During that 2005 series, all rounder Andrew ‘Freddie’ Flintoff was responsible for some of the most heartbreakingly frustrating (because he is English) yet horribly impressive (because he was) all round cricketing performances witnessed by this writer.
This laconic Lancashire man is descended from Norse invaders, and like some mead swilling Viking marauding his way through a hapless baggy green village he proved an irresistible force with both bat and ball.
It was a nightmare on an English pitch, and Freddie was the Kruger-esque’ monster of the piece.
Flintoff was the difference in a tight series that first turned on the twisted ankle of Glenn McGrath.
It finished with Flintoff being awarded everything from Man of the Series to the rather more exciting sounding (and where Freddie is concerned, dangerously inviting) Freedom of the City of Preston.
When Australia returned to the antipodes with their Ashes dreams shattered, a proverbial penny dropped.
We need a ‘Freddie’.
Thus the Ashes tour of 2005 set the ball rolling for the epic quest to find Australia’s analogous answer, an obsessive search for a cricketing saviour equal parts leather-flinger and willow-wielder.
Shane Watson was the preferred candidate, a Flintoff-esque figure in both skill and physique. A player with the potential to hold his place with bat or ball alone: it must be said a potential he is yet to fully realise.
Unfortunately he also owned the tag of being potentially ‘injury prone’, sadly a potential he would realise.
As a result of Watson’s false starts many suitors to the role have been tried and discarded with over the past eight years.
Andrew Symonds, Andrew McDonald and most recently Glenn Maxwell, Moises Henriques and Steve Smith all attempted to fill the void.
Henriques and Smith both impressed with the opportunities they were afforded in that erroneous tour of India, and can consider themselves unlucky to not be in the Ashes squad.
As it turns out they are making a trip to England, but instead of playing in front of 30,000 parochial, sun-baked soldiers of the Barmy Army, they will play in front of 30 sun-stroked pensioners as members of the Australia A squad.
Australia took three all-rounders the most recent tour of India, four if you include the reluctant flinger Shane Watson. If you include Watson as an all-rounder on the coming Ashes tour, that number has been halved.
Consistency of selection not only breeds confidence in a playing group, and in this regard I feel the most for Steve Smith.
He will surely be in line for a call up should form or injuries warrant it.
But none of this is to deny our new great all-round hope his opportunity.
Step up James Faulkner, a player selectors believe (and fans hope) has the ability to lay waste to that most reviled of opponents; the English cricketer.
Faulkner has been one of the most consistent performers both domestically and in shorter international fixtures for the best part of a year.
He possesses one of the best all-round games in Australia, his size and style of play not unlike that of Watson or indeed Flintoff at his peak.
Faulkner’s left arm seamers in particular could prove very handy on the swinging decks of the Old Dart. And his batting has improved markedly over this past summer, having lifted his average 10 runs from the previous season.
In fact with youth on his side, his potential as a match-winner may surpass that of Watson at a similar stage in his career.
And lets face it, his ability to call on a little bit of that curiously Australian ‘mongrel’ trait will ruffle a few pommy feathers and assure him a special place in the hearts of his English opponents and their fans.
Faulkner is not assured of a start in the coming series, though Clarke and the powers that be could do worse than throw him in as the specialist all-rounder, at the very least it would allow Watson to continue concentrating on being a batsman.
If he does get an opportunity let’s hope the young man from the apple isle can become the apple in the eyes of every Australian cricket fan by putting the wind up a few straight English backs and helping the baggy greens bring home the urn.
Jammel
Guest
Timmuh and JGK are spot on!!
Lolly
Guest
Steve Smith's first class bowling average barely makes him a useful part-time option let alone an all-rounder. I wish the question about all-rounders wasn't even on the cards. If you don't have one, why pretend you have? Watson is a genuine all-rounder but his batting form in test cricket has stunk for ages. We don't have another. We just don't. Mitch Marsh shouldn't even be considered by fans - let alone selectors - for test cricket. I've never known a young player to get hyped so much off the back of such a poor first class record. It can't be good for him.
Lancey5times
Guest
Faulkner no, Marsh maybe, Butters wont get a chance, Maxwell never again, Henriques probably never again, Starc no, Steve Smith is a batsman so no (of all the people who think he is an allrounder even he isn't one of them) 4 quality bowlers and a couple of part-timers will be fine thanks
Deep Thinker
Guest
I think shield bowlers have got to do a lot of batting at the moment. So we have a lot of bowlers who are handy batsmen. They are handy bowlers as well. I think the real issue is that if you are a pace bowler who wants an IPL contract, being able to contribute with the bat really helps your cause. So bowlers are focusing on their batting a lot more. That must be a big reason Austraila has so many bowlers who are pushing the 'all rounder' category.
