Shane Watson?

[aussie]

what about Gary Gilmour he showed great early promise it seems but declined a lot and Simon O'Donnel although he was probably a ODI specialist.

 

[archie mac]

what about Gary Gilmour he showed great early promise it seems but declined a lot and Simon O'Donnel although he was probably a ODI specialist.

Gus and Flipper, talent but not enough results.

Genuine AR from Aussie cricket (Tests) I am marking very hard

George Giffen
Monty Noble
Jack Gregory
Keith Miller

 

[chaminda_00]

Gus and Flipper, talent but not enough results.

Genuine AR from Aussie cricket (Tests) I am marking very hard

George Giffen
Monty Noble
Jack Gregory
Keith Miller

Hmm George Giffen averaged 23.35 with the bat, ok he scored one hundred, but how does that make him more of an all rounder then Hugh Trumble, Paul Reiffel or Allan Davison. Trumble and Reiffel were bowling all rounder at best, but so was Giffen.

 

[archie mac]

Hmm George Giffen averaged 23.35 with the bat, ok he scored one hundred, but how does that make him more of an all rounder then Hugh Trumble, Paul Reiffel or Allan Davison. Trumble and Reiffel were bowling all rounder at best, but so was Giffen.

True but batting Ave. were much lower in Giffen's day for example Australia's best batsman of the period William Murdoch finished with a Test Ave. of 32.00. And he was the Ponting of his time other top order batsman such as: Alick Bannerman =23.08. George Bonnor=17.07. Percy McDonnell=28.78.

So Giffen's ave is quite good, when one considers he bowled a lot of overs.

My main criteria was that the player would be picked for his batting or bowling alone if he only had the one discipline. I think George Giffen fits this criteria.

 

[chaminda_00]

True but batting Ave. were much lower in Giffen's day for example Australia's best batsman of the period William Murdoch finished with a Test Ave. of 32.00. And he was the Ponting of his time other top order batsman such as: Alick Bannerman =23.08. George Bonnor=17.07. Percy McDonnell=28.78.

So Giffen's ave is quite good, when one considers he bowled a lot of overs.

My main criteria was that the player would be picked for his batting or bowling alone if he only had the one discipline. I think George Giffen fits this criteria.

I recognise the fact that averages were low, but the big factor is that he only scored one hundred and six 50s. If he were a specialist (i.e got picked as either a batsmen or bowler) then he would have got for inability to score big scores, but his bowling kept him in the side. Just as Trumble, Davison and Benuad bowling kept them in their respective sides. They all could bat, but no good enough to make a side as a batsmen alone. Really outside Miller and Noble and maybe Gregory, Australia haven't produced a out and out all rounder.

 

[Matt79]

But of Giffen's peers that Archie referred to, their numbers of big scores are not much better. Giffen would have been picked as a specialist bat.

 

[Matt79]

Steve Waugh began his career as a bowling AR. And for the most part of his OD career he was a genuine AR.

Don't know about that. I think he was always seen as a batting allrounder, ie batting was definitely his strong suite. He disappointed with the bat for a long time and was able to produce enough useful bowling performances to stave off the axe for a while, but I think he always took a specialist batsman's spot, rather than a specialist bowlers, which to me makes him a batting allrounder.

He was an all-rounder for at least half his ODI career, but I don't think being a ODI allrounder necessarily equates to being an allrounder of any stripe in Tests. Witness Andrew Symonds.

 

[Matt79]

So is Watson an allrounder or a bits-n-pieces player. At the moment he doesn't merit a place in the team for any one discipline alone, and I've always heard, and thought, that to be a real allrounder you need to merit selection for BOTH disciplines.

That said, if he can stay fit for more than 3 games in a row, he certainly has the potential to perform at a level where his inclusion doesn't look like hubris...

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I think he merits a place on batting alone. FC average of 50+ and some big scores for Australia A in the Top End Series.

His ability to bowl 140kmph and with what seems like a new ability to move the ball enough as well as a good bout of consistency should have him an automatic choice at #6, as Clarke has done nothing to reclaim his place after being dropped.

 

[archie mac]

But of Giffen's peers that Archie referred to, their numbers of big scores are not much better. Giffen would have been picked as a specialist bat.

Yes, you must compare a player to his contemporaries and Giffen would have walked into the side as a batsman. Just have a look at some of his efforts for SA. He was known as the WG of Australia

 

[open365]

So is Watson an allrounder or a bits-n-pieces player. At the moment he doesn't merit a place in the team for any one discipline alone, and I've always heard, and thought, that to be a real allrounder you need to merit selection for BOTH disciplines.

That said, if he can stay fit for more than 3 games in a row, he certainly has the potential to perform at a level where his inclusion doesn't look like hubris...

Nah, Chris Cairns was a true all-rounder and i don't think he was good enough to merit a spot for either batting or bowling seperately.

Watson is defintely an all rounder imo. Anyone who averages 50 and can bowl 140+(regardless of movement) is an all roubnder.

 

[adharcric]

Nah, Chris Cairns was a true all-rounder and i don't think he was good enough to merit a spot for either batting or bowling seperately.

Watson is defintely an all rounder imo. Anyone who averages 50 and can bowl 140+(regardless of movement) is an all roubnder.

