The perceived value of all-rounders in Australian cricketing circles has grown exponentially over the last few summers.
It appears regularly though, that as soon as a player is seen to have both bowled and batted they are labelled an all-rounder, often far too prematurely.
The whole idea for this article came about when I was asked if I felt Australia’s current ODI side had too many all-rounders and not a sufficient number of specialists.
It’s pretty clear that often when things go wrong, the balance of the side and selections will be questioned. At the moment, with so many all-rounders, the finger is being pointed at the players whom play this role in the side.
Is the problem that we have too many all-rounders? Or, is the problem that we have too many players that are classed in the side as all-rounders, but who are yet to actually prove they can hold their own as a specialist in one of the disciplines?
Are we placing unrealistic expectations upon these very players as soon as we see that they can both bat and bowl, and then getting frustrated when we realise maybe they’re reasonable at both skills but not really international level at either?
I think it’s the latter. I think there is a growing occurrence whereby players are labelled all-rounders because they can carry out both disciplines before they show they can really hold their own as a specialist in one of them.
Let’s analyse the performance of the all-rounders in the current triangular series in Zimbabwe.
Mitchell Marsh – Batting All-Rounder
Marsh has averaged 65 for the tournament, and on top of that has provided two eye-catching displays that have shown he can mix sensible batting with outrageous striking. Not only has he scored runs, but he’s also demonstrated that technically he is a very proficient batsman. His achievements with the bat have certainly justified his place in the side as a batsman, and on top of that his added damage with the ball would suggest going forward he could be classed as a batting all-rounder.
Glenn Maxwell – Batting All-Rounder
Glen Maxwell’s series consists of scores of 2, 13, 7 and 93. His first innings of the tournament was a typical “Big Show” innings, full of flare from start to finish. His last three digs though have left a lot to be desired, particularly when in comparison with that of the other batsman.
It leads me to question whether he is a player who was labelled an all-rounder too early. Yes, he can do both, but his statistics and consistency with the bat, particularly in ODIs, certainly don’t hold up against the rest of the batsman in the side.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s an x-factor. And if you had a top five of David Warner, Aaron Finch, Shane Watson, Michael Clarke and George Bailey all playing to their absolute potential you could carry someone like Maxi who can single handedly turn a game on its head every third or fourth innings.
For the moment though, his batting isn’t up to ODI level as it lacks consistency to a great degree. If it weren’t for Clarke’s injury, I wouldn’t have him in the side for the final.
James Faulkner – Bowling All-Rounder
Faulkner was dropped for the fourth game of the series against South Africa, and after taking one wicket in his first three games, I think it’s pretty clear why. His place in the side is predominately down to his bowling, and one wicket in three matches, with an economy nearing five runs an over, just isn’t good enough.
After such a strong Australian summer and an impressive ODI series in India, this could be Faulkner’s reality check that this ODI format isn’t so easy after all. His performances with the bat haven’t been flash either.
It’s clear from the analysis that the only all-rounder from this tour with a pass mark is Mitchell Marsh. With Shane Watson set to come back into the selection frame soon, the question of is there too many all-rounders in the side may rear its ugly head again.
I believe a genuine all-rounder certainly has something to offer a cricket side. Particularly in ODIs where you need at least five bowlers to bowl out the 50 overs. In fact, I would argue a genuine all-rounder is needed to assist with the bowling load.
Can Mitchell Marsh and Shane Watson play together? Yes, definitely. If first and foremost they’re both playing out their role as a batsman I see no reason why they can’t play together, their bowling on top of that would then be a great bonus for the balance of the side.
I hope James Faulkner and Glenn Maxwell can bounce back from their disappointing tours and reassert themselves into calculations for the World Cup, but I first think they have to improve their bowling and batting respectively to the same level of that of the specialists in the side.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I have been reticent to comment on this article due to the fact I have spent too much time already on this site complaining about Aus's new obsession with all-rounders. But my worst fears are true, Rod Marsh is obsessed with all-rounders based on this interview. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/selector-rod-marsh-insists-allrounders-shane-watson-mitch-marsh-can-play-in-same-team/story-fni2usfi-1227052491184 That sort of selection policy shows no faith in the four bowlers picked. What is the point of picking two spinners if they are not going to bowl lots of overs and provide the rest the two quicks need. If Marsh was picked on his batting fine, but he and Watson are clearly only in the side because they are seen as all-rounders. I look forward to the day we get away from this nonsense.
