simply doesn't qualify. Australia's draw with South Africa in Perth has surely shown the selectors that Ricky Ponting and his men are not yet ready to mount an Ashes campaign."

Lillee's concerns probably only underlined the growing unease among Australian supporters at the rise of Andrew Flintoff as a world-class all-rounder in the England side, though McGrath commented that Symonds was worth his place on fielding alone and coach John Buchanan said he would perform better with less criticism.

-----

Think he may be putting 2 + 2 together & making 5 regarding McGrath, but I suppose it's the nature of sport that when a bloke nearing 36 has a bad game it's looked as a decline rather than a blip. Regardless, another test-class bowler to share the workload can only prolong the great man's career &, even when firing, Symonds is a batting all-rounder at absolute tops.

 

[andyc]

I stopped listening to Dennis Lillee a long time ago. While it would definetely be nice to have one, Australia does not need an allrounder.

 

[aussie]

yea Lillee talks some wild stuff at times, dont see how Pigeon is losing it he still looks good.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Australia hasn't really had an all-rounder since Benaud and Davidson, and they've always done well. I see no reason why McGrath, Lee, Warne and MacGill can't take 20 wickets in a test, and certainly adding someone like Symonds in (who is barely bowling at all) isn't going to help that.

I can see the logic behind picking five bowlers, but not behind retaining Symonds.

 

[aussie]

5 bowlers is too risky for me, even if Gilchrist was in blazing form i wont be comfortable with it. Australia either should Bring back Martyo & rely of Pigeon, Lee, Warne & MacGill to take the wickets or bring in back Watson when he is fit simple.