- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
I’m always up for a good debate on The Roar. Yesterday I was at odds with another user on the issue of whether an all-rounder is necessary in the Australian Test side.
Shane Watson’s injury problems have led to the possibility that the vice-captain will forego his bowling duties.
He has proven himself a worthwhile selection when opening the batting and could fill that role as a specialist alone.
If Watson is no longer the all-rounder, does that mean another must be brought into the side, and at the expense of whom?
I have argued that a balanced Test side will consist of six specialist batsmen, a keeper, spinner and three fast bowlers. If conditions demand it, one seamer can be sacrificed to bring in a second spin bowler.
In contrast, others have argued, in alignment with the direction of the NSP, that we need an all-rounder in the side to balance the bowling responsibilities.
Let’s look at the benefits of both approaches. I’ll begin by including an all-rounder.
Obviously this offers greater diversity to your bowling attack and more of an opportunity to rest some of the bowlers. A player who can average in the mid-30s with bat and ball is clearly a talented cricketer and can fulfil the roles of two players.
There is a mix of spin bowling and seam bowling all-rounders who could come into the side. Spin would be a very handy addition in the upcoming Indian tour when considering the conditions.
Similarly a nippy seam bowler would likely do well in an away Ashes series.
Thus the options for the tour to India would most likely be Glenn Maxwell or Steve Smith. Both fall more in the category of attacking, batting all-rounders, who can chip in with some handy overs of spin and help with the over-rate.
Come time for the Ashes, the all-rounders whose bowling is most appropriate to the conditions are Moses Henriques, Andrew McDonald, James Hopes, Mitchell Marsh, Dan Christian, James Faulkner and Luke Butterworth.
Plenty of options, some of which potentially good enough to play on the back of their bowling alone.
Now I’ll look at the benefits to six specialist batsmen. Australia is gifted with a talented battery of fast bowlers. It is our given strength. For this reason, the risk of sacrificing some of our batting to compliment a fast bowling unit I already consider adequate to do the job, doesn’t seem worth the punt.
As we saw in Sydney, Usman Khawaja was sacrificed in order to fit in Mitchell Johnson as the so called all-rounder. The five man attack disposed of Sri Lanka with ease on two occasions, but if not for a brilliant hundred from Matthew Wade (against a very weak attack), Australia could have struggled to score sufficient runs.
The Australian batting line-up has been cited as a potential weakness.
A sixth specialist batsman allows peace of mind that we have the numbers to survive long enough at the crease. This is a factor that will be vital against the high quality English attack, especially if we’re to score an adequate number of runs.
Over to you Roarers. Does Australia need an all-rounder or batsman at number six?
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.