Last week, Roar expert Ronan O’Connell made the case that more specialist bowlers needed to be picked for Australia in this World Cup, and that too many all-rounders was not the way to go.
I’m here to present the rebuttal.
Specialist bowlers are the most critical components of Test cricket, to the point that it would be almost impossible to win a match without them. Bits and pieces players rarely get the job done in the five-day game.
But this is a batsmen’s World Cup. Bigger bats, shorter boundaries and tighter fielding restrictions have been the talk of the town. Scores of 300 have become the minimum standard. And it takes a team of batting strength to either set a target beyond this, or chase one down.
Teams have regularly been piling on more than 100 runs in the last 10 overs, when the best opposition bowlers are in operation.
Once the best batsmen in the world decide to open their shoulders in the shorter formats, it’s open season on bowlers. Often it’s all-rounders that have more tricks in their bag, and are slower to begin with anyway.
The faster the ball comes in this format, the faster it pings off the bat. Edges become a batsmen’s friend as they careen away to a vacant boundary.
At this World Cup, and limited overs in general these days, all bowlers are cannon fodder, and whether you’re the best in the world or an off-spinning all-rounder, when the time comes, you’re going to get spanked.
Little more than a week into the tournament and we’ve already seen many examples, from both Test playing nations and the associates.
The first innings of the World Cup set the tone, when Sri Lanka’s opening bowlers, Nuwan Kulasekara and Lasith Malinga, went for 9.75 and 8.40 an over respectively. Later that day, all five of England’s first choice bowlers went for between six and seven an over.
While on England, when New Zealand routed them, Jimmy Anderson went for 7.4 an over, Broad 11.57 and Steve Finn a memorable 24.5. Anderson is the fourth ranked ODI bowler in the world, Finn the 12th.
In the Ireland upset win against the West Indies, the Irish opening bowlers, as well as the experienced Windies duo Kemar Roach and James Taylor, all conceded more than eight an over.
Sohail Khan went for 73 off his 10 overs for Pakistan against the West Indies. The Zimbabwean opening bowlers went for 71 and 73 off their 10 overs against South Africa. In the same match, Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel went for more than a run a ball between them.
In Sunday’s match at the ‘G, the might of South Africa’s attack conceded more than 300 against India. Steyn and Morkel went for plenty again, 55 and 59 respectively off their 10 overs, while Wayne Parnell conceded a whopping 85 from nine.
The player rankings tell us that Steyn and Morkel are both top 10 bowlers.
Coming into the World Cup, the view on India was that their batting was strong, but their bowling too weak for the team to have any meaningful impact.
Their response? Belt out 300 or more against Pakistan and South Africa, and coast to comfortable victory while both teams collapsed with batting line-ups that included four or five specialist bowlers.
Best to fill those spots with all-rounders, so the accelerated batting can start earlier than it currently is.
If batting first, the big total is the first form of defence. We’ve seen chasing sides go to water when faced with overcoming six or more an over.
If batting second, do so with the confidence of a long and capable line-up, enabling you to change gears and tone throughout the innings.
The point is this – it’s a batsmen’s tournament. And it will continue to be. Fighting fire with fire? This World Cup, fighting fire-power with fire-power is the only sensible course.
raz
Guest
So india bowled badly and won the game, against Ab dv and Amla ?? Thats what you getting at?? Did you see the match?? Indian bowlers hardly ever get the credit but fact is shami is the highest odi wicket taker in odi s over last year and that too at a measely average of 25.
DubbleBubble
Guest
That's an interesting idea. You should maybe have to announce a team of 13 and then decide the 11 after the toss
satz
Guest
The problem with the views of this article is simple. you want to multiply batting Options.but selections around the the world shows you can lower the standard in search of these options. For example the indian selectors have selected stuart binny a guy with a 37 FC average(worse than ashwin) and averages 1.3 wkts per match! But at the top echelons of international sport,its about brilliant exceptional players whose A game trumps the opponent''s best. International cricket rewards those who puts matchwinners or brilliant players first. Matches are predominantly won by the top 6 batsmen or the top 3 bowlers. This is basic cricketing sense. Its counter productive to think about bowlers who can bat or batsmen who can bowl.Their value is utility service at best and nothing more. A bowling allrounder is not going to pass 30 as many times as a specialist batsman. A batting allrounder is not someone who can inspire terror in the opposition batsmen. occasionally a bowling allrounder may score big . A no 8 or no 9 can cover the odd scenario where the top order contribution is NOT enough and they have to do it in support of a top order specialist. They cover too few scenarios reliably to merit such focus. you are not going to win too many matches on the back of no7-9. The vast majority of the scenarios would have to be covered by the top batsmen and bowlers. if you want batting depth, you can try like woolmer did for sa or pak.But .he damaged these teams in the long run. Australia has won WC with no more than bowling hacks moody,lehmann and symonds. Ind and SL have won WC with specialists and bowling hacks yuvraj and de silva chipping in. why is this baseless speculation when evidence is right in our face? Wiith allrounders like kallis, pollock,klusener,elsworthy,boje SA should won 2 WC by now. It does not work that way. The matchwinners in the top6 and top 3 are the ones who will decide the fate of a team over a significant period. So the key is to maintain as high a standard as possible with the specialists.Options do not make sense if you are not winning
satz
Guest
History says despite having kallis,pollock,boje,klusener the number of world cups won by SA is a big zero. Pakistan also had plenty of allrounders and have not won since 1992 if that does not convince people the futility of having to bat deep or havin quality allrounders, i do not know what they will.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
300 is a mediocre score? 300 batting first has won more often than lost this world cup.
