Now that Steve Smith has graduated into a consistent Test batsman, he has the opportunity to develop his dangerous leg breaks.
The New South Welshmen made the right choice several years ago by making his bowling a distant second priority in order to exploit his generous talent with the blade.
The Australian selectors had mistakenly tried to fashion Smith into a bowling all-rounder at the tender age of 21 in the 2010-11 Ashes.
Even specialist leg spinners are very rarely ready for the highest level at that age, let alone all-rounders.
It was no great surprise when Smith floundered against England’s accomplished batting line-up, returning 0-138 from just 31 overs in the series.
At that stage Smith’s batting, too, was raw and not yet ready to withstand the rigours of Test cricket.
His return of 159 runs at 32 that series was not too poor but his unorthodox style needed to be honed.
Smith went back to Shield ranks and tightened his game. He took on positions of responsibility at NSW and batted accordingly.
When he returned to the Test side one year ago in India he was a refined version of his younger self.
His 15 matches since have seen him reap 1102 runs at 44, including four tons.
Those figures are even more impressive when you consider 10 of those matches were played away from home against highly-ranked opponents South Africa, India and England.
Smith’s maturation as a cricketer has seen him become a man for a crisis.
Of his ten scores of 45 or more since coming back into the Test side, all of them have come in the first innings.
Among those ten scores, seven have been compiled after he arrived at the crease with Australia in strife.
Over the past year, Smith’s leggies have been used sparingly by skipper Michael Clarke. But he has proved himself a potent change bowler.
Setting aside that ill-fated Ashes series in 2010-11, he has since snared 11 wickets at 35 in Tests.
Those breakthroughs have come at a strike rate of 58, which underlines what a threat he poses with the ball.
His strike rate compares favourably with the likes of India’s Ravi Ashwin (59), Pakistan wizard Saeed Ajmal (63), Sri Lankan mainstay Rangana Herath (64) and his teammate Nathan Lyon (65).
What holds back Smith is his lack of control. He is an expensive option, having leaked 3.84 runs per over across his Test career due to the buffet of full tosses and long hops he typically serves.
But at least once or twice an over he sends down a drifting, dipping delivery which jags off the surface in a manner which is disconcerting for batsmen.
He has the rare ability to bamboozle even the elite Test strokemakers.
This was patently clear in the final innings of the recent series against South Africa.
Smith was once capable of bowling with decent control.
He proved this early in his one-day international career when Clarke regularly threw him the ball.
In his first 23 matches he secured 21 wickets at 31, solid figures for any short form spinner.
While he looks a long way from the bowler he was at that stage, he hasn’t lost his ability to conjure wicket-taking balls.
It seems likely that now he has his batting in such top shape Smith will put more effort into his bowling.
At just 24 years old he has many years to develop his skills.
He has the ability and temperament to develop into a potent fifth bowling option for Australia at Test level.
Bob Adams
Guest
I think Smith should pursue his legspin....However I have not really seen him bowl a wrong'un,topspinner or flipper...does anyone know if he can....he bowls the occasional corker of a leggie....good as his batting is becoming... Another legitimate string to his bow could elevate him to greatness in the long term....keep going smithie!
Aransan
Guest
The difficulty with the criterion that the batting average should be greater than the bowling average is the case where the bowler has a good bowling average but basically doesn't bowl much. I would add that they should be averaging at least 2 wickets per match if they can't be selected on batting alone.
Ruminate
Roar Guru
Another criteria to add to being selected on one discipline or the other is to add that they should also achieve a batting average above their bowling average. There is also the consideration that a player like Watson who really has a fairly poor batting average as a batsman alone, adds considerable value to the team in allowing them to select only 4 bowlers. I don't think it would be sustainable to have 4 bowlers alone in unless it was a one off on a raging green top....
Shouts Chen
Guest
Steven Smith needs to turn himself into an all rounder. I remember back in 2013-14 Ashes test Series where he took the wicket in Adelaide Oval.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I admit to getting a sense of 'what if' when I see him bowling as sometimes he just bowls a really classic leg break.
Aransan
Guest
Perhaps a "pure" all rounder makes near equal contributions with bat and ball but usually there will be a bias one way or the other. Ian Botham played 102 tests and averaged 33.54 batting and took 383 wickets at 28.4, he would justify his position in a test team on bowling alone and the batting was a bonus. On the other hand I would accept Andrew Fintoff as an all rounder, after 79 tests he averaged 31.77 batting and took 226 wickets at 32,7 -- he couldn't be selected on either batting or bowling alone but the two together warranted his place in a test team. Watson's problem is that he was unable to bowl as many overs as would be desired given his undoubted talent and hasn't taken enough wickets per test. Ben Stokes appears to be an emerging all rounder and if this turns out to be the case England will have had three all rounders in a period when Australia has had none.
soapit
Guest
that is an often repeated definition but its very limited/ how many genuine test all rounders are there by that?