Don Freo
Guest
The way our specialists bowlers bat these days, Johnson, Siddle, Starc, Harris...even Lyon...the need for all-rounders is not the same as when everyone from 9 to jack was a bunny. 6 specialist batsmen, a keeper (who is almost a specialist batsman these days) a spinner and the 3 best quicks give balance. Only pick an all-rounder if he can genuinely hold his place as a batsman or bowler. Combine the batting average of say, Johnson and Siddle, and I believe it would be better than the combined average of Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson or Gary Gilmour and Kerry O'Keefe or Tom Moody and Ray Bright. I don't know...but I suspect it.
Don Freo
Guest
Thank goodness for that Tom. I couldn't believe you could possibly hold that opinion.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Apparently Lyon's untouchable now.
Armchair Expert
Guest
I would of thought Keith Miller was Australia's best ever allrounder by a mile.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Reiffel and Dodemaide would probably be tier 1.
MikeTV
Guest
In test matches, you qualify as an All-Rounder if your long-term Batting Average exceeds your Bowling average. But this is only a rule-of-thumb as Michael Slater and Doug Walters would qualify. Malcolm Marshall does not qualify as an All-Rounder. You could say that the Batting average must be significantly higher than the Bowling average, but then the list would be limited to players like Garfield Sobers, Jacques Kallis and Walter Hammond.
Johnno
Guest
Agreed about Bevan, he was a good spinner. Tier 2: Add Tom Moody Tier 3: Add Simon Katich Micheal Bevan,Simon Katich,Michael Clarke all could of been better spinners if they put more time into it,
Simon
Guest
Good article. Australian cricket has had an obsession with "all-rounders" for several years now. I believe it spawned from the year that Flintoff did well against us.
Gav
Guest
I think Maxwell is v exciting as a Test prospect. If he takes the path that Lehman is trying to take him on, in 12 months he could be a ready. The guy seems to have an incredible eye......imagine him n Warner tearing it up over a couple of sessions in a test. There's a batting allrounders spot coming up I recon....... If he was to prove a reliable part timer with his spin, it would also be a big benefit on green wickets, where you may like to leave Lyon out.
Jameswm
Guest
If he's batting 6, then the only chance he has to build an innings is when we lose early wickets.
Broken-hearted toy
Guest
Marsh will bullock his way ahead of him if Maxwell doesn't change a bit as the outstanding thing from both Marsh's 80s is how much he has built the innings. Maxwell could do this, he has enough weapons at his disposal to play more thoughtful cricket, but as he has said, he premeditates shots. That will work some of the time, but will lead to ridiculous throwing away of his wicket at important times at others. And no test team needs a player who is going to be that stupid. It's like having Afridi for a model, great for the laughs but for not much else.
Rellum
Roar Guru
He has already reprimanded Maxwell once for no real discernible change in shot selection. I know you think highly of Maxwell Ronan, but I have always had the opposite opinion because of his one gear batting and poor shot selection which are a recipe for failure in Test cricket. He is made for the T20 and ODI teams where wickets make it easy for him to attack, but you need more than one gear in test cricket. I am not familiar with Pakistan's bowling but if they have any decent spinners I think he will struggle against them, if he is handed a test spot.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
And Lehmann is absolutely correct in that. I am probably a bit easy on Maxwell because he is such a match winner but there is no doubt he can be a much better, much more consistent player if he gets his shot selection in order.
Tom from Perth
Guest
Alan shut up man that comment was not written by me, but somebody using my moniker, hence the comment above yours.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
From what Lehman has said though, he wants Maxwell to be little more thoughtful about how he goes about an innings, not just having one gear. Whether Maxwell will pay any attention to that is another thing of course. Hopefully he'll get a score in the final.
Hugh McDonald
Roar Rookie
Yea agree! He has both a brilliant defense and a great attacking game
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I suppose I was thinking about Faulks first class batting, he's real potential for his batting but he is certainly a bowling all-rounder.
Hugh McDonald
Roar Rookie
To add on that statement, in the Lehmann era he's had 14 innings. Only 5 of those 14 innings have been scores of over 36, and in only 3 of those five innings has he come in when we were in trouble. • 54 v England - came in at 4/114 • 60 v India - came in at 4/74 • 92 v India - came in at 4/71 I think this highlights he's not making a lot of runs consistently, and particularly not making a lot of run when we are in a difficult situation
Hugh McDonald
Roar Rookie
Completely agree, we've seen he can be a match winner multiple times! But when times a tough and he really needs to dig in, his game plan may not come off