Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
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?
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?
Last edited: