Forget all-rounders, stick to playing specialists
By Benjamin Conkey, 7 Aug 2009 Benjamin Conkey is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Andrew Flintoff, Australian Cricket, Cricket, english cricket, The Ashes

Australia's Shane Watson plays a shot off the bowling of England's Graeme Swann on the first day of the third cricket test match between England and Australia at Edgbaston cricket ground in Birmingham, England, Thursday, July 30, 2009. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth
One interesting aspect of this Ashes series is that none of the all-rounders have suceeded in both disciplines in the same match. When Flintoff has bowled well, his batting has eluded him. And vice-versa.
Shane Watson’s last Test was the same, with vast differences between his batting and bowling form.
In between saying ‘tw*t’ on air, Warnie described Watson’s bowling as rubbish.
Then Nasser Hussain made the ridiculous statement that Stuart Broad should always be in England’s team, regardless of his bowling, because of his batting down the order. Granted Broad can bat, but his job is to take wickets and he has been the weak link in an otherwise impressive English attack.
Hussain and Atherton also went on about how he needs more time to develop as a bowler. Apparently 20 Tests with a bowling average of 40 is not a clear enough indication.
Now back to Watson, who was selected to bolster the bowling and to provide consistency at the top of the batting order. Last Test he only managed one requirement.
My point is that it’s extremely difficult being an all-rounder, especially in Test cricket, which is why very few are successful.
So why don’t teams get back to basics and be happy to choose specialist batsmen and bowlers?
In my opinion, England would have gone close to wrapping up the Ashes now if they’d selected Ryan Sidebottom after the Cardiff Test Match. But instead they stuck with Broad because he adds handy runs with the bat.
How many runs, though has he subtracted with his bowling? He gets the odd wicket but goes for plenty in between.
Mitchell Johnson’s batting potential has probably saved him from being dropped, too. In Edgbaston, he finally found some bowling form, while finding his voice with some choice words to the batsmen.
As well as he bowled, the worry is that he still went for more than four an over.
Another semi all-rounder is waiting to put on the baggy green in Brett Lee. Peter Siddle looks like the most likely candidate to make way.
For Australia’s sake, if Lee plays, he needs to hit the ground running. In the end any ‘handy’ runs he and Johnson score with the bat won’t mean a thing if they fail to take wickets.
Watson has to at least put the brakes on when he bowls, otherwise he should just call himself a specialist opening batsman and forget the bowling caper.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (5) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Andrew Flintoff, Australian Cricket, Cricket, english cricket, The Ashes

vinay verma said | August 7th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Agreed,Benjamin,specialists are the way to go when you dont have an allrounder capable of delivering with either bat or ball and in the same match. The era of the great allrounders is gone and being an allrounder at Test level is different from the ODI’s and Twitter/20.
Watson will retain his spot but he is not bowling well and I question his spot,despite his relative success. Hauritz and Siddle out and Lee and Clark in seems the only changes they will make. At least it is a specialist swap.
Nick said | August 7th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
What about that talented tourist with the foxish red hair? He definately deserves another baggy green, he’s the best alroundy we’ve ever had. Or what about Symo? Some papers lamented him as one of the greats… oh wait he averaged thirty with the bat and forty with the ball…
Here’s a newsflash for the selectors. The greatest Australian Cricket team of the last twenty five years looked like this;
2001;
Justin Langer
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Damian Martyn
Adam Gilchrist
Shane Warne
Brett Lee
Jason Gilespie
Glen McGrath
This is basically the team that defeated everyone and there dog and was elected the greatest sporting team of the year (in 2000 or 2001 i think). Throw in Damien Martyn, Micheal Bevan or Damian Fleming when injury occured the effect is the same…
NO ALL-ROUNDER…
FIsher Price said | August 7th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Lehmann was a better batsman than M Waugh.
Colin N said | August 7th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Er….. didn’t Flintoff get 30 not out with the bat and then 5 for with the ball at Lords? I think so, he hardly failed as an all rounder then.
JohnB said | August 8th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Nick – close, but Symonds had a test batting average 40.6 and test bowling average 37.3 (at about 1 wicket per game). Wouldn’t get in a test side for his bowling, but better than you’re making out. Unarguable that that was a great Aust team/squad – but does the 4 specialist bowler approach work quite as well if 2 of them aren’t all time greats?
Maybe it’s just me who thinks this, but if you have a bloke good enough to get in the side for one of the 2 main disciplines, and he’s pretty good at the other one as well (albeit maybe not good enough to get in just for that), he’s gold and you’d need a good reason not to pick him every time. He also lets you change the structure of your team to suit the conditions and opponents.