In recent years Australia’s cricket selectors have gone all-rounder crazy.
In September 2014 chief selector Rod Marsh announced that every team needed an all rounder. Indeed, some think that you should build a whole team around them.
So we’ve got lots of talk about whether we play Shane Watson or Mitchell Marsh, or Watson and Marsh, or maybe Glenn Maxwell and James Faulkner, or even Dan Christian or Moises Henriques.
But no one ever seems able to explain a crucial issue – how can you judge if an all rounder is actually doing their job?
In one dayers and T20s it’s easy – all rounders do the late innings slogging/rescue missions, and ‘keep an end tight’ with the ball. But what about Test matches? Specialist batsmen and bowlers and wicketkeepers have simple KPIs that everyone can understand – are they making runs? Taking wickets? Spilling catches? But all rounders seem to fall into a separate category.
They don’t have to make as many runs because they compensate with wickets, or they don’t have to take as many wickets because they score runs, or they’re allowed to let through a few more wides because they make runs. But exactly how much leeway is an all rounder allowed?
It’s complicated by the fact that the definition of what constitutes an all rounder seems to vary. You have batting all-rounders, bowling all-rounders, genuine all-rounders, potential all-rounders, bits-and-pieces all-rounders, players who are genuine one-day all-rounders and/or first-class all-rounders and/or Test all-rounders and/or T20 all-rounders, but not necessarily any of the other.
You have to average over 30 with the bat and under 30 with the ball or you don’t, your batting average has to be higher than your bowling average or it doesn’t, you can be a wicketkeeper good with the bat, or not, and you have to be good at fielding as well or you don’t.
They can bat in the top six or not, above the wicketkeeper or below or be the wicketkeeper, or not, open the bowling or not, have a specific job in the side or not.
Watson started in the Australian Test team batting at seven and bowling at five, then he batted at six, then he came back as an opening batsman who could bowl, only he began to bowl less and less – so much so he became a specialist batsman, then his batting form dropped away to the point where he declared unilaterally in South Africa last year that he was an all rounder who needed to bowl to keep his place. In other words, he didn’t have to score as many runs as a proper batsman because he bowls – and presumably he didn’t have to take as many wickets as a proper bowler because he bats.
Mitchell Marsh was picked to bat at six in the Test side with a first-class batting average of 29 on the basis of a bowling average around the same, despite averaging less than two wickets a game.
Maxwell has batted at eight, seven, two and three for Australia, and bowled at five and six, and never got a first-class five-for.
Steve Smith began his Test career as a bowling all-rounder, then became a batting all-rounder, now he’s a specialist batsman who rolls his arm over for a few overs and no one seems to regard him as an all rounder.
Michael Clarke has actually won several Test matches for Australia with his bowling but he seems to have escaped all-rounder classification.
Occasionally Mitchell Johnson does something spectacular with the bat, and people talk him up as an all rounder, then he has a string of failures and they shut up.
Smith, Clarke and Johnson are specialists now – which means they have a specific job, that they can be held accountable for. Marsh, Maxwell and Watson’s position is vaguer. Okay so they’re allowed to score a few less runs because of their bowling – how many less? Five? Ten? How many wickets do they have to take? Or if it’s about keeping things tight, do we go off the economy rate? Or do we have to wait until they score no runs and take no wickets like Moises Henriques (and Phil Carlson and Simon O’Donnell and Graeme Watson and Trevor Laughlin and Peter Sleep and Maxwell) before we can drop them?
After four Tests Mitchell Marsh averages 37 with the bat but 164 with the ball – has he been a success or not? After 56 Tests Shane Watson averages 35 with the bat and less than two wickets per Test with the ball – does the latter justify the former?
That’s the thing with all rounders – they’re so hard to judge. And the thing is, they’re not even necessary, not at Test level. I realise that’s a heretical position at the moment, but the West Indies became the best team in the world in the 1980s without an all rounder, as did Australia in the ’90s. They had specialists, some of whom were handy with the bat and the ball – part time. Australia won a hell of a lot more matches when Steve Waugh stopped being a bits-and-pieces all-rounder and became a specialist batsman who occasionally bowled.
We should get rid of this talk of ‘the all-rounder’ position as if it’s this essential thing – it’s confusing and lets players get away with poor performances for too long (Watson has never been dropped for form).
