Roarers, we need to stop the witch hunt against the National Selection Panel and Cricket Australia. Yes, they have made some blunders, but you see, its not all their fault.
Some of the fault lies in the poor form of 80% of the team, but most of the fault lies with a Mister Andrew “Freddie” Flintoff.
All of Australia’s woe is due to the big Englishman.
Why?
Because in 2005, his Herculean feats utterly defeated the once infallible Australians. His abilities with the bat and ball dominated a team with names like Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Gilchrist, McGrath, Warne (and Gillespie and Lee).
He scored more runs than all but Ponting, took and more wickets than all but Warne.
In short, his feats tricked the Australian selection panel that all-rounders are the key to victory, not a good XI.
The Australian team got on fine before an all-rounder. Sure, they lost the Ashes, but Australia was comprehensively outplayed by all of England, not just by Flintoff.
Yet, the selection panel decided to think that if England did not have Flintoff-the-great, then Australia probably would have won 5-0, as Glenn McGrath initially predicted.
So here’s a brief timeline of happened then?
Shane Watson was immediately drafted back into the team for the Supertest against the World XI. He got injured.
Symonds then was drafted in. Flop.
Watson came back, got injured. Flop.
Cameron White. Flop.
Andrew McDonald came in and left. Flop.
Mitchell Johnson put together a few good innings and then it was decided he could be the new allrounder. Flop.
Marcus North was promoted to second spinner duties. His batting suffered and he was dropped. Flop.
Shane Watson came back. For a few days he was performing, then he got injured again. Bowling scaled back. Bring in Steve Smith. Flop.
Watson came back again, then his batting plummeted. He blamed it on his bowling. So they draft in Henriques. Flop
Glenn Maxwell. Flop
Australia for the past eight years have been obsessed with finding an allrounder, without really taking into consideration the level of talent they have in either discipline. It doesn’t matter if they bowl or bat well, so long as they do both…then they’re in!
Flintoff was a walk in on either discipline. Not one of the above could be considered the best six batsmen in the country or the best four bowlers in the country…which is supposed to be the prerequisite of an allrounder.
Australia for eight years have picked a team of 3+8. The captain, the wicketkeeper and the all rounder + the rest.
You don’t need an allrounder. You can win without them. Comfortably. You can’t make an allrounder.
They are not prerequisites to a team. You cannot pick Maxwell simply to have an allrounder in the team.
Including a makeshift allrounder who can do, but not excel, at both disciplines is akin to pick a best 10, and not a best 11. You are disadvantaged even before the toss.
If a set-up is blessed to have a genuine allrounder (in form), then by all means, pick him. If not, go with the standard, successful 6,1,4 line-up.
Thanks a lot Freddie. I wish you weren’t so good.
anur8g
Roar Rookie
its a very nice article, we don't need any allrounder. we just need The Ashes back with some outstanding bat+ball performance. Watson is neither a Test batsman nor a good wicket taker bowler in longest format of the game and his recent attitude in India is also not upto the mark. So we need next gen bowlers with the same edge like Pigeon, the same lethal bowling like Binga and the actual spin like Warne, the most important thing a leader like PUNTER and last but not the least that winning habit, that ruthless attitude that Oz aggression. these things are missing from current squad. I am an Indian but true fan of Oz cricket. @CA: please bring back our old and great memories.
Mukhtar
Guest
Regarding Symonds, all I say is, he was a 'fair' player in a 'great' team. As a Test player, he was a hard-hitting, but inconsistent batsman, a useful, if limited bowler and a great fielder. In the hierarchy of Test cricket skills, bowling tops batting, which in turn, rules fielding. This is the reason why you hardly ever see players selected mainly for their fielding. On the topic of all-rounders, you Aussies fielded one of the greatest of them, at the No.7 slot in your Test batting order. He was Adam Gilchrist. Now, stroke-making all-rounders are nothing new in cricket, but 'Gilly' was a force of nature. Just as Flintoff was talismanic for England, Gilly - with his efficient wicket-keeping to pace and spin, combined with devastating batting could change the course of a match. Experts like Ian Chappell require one thing of Test cricketers - the ability to win a match. This is why Test cricket does not 'countenance' mediocrity, especially in the case of all-rounders. Their value is directly proportional to their greatest contribution through a single skill, not the total contribution through all their skills. That is why Jacques Kallis is a 'once-in-a-generation' freak. The Aussie selectors need to revert to basics in their team selection - the players on the roster need to be 'potentially', if not actual match-winners. Selecting Maxwell, Smith, Watson in the same Test side was suicide. The Indians took heavy toll, naturally. Preferably, the Captain must be the first name on the team sheet, which I feel, Watson is nowhere near being. Considering the paucity of quality spinners and top quality wicket-keepers, you boys pray for heavy rain in England. There is no question - the Aussie quicks must fire, preferably en masse! The Ashes tour will be a tough experience for young guns like Starc, Pattinson, so Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson must swing/seam the cherry to devastating effect, or the Aussies will lose. This England team is very efficient, if not the most swash-buckling! Patience, which was all too invisible in the Aussie performance in India, will have to be exercised. This is the acid test for all the reviews conducted in the aftermath of the last Ashes debacles. Unfortunately, there seems no light at the end of the tunnel, at present. Here's to an exciting summer of Test cricket!