Exactly. Let's forget about Watson for a moment, but if you had to merit a spot as both a batsman and a bowler we would barely have any genuine all-rounders. Imran throughout his whole career (but maybe not at particular times) would make it. Flintoff would only make it as a batsman because of England's poor top-order, but otherwise he wouldn't IMO. Kallis' bowling isn't quite up there. Razzaq wouldn't qualify either. So yeah, you merely need to be pretty good in both disciplines - let's say (test) 30 with the bat and 35 with the ball - to be a genuine all-rounder.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think Botham at his peak, Sobers and maybe Miller are the only post-war players who would have genuinely made their sides as both batsmen and bowlers alone. Imran wasn't quite up there with the ball once his batting reached top class, and most other all-rounders were either significantly better in one discipline (Flintoff, Hadlee, Kapil etc) or simply not quite good enough to make the side unless you include both their disciplines (like Cairns).

So it's not really a practical definition of an all-rounder. Flintoff is the best all-rounder in the world right now and would be a quality specialist bowler for England, but his batting average in the 30s isn't exactly world class.

 

[Jono]

Its not only not a practical definition, its simply illogical.

Its quite irritating when people only classify allrounders if both their disciplines are good enough to ensure they make the team alone with that discpline. That's like saying a genuine allrounder at int'l level must be one of the 6-7 best batsmen in their country, as well as one of the best 3-4 best bowlers in the country. May as well call them superman too.

 

[aussie tragic]

So yeah, you merely need to be pretty good in both disciplines - let's say (test) 30 with the bat and 35 with the ball - to be a genuine all-rounder.

IMO, "Great" allrounders can be classified as:

(1) Batting Allrounder: Batting Ave > 40.00; Bowling Ave < 35.00
(2) Bowling Allrounder: Batting Average > 20.00; Bowling Ave < 25.00
(3) Genuine Allrounder: Batting Ave > 30.00; Bowling Ave < 30.00

* all remaining players that come close to the above are considered "good/average" allrounders to me.

Using this criteria, Sobers, Kallis and Greig are great "Batting allrounders", while Hadlee, Davidson, Akram and Lindwall could be considered "Bowling allrounders". For "Genuine Allrounders", only Imran, Miller, Botham, Cairns, Pollock, Dev, Goddard, Noble and Rhodes make the cut in the history of test cricket.

btw, Flintoff doesn't quite make it to genuine allrounder yet due to his poor start in tests (although he's very close with Batting Ave of 32.93 and Bowling Ave of 31.33), however he definitely makes it as a genuine allrounder over his last couple of years, hence his current # 1 rating.

EDIT: back on topic, this means that I consider Watson a great batting allrounder in FC cricket (Batting Ave 50.15, Bowling Ave 31.03), and he's the best potential Aussie allrounder since Keith Miller so he should be given every opportunity.

 

[Matt79]

Its not only not a practical definition, its simply illogical.

Its quite irritating when people only classify allrounders if both their disciplines are good enough to ensure they make the team alone with that discpline. That's like saying a genuine allrounder at int'l level must be one of the 6-7 best batsmen in their country, as well as one of the best 3-4 best bowlers in the country. May as well call them superman too.

Didn't mean to be irritating. OK, minor amendment - rather than 'selection justified', which in strong teams like England and Australia is a very high bar, substitute 'genuinely Test class'. Thus genuine allrounders should be genuinely 'Test Class' in both disciplines (for me bat avg. > 30, bowl avg. <32). Batting allrounders probably need to be bat avg. >35, bowl avg <36, and bowling allrounders bat avg. >20 and bowling average something like <28.

If you're not falling into any of the above categories, you're either a "batsman who bowls a bit" or a "bowler who can be a handy lower bat", but not an allrounder. If you're not really test standard in either discipline, you're a bit-n-pieces player. Symonds is a bit-n-pieces player for tests. Watson is probably a gen. allrounder in FC, but Test-standard is considerably tougher, and it remains to be seen whether he'll make it as any kind of Test player at all. (I think he will, but its just speculation at the moment).

 

[social]

I think he merits a place on batting alone. FC average of 50+ and some big scores for Australia A in the Top End Series.

His ability to bowl 140kmph and with what seems like a new ability to move the ball enough as well as a good bout of consistency should have him an automatic choice at #6, as Clarke has done nothing to reclaim his place after being dropped.

Exactly - Watson is a good score away from having the confidence to be a quality test bat and his bowling is improving at a rate of knots.

Clarke hasn't really done anything tu justify inclusion at his expense.

An attack of McGrath/Lee/Johnson/Watson/Warne is potentially exceptional and has the added benefit of taking the srtain off Warne and McGrath whilst not weakening the batting.

Watson is a must for mine.

 

[chaminda_00]

As much as i like Watson, i can't see him being much more then a poor man Kallis. If he reaches his potential i can't see him averaging much more then 40 and having a bowling average around 35.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

If he reaches his potential he should average 45ish with the bat. The ball I don't know, with the way he's bowling at the moment he probably wouldn't average less than 30, or even 33/34, but if he keeps improving like he has been over the last year and gets a bit more swing and seam he could push it down lower. I don't see him averaging less than 30 with the ball though, but for someone who's probably going to average mid-40's with the bat, around 30 with the ball should be good enough to keep him in the side.

I see your point about a poor man's Kallis though, especially in tests. ODI's Watson looks to have found a spark though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

As much as i like Watson, i can't see him being much more then a poor man Kallis. If he reaches his potential i can't see him averaging much more then 40 and having a bowling average around 35.

His improvement with the ball in recent times suggests he can be more than a part-time bowler, I think. We'll see how he goes in the tests, but I think he's an actual threat with the ball now. Either way, if he averages 40 with the bat and takes the odd wicket, that's good enough to be of significant use to the side.