Instead we should have a ‘batsman who can bowl a few useful overs’ position – plus a ‘bowler who is handy with the bat’ position. That way we ensure some steel to the tail and variation in the attack, but everyone still knows what their job is – and if they fail at that job (i.e. their day job, not their added extra) they can be dropped.
So by all means lets keep on the Watson and M. Marsh, but they should be judged as batsmen and part-timers, not all rounders. Abolish that word, our selection policies will have a lot more accountability, and we might start winning more overseas.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
Australia became obsessed with all rounders after Flintoff put Australia on their butts in 2005. Before that, Australia went with 4 bowlers for a long time.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Difference in Michael Bevan's stats is amazing esp as unlike Mark Waugh he didn't pick up a lot of easy county cricket runs. But nothing like Jack Badcock, a 30s player, who averaged 51 at first class level but only 14 in tests. (I was surprised to learn Ian Chappell actually averages 48 at FC but 42 in tests.)
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Ronan I didn't say teams couldn't use a batsman who could bowl - but they should be batsmen, and judged as batsmen, not given a special leave pass as an "all rounder" a term which is far too vague, and leads to selectors accepting second-ratting batting returns in exchange for second rate bowling returns. On the recent tour of UAE, Australia had four bowlers and one/two all rounders - so there were five/six bowling options. The result was the batting was weakened and statistically speaking Australia's bowlers delivered their worst performance of all time and we got thrashed. Moises Henriques and Glenn Maxwell didn't help Australia's bowling in India in 1985 but they weakened the batting. Ben Stokes' selection over Gary Ballance in the 2013/14 Ashes didn't help the bowling or particularly strengthen the batting (England still lost every test) Phil Carlson didn't particularly help our bowlers in 78-79 but he weakened the batting. I recognise players have a lot of cricket (though not sure they play more now than they used to... in the old days they played a lot more first class cricket) but if they're worried about player burn out surely its better then that bowlers get rested between games instead of weakening the batting by bringing in some bits and pieces player. And you didn't answer the central question - how do you judge if an all rounder is doing a good job? Do they get a "performance discount" with the bat based on their bowling? How good does their bowling have to be to compensate for the batting? What if they're taking some wickets but are scoring no runs - do they stay in the top six? I feel if the position of people were clarified - if someone was officially "a batsman and part time bowler" instead of an all rounder it would be easier to tell what their job was.
Johnno
Guest
Who knows, keeping the QLD section happy, from the Sydney centric cricket mafia.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
How did Law manage to play 54 ODIs while averaging 26 with the bat for Australia in a glory era??
Johnno
Guest
Bevan,Hookes,and Lehmann 3 examples of guys who didn't take there test careers to there sheild or county cricket level. Brad Hodge too probably, but he never got many chances. Jamie Siddons only got 1 ODI game. Stuart Law and Martin Love 2 other run plunderers from QLD, never reached test heights, stu law dropped after makeing a 50. Steve faded alot in ODI's after 1999. Mark Waugh made alot of big runs aged 18-25. Many said he should of been in the side earlier not Steve.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Off topic but while looking at stats on the Waugh brothers and others I found these stats: - Mark Waugh averaged 60 in first class cricket (not including Tests). Yet his Test average was only 41. His brother had exactly the same average (51) in both Test and other first class cricket. Strong evidence to support the popular opinion that Mark didn't go close to fully exploiting his talents at Test level. Mark's ODI average is higher than his domestic 50-over average so he exploited his talent in that format. - Steve Waugh averaged 51 in domestic 50-over cricket but only 33 in ODIs. So did he underperform in ODIs the way Mark did in Tests? - Michael Bevan averaged an extraordinary 61 in Shield and county cricket, with 68 hundreds at close to 1 ton every 3 matches. Yet from 18 Tests he never managed to score a ton and averaged just 29.
Johnno
Guest
No wonder why Carl Hoopers batting suffered. He had to come into bat at 4 mostly and bowl alot. Marlon Samuels has had to do alot of bowling. He is still going and made a century vs South Africa in the recent series.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Exactly Johnnno, Hooper and Harper were in the side as all-rounders and did a heap of bowling for the Windies, averaging 22-plus overs per Test each, which is a big workload. The Waugh brothers together contributed 15 overs per Test on average.