Rose85
Guest
This World Cup is all about getting fans through the gates. The fans don't care about bowlers sending them down on a good line let alone "specialist bowlers" just as long as they're getting tommied over the rope, that's all that matters. So to do that you need to bring in the ropes and have fielding restrictions/power plays. Unfortunately 20/20 cricket has changed the way the World Cup is being played. 300 is a mediocre score. Crazy.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Perhaps, some teams certainly panic when chasing a large total if they get behind (usually through economical bowling, incidentally), good bowling in the manner of what the Kiwis produced to England the other day works in either innings though. India have been fortunate in that both their opposition sides have been short front line bowlers (Parnell injured during the game with SA, and Pakistan missing Gul, Khan, and Hafeez) and I'd argue that's where a portion of their batting totals have come from.
13th Man
Guest
I would still go Cummins as a third bowler and drop Watson. These days Watson isn't the great bowler that he once was and isn't a great 5th bowler option. On his current form we also aren't losing too much with the bat either, Cummins is pretty handy and Watto is terribly out of form
13th Man
Guest
South Africa are playing those bowlers because they don't have any other real options with the ball that can hold a bat. Parnell is rubbish, Abbott is another tail lender, Behardien isn't good enough. South Africa don't have a Faulkner/ M Marsh type of player. This is why they miss Kallis so much. South Africa need to rely on there top order.
13th Man
Guest
Yes but when you don't allow a team there full 50 overs then most of the time they will score less runs. Bowling is still an important part of cricket and specialist bowlers are still necessary to win games.
13th Man
Guest
Starc over Watson Is a better batsman and bowler
Cameron Rose
Expert
Fair call Ronan, although I see the fact that Starc and Johnson are so effective with the ball, and so capable with the bat gives us even more reason to not need a third specialist. Especially given we hardly lose anything by having Faulkner or Marsh bowling instead of Hazlewood or Cummins. And the fact that we rarely lose more than seven wickets tells me that we're not going hard enough at different stages, which we'd be able to do with more batting too. I understand I'm being largely theoretical, but I'd love to see it in action.
Cameron Rose
Expert
All good points Alex. I'll be very interested to see India's bowlers when they're first to bowl first, and see how they go. I think we'll find it's India's batting totals that's been protecting them. Perhaps it's all about batting first more than anything else (if the gap in quality between teams isn't vast).
Statistic Skeptic
Roar Pro
biltongbek - that's 'possible' but you can't state that as a surety. If Philander hadn't gotten injured then based on his economy rates the score should've been less as well. I'm not ignoring the reasons for why SA had to chase 300, just that I think it's counterintuitive to blame the bowlers when the batsmen didn't deliver. Had the batsmen gotten them to say within 50 odd with eight or nine overs left, then you can start to point fingers at them... but that wasn't the case here. Note: not disagreeing with the sentiment of wanting to pick your best team, and I'd defer to your better knowledge on that fact.
As right as you are, you are ignoring the reasons why SA had to chase 300+ in the first instance. Their bowling. Parnell alone went for 9 runs an over. If he was never in the squad and a guy like Tsotsobe for example bowled, we would have chased around 30 runs less.
Statistic Skeptic
Roar Pro
South Africa didn't lose to India because their specialist bowlers failed to bat properly... they lost because their specialist batsmen failed to score enough off India's specialist bowlers. South Africa were 1/38 after ten overs - and it gets even worse if you look at the partnership breakdown. Not a single one of the top five partnerships scored at a run a ball. The closest was de Villiers and du Plessis who scored at 5.4 an over. This meant that the run rate required kept getting further and further away - which increased the pressure and caused the wickets to fall. The chase was essentially over after over 34 (when Miller and Philander were out) - at that time the asking rate was 9.7 and seven wickets were down... with 16 overs left. If the tail had somehow come away with the win from that position it would've been folk-lore generating success for the record books. SA didn't lose because they didn't have enough all-rounders... they lost because: A) The Indian specialist bowlers bowled better than their specialist bowlers. and B) Their specialist batsmen didn't mount a good enough base for the chase.
DMC
Guest
In the past maybe, but welcome to 2015. Some teams, NZ for example, have a clear strategy of going for wickets during the middle overs, not containment. Even if it leaves them with the lesser bowlers at the end.
SP
Guest
yeah, what about Johan Botha who plays for South Australia? He looks good in T20 and imo, wouldn't be out of palce in the Protea side.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
I think it all comes down to the stocks of each team too. Australia, for example, are fortunate that their best two bowlers Starc and Johnson are also very capable with the blade at 9 and 10, while Hazlewood and Cummins are no mugs at 11. There is no need for them to overload on all-rounders then, as I see it, because they bat really deep even when playing 3 specialist quicks (and as I pointed out in my piece they rarely lose more than 7 wickets so the tail isn't often needed). South Africa are a different case. They have three genuine bunnys in their tail, starting with Steyn at number 9. If they had the same all-rounder stocks as Australia (or as they used to have) I can't see any way they'd be playing all of Tahir, Steyn, Morkel and Philander in the same side.
Winston
Guest
I have a genuine question to ask. Since the wide yorker is so effective at the death, why can't it be effective throughout? Can teams just am to get no wickets but bowl 300 yorkers for an innings, and put every single fielder on the offside whether inside or outside the circle? Would seem like a nice strategy...