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?
Dadiggle
Guest
He wasn't a all rounder. He was a wicket keeper batsman A All rounder gives your side balance. You will always have that extra bowler and batsman over other teams who do not have one. A wicket keeper batsman gives your side batting depth. Kallis = Balance De Villiers = Batting Depth
matt h
Guest
I would wait and see how he goes before saying I told you so. Also, bits and pices allrounders are useful in ODI's but a waste of time in tests.
matt h
Guest
We dsid have an alrounder. He was named Gilchrest
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I would agree that Kallis is a genuine all-rounder. Not so much on Imran or Kapil Dev. They were bowling all-rounders, superb bowlers who had points in their career where they could be considered genuine batsmen. Most of the best all-rounders have been bowling all-rounders; you can add Benaud, Davidson, Wasim Akram, Shaun Pollock, Hadlee and many others to the list. Miller, Kallis and Sobers - that might be all of the genuine all-rouders the game has seen. Arguably Botham, but his overall record wasn't flash hot either - even if his 1981 one was. The main point is though, you can't create an all-rounder. Either you have a top six batsman who can bowl, a top four bowler who can bat, or you don't. You don't go picking the tenth best batsman because he is also the tenth best bowler and justify it by calling him an all-rounder. Not for Test cricket. For limited overs stuff, either 50 or 20 overs, its a different matter. In the short games you don't need the best specialists; and you are forced to use five bowlers minimum which requires a different balance.
eminem
Guest
henriques picked in the odi side oh it pains me to say... i told you so
eminem
Guest
TGT i know.. my point is you say we should stop at 3 seamers i say we should stop at a 4th. yor 3 seamers and a spinner its not a formula that has stood the test of time. it has only become atactic for us in recent years. you need a 5th bolwer, an all rounder so that we don't lose out too much in the batting (either a 4th seamer or a 2nd spinner) as you have done in avery australian era bar the warne and mcgrath era where with the emergence of the wicket keeper batsman (also a new phenomenon) we didn't need an all rounder. this side needs another bowling option to beat SA or england. end of
eminem
Guest
kallis is not a batting all rounder. he is a genuine all rounder that happens to have a great batting average ala sobers. did you read my post? a batting all rounder is a player like marcus north. he rolled his arm over. so what. disn't make him our all rounder even though thats what ponting had him in the side as. benaud was a genuine all rounder. we just think these types of players are known as bowling all rounders because the modern fan has lost all perspective on what an all rounder is. Dev, Kahn etc they were all genuine all rounders.
Josh
Guest
Thier is also a 3rd type of all rounder on top of a batting and a bowling all rounder and that is a genuine all rounder who would be top 4 bowler on thier own and top 6 batsmen on thier own - In Australian terms that is known as Keith Miller
Josh
Guest
Roger - I am not denying Khawaja should be in thier - I think our batting should include both Khawaja and McDonald if we are to have an all rounder. For mine the competition is between Cowan and McDonald - so either open with Ed and have Watson and Khawaja in the middle order or open with Watson and have McDonald and Khawaja join the middle order. The issue of both solution is what happens when watson is injured again (or still and can't make the india tour). If you drop Cowan and then Watson is injured you bring him back in with confidence shattered or you keep him but who comes in for Watson in the middle order
TheGenuineTailender
Roar Guru
How is the idea of a batting all-rounder rubbish? Jaques Kallis is a batting all-rounder. Then you've got Richie Benaud as an example of a bowling all-rounder. Obviously there's the possibility that you can have an all-rounder who is equally as exceptional in both disciplines. That's a genuine all-rounder. Eminem, you seem determined to argue for the sake of it.
TheGenuineTailender
Roar Guru
Because two fast bowlers can't bowl all day, a third can rotate in and out of the attack while your spin-bowler gives you another option to rest a bowler. It's an age old formula that has stood the test of time.
eminem
Guest
there are 2 types a batting allrounder (rubbish) and a genuine all rounder* a player like sobers is still a genuine all rounder despite that his batting average was ridiculously high
jameswm
Guest
As I've said before, there are two types of all rounders. batting all rounders who are a legitimate test no.6 and are solid bowlers, and bowling all rounders who are or are very close to pickable for their bowling, but average 30 odd and can bat at 7 in tests. Bowling all rounders are tough, because your keeper normally bats at 7. So do you put your keeper up to 6 and your bowling all rounder up to 7? It does take away from your battng, but maybe if you have say Cutting/Johnson at 8, Siddle at 9 and Patto at 10, you've got some solid batting cover.
jameswm
Guest
Agreed. I was entirely unimpressed with Maxwell. Smith is a better bat, but I don't think he's a test no.6 either.
Eminem
Guest
Well McDonald played in the 09 series against SA in SA and we won. Then for some reason we went with an extra batsman for the ashes in 09 and looked what happened.
jameswm
Guest
McDonald's the only option among that lot. Steady, reliable bowling and a legitimate test no.6.
Eminem
Guest
So why do we need 3 quicks and not 2?
dynamitedave
Roar Rookie
no we don't need an allrounder.
Kristin Carville
Roar Rookie
Lets be honest, this obsession that Australia has had with an all rounder was born out of the performance of Freddy Flintoff in the 2005 Ashes. But what the selectors also need to look at is the fact that 2005 was when Flintoff was at his peak, which really only consisted of the years 2004 & 2005. Either side of that he was injured or frustrated many with his performances. Sure, if you have a high quality allrounder then by all means pick him. In cricket today there is really only one player who fits that criteria - Jaques Kallis, with over 13,000 runs and nearly 300 wickets. He is an example of someone who can perform all disciplines at a high standard. Other than that there are bits and pieces all rounders who excel at one discipline and do OK at another. Shane Watson had the potential to be a genuine all rounder, but his body issues have meant that the bowling is very much a part time thing these days. We have seen the imbalance and selection issues that were caused in 2012 with the obsession to fit Watson in as an all rounder. We need to focus on picking the best 6 batsman, wicketkeeper, and 4 bowlers, with the bowler balance to be dictated by the conditions. Some of the bowling workload can be picked up by the likes of a Watson, Warner, Clarke, etc who can bowl a few overs to support, break a partnership and give the frontline 4 a break.
Roger
Guest
I think the loss tonight showed that Maxwell is not good enough with the bowl or bat. When we needed him to dig in to get a good score he got out without any resistance. Khawaja's treatment today wasn't fair, he should have got at least one more game. But my real concern is that we will miss a trick by not picking him as the number 6 for the Indian tour and lose out as he is one of the few batsman who can handle good swing bowling and spin bowling.