Aransan
Guest
Hi jammel, what Australia also needs is a batsman or combination of batsmen who can bowl 10 overs in a day and still keep the pressure on. Without that the the temptation will be to over-ball one or more of our bowlers, I believe Siddle has already suffered in that regard and if we are not careful will be a limitation in the development of Lyon. Only Warne was capable of being a stock bowler in addition to being an attacking bowler.
jammel
Guest
Hi Ronan - I think Smith is already a fifth bowling option capable of taking important wickets…he doesn't need to do too much more at the moment. As said above, I think Smith should focus on his batting for the rest of his career - and possibly captaincy one day. He's got a natural ability as a bowler so will always be able to take the odd wicket as a partnership breaker. What Australia really really needs now though, from a few people including Smith, is solidity of batting - i.e. consistency and some big big scores. If Smith can average 45-48 (or even more) for the rest of his career, I for one will be very happy!
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Hi DM I'm not suggesting Smith will ever become a frontline spinner, rather that he has the potential to be a potent fifth bowler capable of taking important wickets. As a part-time leg spinner he is never going to be an ultra-reliable option but he has shown he can dislodge even elite Test batsmen.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
I agree with that Troy, he has a lot of work to do on his control, but he is not a lost cause and most importantly can bowl the wicket-taking deliveries which most part-time spinners cannot conjure.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
There are some ripper deliveries among that bunch.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Clarke seems reticent to use him unless Australia are in a hole. I can understand that as, at present, Smith's control is often poor and he can undo any pressure built up by the specialist bowlers in the space of an over or two. But if Smith can improve his control a bit he can become that sort of bowler David.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
A "genuine" all rounder is someone who could earn their place in the side purely on the back of either their batting or bowling. Watson is a very skilful bowler but would not be close to playing Test cricket as a paceman.
DM
Guest
Ronan, I think you are way off the mark in regards to Smith. He has proved himself to be a Test class batsman in all conditions, but as a spinner he is nowhere near Test class. The ability to survive as a Test match spinner is largely dependent on confidence. This confidence is achieved by NOT being belted out of the attack, and this must be continuously achieved. So far Smith has proven to be incapable of this achievement. Ronan, batsmen KNOW when they can attack a bowler, be it the first ball they deliver, or later when the bowler is tiring. With Smith the batsman KNOWS they will get 3 or 4 loose balls an over. Until Smith can land 5 - 6 balls an over on a five cent piece, he will always get hit out of the attack. He is the modern equivalent of Michael Bevan, but not as good. As an aussie tho, happy to be proven wrong.
dave
Guest
Smith started his career as a young blonde legspinner at a time we were still desperate to find the next Warney. I remember how many times they put up the split screen comparisons,It was a hell of alot of pressure for the young bloke. Now he has deflected that by stating that he is purely a batsman,plus Australia seems to have finally got over the next warne thing. I dont think he's forgotten how to bowl and without the expectation of being picked for his bowling i think we may see him sending a few down. I also Feel that Its not a case of Clarke having no faith in him,more like good management of a potential weapon for the future protecting his confidence,much like the way he has used Johsnon in short bursts.If Johnson had been overbowled and belted then lost confidence It may have been a very different summer. Fantastic player to have in the side and he's only 24.
Ruminate
Roar Guru
One measure of an allrounder is a batting average better than a players bowling average. Watson BTW, only has a test batting average of 36, you could argue that with his bowling average of 31, he is a better bowler than batsman and is under bowled! His fragile body is of course the limiting factor as is the way in which he is used to hold up an end. It's a shame that he's so injury prone, early in his career he was at 145km and could have developed well in that direction, injuries were the problem though. I'm not sure he ever was the batsman that many wanted him to be...as a result of time in Australia cricket when we were lacking quality batsmen. Oh for having a Jamie Siddons or 2....
Aransan
Guest
How about Keith Miller who took 170 wickets at 22.97 in 55 tests and had a batting average of 36.97? To be fair, Miller was a once in a lifetime player however Watson just doesn't do enough bowling and take enough wickets per match to justify being called an all rounder. I would like an all rounder who can't be selected just on the basis of his batting to be averaging at least 2 wickets per test.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Thus, your definition of a "genuine" all rounder is a player who could be picked for a team purely on the strength of both his bowling or his batting solely? Is there really a player that could fulfil that criteria? The greatest of the modern ear, Jaques Kallis, would have probably been picked solely on his batting, but I doubt he would be picked if just bowling.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
It would be Warner you'd think, though I'm not sure his foray into medium pace will continue.