Deep Thinker
Guest
If Faulkner reproduces Shield form in the test arena, he will be a very good test bowler. A big if - but I must admit l like what I see and he'd be in my team. Faulkner and Flintoff are completely different players. Flintoff is a slugger with the bat and a hostile but somewhat erratic bowler. Faulkner is a workmanlike batsman and a line and length bowler. Probably more reliable than Flintoff but Flintoff had a bigger A game. I'd say he is more like a Shaun Pollock. Pollock batted at number 8. I think in terms of bowling all-rounders - there is no shortage. Team management need to be careful not to undermine bowling development so they can get a few more runs out of the tail. What is more important for a number 8? Get Hashim Amla out early or score a handy 30 or 40? There is also a trend to turn batting allrounders into specialist batsmen. I think the team has lost a lot of potential in Steve Smith by telling him to put away his leggies - I think he had more potential as a leggie than as a batsman. Turning bowling allrounders into batting all rounders is not the answer. Faulkner's priority should be to take wickets and score handy 50s at number 8.
Nudge
Guest
Agree with James and Ryan. Maybe Faulkner is in the squad to play in only 1 test. The fifth test when the mighty Aussies are 2.1 up and only need to draw. Pretty handy coming in at 8.
Shankar
Guest
Agree completely pope, we can't have our keeper at 6, that was a key lesson from the India series
Shankar
Guest
Why isn't butter worth considered
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
All this all rounder talk makes you feel very sorry for one vindicated gem in Luke Butterworth.......
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Indeed Maxy you've hit the nail on the head. Tailenders play some great innings but that doesn't mean they can bat 6 and 7 or indeed 8. Certainly they should not be nicking a batting spot, which might have afforded them more rest time in the pavillion to rip into a tired opponent. Much better than a " rest" in the deep while they chase the ball for the best of two days, whilst someone not good enough to bat six gets pasted all over the joint as they fail to defend a modest total probably caused by going in with five batsmen.
Ken Hambling
Guest
Amith sums it up, we need 6 batsman and at present Watson is our best alrounder
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Kurt, If the selectors play an all-rounder (and sadly they seem to want to do so regardless of how simple Test selection should be) the best option is not in the squad. I would probably, if fit, have chosen McDonald as a batsman. His form over recent Shield seasons has been as good as anyone's, again when fit. He would then be the number one all-rounder, though he would be picked or not depending on whether he was in the best six batsmen with the bowling being a bonus or maybe a tie-breaker if there was nothing separating the sixth and seventh batsman. Out of those actually in the touring squad, it is hard to say. Watson has better batting credentials, and the batting is weak, but his form is abysmal. Right at the moment Faulkner may actually be the better batting option (not more talented, but maybe better on form). You could probably argue that Starc, Siddle or Pattinson are all better batting options than Watson right now and therefore Pattinson is the closest thing to an all-rounder. I wouldn't play either Watson or Faulkner, but the selectors will play Watson.
Max Weber
Roar Pro
I don't advocate this at all. Remember when Johnson got played at 7 a few years back? Our bowlers have enough injury concerns/load issues without saddling them with the pressure of batting. It scares me when Johnson/Starc/Siddle etc are called on to be allrounders. Heck, they're even doing it with Coulter-Nile and Agar, and Trent Copeland's going on about becoming an allrounder. Just let them bowl.
Max Weber
Roar Pro
This. For me he's a good pick due to the experience he'll get, but I don't think he can be considered a genuine test allrounder at the moment, don't think he's got the batting skills. Having said that, if Starc gets injured, he's a great option to have. If Watson hits form (big if, granted), this whole thing is moot, of course.
Chui
Guest
If there isn't an all-rounder that screams pick me, then don't pick one. I don't get the obsession. Is it just covering a glaring problem with our top 6? The alternative for Australia is to skill up its bowlers. If you can increase a bowlers batting average by 10-15, between them there's your all rounder. The bowlers we have at the moment have really saved the top six from some serious humiliation of late.
Amith
Guest
Agree Ryan, Faulkner would have to bat at 8, we can't make the mistake of having our keeper bat at 6 again, we need 6 batsman which would include Watson(who is also bowling) and then have Haddin at 7 and Faulkner at 8 if we were to pick him.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
I'm going to get laughed down for saying this...... I feel Faulkner can contribute and can nearly force his way into the XI in English conditions in minimum circumstances. 1. We play 4 medium pace bowlers (No Lyon) - when conditions suit... 2. He get's picked in front of Peter Siddle 3. He's the rotation for Harris / Pattinson
Ben Thrift
Roar Rookie
The consensus seems to be that Faulkner isn't a good enough batsman at this stage to bat at 6. I agree. Happy for him to bat at 7 provided you've got a top 6 that make runs consistently. Unfortunately we don't have that top 6 at present, so I think he probably gets squeezed out by Shane Watson who is regarded as the better batsman. Whether Watson is a better batsman is another question entirely.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I don't think Faulkner is any higher than a number 8 Test batsman, so I don't think he can be considered an all-rounder. Considering that, if he is to play in the Ashes, he would have to play as a specialist bowler, and I don't think his bowling is in the same class as Pattison, Siddle, Harris, etc (at this stage). Having said all that, his type of bowling could be very useful in English conditions. His selection would be a slight gamble, but for me, he brings bowling to the table, and that is not where the Australian Test team has issues: it's the top 6.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Faulkner's a bowling all rounder (like Flintoff was), Watto's a batting all rounder. Faulkner's not in our 4 best bowlers right now though.