Jonny Boy Jnr
Guest
He played 26 tests averaging over 40 with the bat and is possibly the best fielder to play test cricket. Handy with the ball with his swinging seamers or off spin which was more than handy on turning wickets. Any other dimwitted questions Disco??
Disco
Roar Guru
One good innings against England. And what else?
JB
Guest
Or the fact he missed a meeting to go fishing. What an ignorant thing to say
ChrisT
Guest
Utter, utter, nonsense.
dynamitedave
Roar Rookie
Spot on. Any decent gambler will tell you that "each way" betting is for mugs and you only end up losing. (I'm not a gambler). The cricket team should be specialists. When I was a kid I was a batter, so spent time in the nets batting, rarely bowled. Today the kids do everything. By doing all actions you weaken them all. Batters should bat and field. not bowl Bowlers should bowl and field. not bat our fielding has declined as well.
Nick Richardson
Roar Guru
Flintoff was good but not great. Sure that was a great series for him, but he was pretty ordinary at times.
Nick Richardson
Roar Guru
I'd wait a while. There is potential. Also one can not be judged on a few tests.
Jonny Boy Jnr
Guest
This article lost all credibility once you labelled Symond's contribution as a 'flop'. He didn't jump out of the blocks like Hussey but once he got set he was one of our best players and strong as a batsman, off spinner, medium pacer and fielder. You can chalk up his early departure from the Test side to Michael Clarke's 'personal skills'
Disco
Roar Guru
Symonds was a slogger with an extremely average Shield record. That said, he'd walk into the current Test side.
Disco
Roar Guru
I recall at the close of the 2005 series that some Aussies were claiming Brett Lee could be 'our Flintoff'.
buddha9
Guest
its no good quoting figures about flintoff -- figures don't tell any of the story at all -- if you look at keith miller's stats they don't look too flash either but there's something about these players -- flintoff's run out of ponting for instance oval, game changer --didn't do any thing else rest of match could hardly walk actually -- always had niggles, lifestyle stuff but had a habit of producing when it was needed esp against Australia. Whats more his sheer presence in the side boosted everyone else -- yeah he should have better averages but bell has a better batting average and i know who i'd rather have -- same with broad -- freddie was a champion and just because the oz selectors were silly enough to blame him for their loss in 2005 and try emulate him doesn't make flintoff any worse just shows the oz selectors are laughably incapable of really assessing the true reason for their 2005 defeat - inability to handle a swinging ball.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
these selectors are even more delusional than their predecessors I reckon. Symonds position was actually clarified as batsman Pretty sure Watto was originally picked for his goods looks, sorry, batting, with bowling secondary.
TedS
Guest
Nick, you may be up to something. Ashes 2005 was the defining series for a generation of cricket fans. Probably one of the top-3 series of all time.
James
Guest
atm i think australia would be very happy to find any player other than clarke who can have one good series.
Nick
Roar Guru
I'll assume you hit 7 instead of 4 by mistake. Yeah, the guy could bat a little, no doubt there, but hs average is high simply because he played few games.
Hairy Pear
Guest
So we are looking for a bloke that has one good series in an otherwise pretty average test career & seems to be a giant tool? Pity we didn't pick the no show against Sri Lanka then.
brother mouzone
Guest
i'd call Maxwell a mega flop
peeeko
Roar Guru
nice article - agree apart from that Symonds was not really a Flop - average 70 with the bat in tests (nearly ten more than Freddy) and was decent part timer taking wickets at 37 maybe the aussie selectors should have looked at freddies overall recoed - 31 with the bat and 32 with the ball