The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Are we too quick to label players all-rounders?

Glenn 'Rocks and Diamonds' Maxwell will always bring the surprises. (AAP Image/Mark Dadswell)
Roar Rookie
4th September, 2014
36

The perceived value of all-rounders in Australian cricketing circles has grown exponentially over the last few summers.

It appears regularly though, that as soon as a player is seen to have both bowled and batted they are labelled an all-rounder, often far too prematurely.

The whole idea for this article came about when I was asked if I felt Australia’s current ODI side had too many all-rounders and not a sufficient number of specialists.

It’s pretty clear that often when things go wrong, the balance of the side and selections will be questioned. At the moment, with so many all-rounders, the finger is being pointed at the players whom play this role in the side.

Is the problem that we have too many all-rounders? Or, is the problem that we have too many players that are classed in the side as all-rounders, but who are yet to actually prove they can hold their own as a specialist in one of the disciplines?

Are we placing unrealistic expectations upon these very players as soon as we see that they can both bat and bowl, and then getting frustrated when we realise maybe they’re reasonable at both skills but not really international level at either?

I think it’s the latter. I think there is a growing occurrence whereby players are labelled all-rounders because they can carry out both disciplines before they show they can really hold their own as a specialist in one of them.

Let’s analyse the performance of the all-rounders in the current triangular series in Zimbabwe.

Advertisement

Mitchell Marsh – Batting All-Rounder
Marsh has averaged 65 for the tournament, and on top of that has provided two eye-catching displays that have shown he can mix sensible batting with outrageous striking. Not only has he scored runs, but he’s also demonstrated that technically he is a very proficient batsman. His achievements with the bat have certainly justified his place in the side as a batsman, and on top of that his added damage with the ball would suggest going forward he could be classed as a batting all-rounder.

Glenn Maxwell – Batting All-Rounder
Glen Maxwell’s series consists of scores of 2, 13, 7 and 93. His first innings of the tournament was a typical “Big Show” innings, full of flare from start to finish. His last three digs though have left a lot to be desired, particularly when in comparison with that of the other batsman.

It leads me to question whether he is a player who was labelled an all-rounder too early. Yes, he can do both, but his statistics and consistency with the bat, particularly in ODIs, certainly don’t hold up against the rest of the batsman in the side.

Don’t get me wrong, he’s an x-factor. And if you had a top five of David Warner, Aaron Finch, Shane Watson, Michael Clarke and George Bailey all playing to their absolute potential you could carry someone like Maxi who can single handedly turn a game on its head every third or fourth innings.

For the moment though, his batting isn’t up to ODI level as it lacks consistency to a great degree. If it weren’t for Clarke’s injury, I wouldn’t have him in the side for the final.

James Faulkner – Bowling All-Rounder
Faulkner was dropped for the fourth game of the series against South Africa, and after taking one wicket in his first three games, I think it’s pretty clear why. His place in the side is predominately down to his bowling, and one wicket in three matches, with an economy nearing five runs an over, just isn’t good enough.

After such a strong Australian summer and an impressive ODI series in India, this could be Faulkner’s reality check that this ODI format isn’t so easy after all. His performances with the bat haven’t been flash either.

Advertisement

It’s clear from the analysis that the only all-rounder from this tour with a pass mark is Mitchell Marsh. With Shane Watson set to come back into the selection frame soon, the question of is there too many all-rounders in the side may rear its ugly head again.

I believe a genuine all-rounder certainly has something to offer a cricket side. Particularly in ODIs where you need at least five bowlers to bowl out the 50 overs. In fact, I would argue a genuine all-rounder is needed to assist with the bowling load.

Can Mitchell Marsh and Shane Watson play together? Yes, definitely. If first and foremost they’re both playing out their role as a batsman I see no reason why they can’t play together, their bowling on top of that would then be a great bonus for the balance of the side.

I hope James Faulkner and Glenn Maxwell can bounce back from their disappointing tours and reassert themselves into calculations for the World Cup, but I first think they have to improve their bowling and batting respectively to the same level of that of the specialists in the side.

close