Johnno
Guest
The windies did have Roger Harper and Phil Simmons when selected to give the quicks a rest. Harper an Off-spinner and great fielder, and Phil Simmons handy Mark Waugh style pace bowling. Also Viv Richards and Carl Hooper did quite a bit of relief work bowling spin as did Jimmy Adams.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"They’re not even necessary, not at Test level. I realise that’s a heretical position at the moment, but the West Indies became the best team in the world in the 1980s without an all rounder, as did Australia in the ’90s." I've heard this claim made so many times and I'm not convinced the people that repeat it actually analyse the theory first. For me it's a no-brainer that modern Test teams should have someone in their top 7 who is also a good bowler. To address your claims in the above quote: - In the 90s Australia didn't need an all-rounder because not only did they have the greatest bowling attack in history they also had the Waugh brothers both of whom were very handy change bowlers and started their careers as all-rounders. - The West Indies didn't need one either, you argue. Well they only had to play eight Tests a year, on average, during their glory period from mid 70s to late 80s. Australia now play about 12 Tests a year on average and Test series are more condensed than ever as the ICC tries to wedge them in between T20I matches, ODI contests and the ever-expanding domestic T20 competitions. So teams like Australia play 50% more Test cricket each year than the Windies did back then, and those modern Test series are also more condensed, with back-to-back Tests commonplace, offering modern bowlers less recovery between matches than the Windies quicks had. Hence, modern teams try to protect the health of their bowlers and keep them as fresh and potent as possible by alleviating their workload with an all-rounder. That's why every single Test side now fields a batting all-rounder. If aan all-rounder can take some of the stress off their key frontline bowlers then those bowlers should not only be a bit fresher and presumably more effective in each spell they bowl but it also increases the chances that they will be able to stay fit across evermore condensed series. It's all very rational to me. I can't understand why so many cricket followers deride the strategy of fielding an all-rounder. It's such an outdated point of view.
Craig Watson
Guest
Maybe at the moment. Is still a kid. Has a lot of improvement in him.
Craig Watson
Guest
I would not be reading too much into Mitch Marsh's bowling average at this stage. Since earning his "baggy green' he has been bowling on roads. He looked likely at the Gabba before he broke down. He is a tall, strong bloke who hits the deck pretty hard so he needs the pitch to not be slow and soft. We will see Mitch at his best if and when he gets to play some cricket on NORMAL Aussie pitches. I always thought a true all rounder was judged on whether he could make a side either just as a bowler or as a batsman. At the moment our so called all rounders are mere pretenders. Out of the present bunch and those coming thru Mitch Marsh looks the most likely to be our first true all rounder since Keith Miller. It is improbable though, he will ever reach the same heights as ":Nugget".
Johnno
Guest
Mitch Marsh is just another Ravi Bopara or Shane Lee.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I wouldn't count Maxwell as an all-rounder. He is up there for batting and his bowling record isn't very good. He's very much a batsman that bowls a bit.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I'm counting Watto as a specialist top 6 bat who can bowl. Actually he only played in the last SA test with Hooley Doolan and Shauny Marsh filling specialist bats prior to his recall for Marsh. So the score is Specialist top 6 bats strategy - 7W 4L 1D ( including Watto as a batsman who bowls 4th or 5th, although he didn't play in at least two tests in SA ) Allrounder strategy Specialist top 5 bats ( or 4 in the second UAE debacle! ) - 1W 6L 1D ( the allrounder being someone other than Watto ie a bowler who might be able to bat, or in Maxi's case someone they wish would just put his head down and bat and who's bowling doesn't really warrant selection ). And the only win had more to do with specialist fast men clambering over lesser opponent on a favourable pitch.
glen
Guest
Get rid if this of this quest for a all rounder
Red Kev
Roar Guru
SA in SA has to include Watto as an allrounder as I am pretty sure that was the last time he got a five-for
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I'm glad you asked Winston. Indeed they lost 0-3 in the first 4 tests vs Eng with 6 bats, incl Watto on board. 6 bats vs Eng during the 5 nil romp vs England. I'm not actually sure against Sth Africa in SA but I think it was 6 bats again. In the series win ( 2-1? ). Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I am cherry picking because the specific strategy was picking an allrounder instead of a specialist bat.
Winston
Guest
Hang on. What happened to the tests series in between which Australia won? Did they play no all rounders in those? You can't just cherry pick your statistics to support your argument.