Every modern Test team benefits from an all-rounder, but England have gone overboard in fielding two. Ahead of the upcoming Ashes, there is room only for one of Ben Stokes or Moeen Ali.
The same rule applies to Australia – there is no need or justification for playing Shane Watson and Mitch Marsh in the same side in next month’s Tests in the West Indies.
England have just completed a three-Test series against the West Indies, which was drawn 1-1, during which they continued their experiment of playing both Stokes and Ali.
The English selectors previously tried combining this pair during the first two Tests of last year’s home series against India. While that strategy was in play, India arguably had the better of the first Test and then beat England by 95 runs in the second match.
Stokes’ bowling was handy at times, but he did not register a single run in those Tests, returning three consecutive ducks. The New Zealand-born all-rounder was promptly dropped and England won the next three Tests. His replacement was another all-rounder in Chris Woakes.
While Woakes’ inclusion marked the start of England’s major turnaround it was merely coincidental. Woakes had next-to-no influence on the final three Tests, scoring just 33 runs and taking five wickets at an average of 43. It was veteran quicks James Anderson and Stuart Broad who engineered this comeback, in concert with Moeen.
Moeen came into the side as a batting all-rounder but his solid offspin soon convinced England they had no need for a frontline tweaker. His bowling returns have been very good, with 28 wickets at 29 from his nine Tests.
However, those figures are skewed because India gifted Moeen so many wickets last English summer by often refusing to show him any respect. The famously spin-proficient Indian batsmen regularly tried to flay him and it backfired, resulting in numerous soft dismissals.
Moeen clearly is better than just a part-time spinner, which is how the Indians ill-advisedly seemed to view him. But he’s not quite a frontline tweaker yet either. It shouldn’t be forgotten that he came into the England side having averaged barely more than one wicket per match across his first class career. He was a batsman who was handy with the ball.
The West Indian batsmen did not attack Moeen recklessly like the Indians did and he was proved to be far less effective when combated with intelligence rather than brawn.
Now there is conjecture about whether Moeen should remain in the side for England’s upcoming Tests against New Zealand. Sir Ian Botham has questioned whether Moeen is up to the challenge of being their sole spinner.
“He got 19 wickets against India but probably because no one, including himself, expected him to,” Botham told Sky Sports. “He was expected to perform here and didn’t and now he is under the microscope”.
Moeen’s batting won’t save him. His past seven Tests have seen him return just 190 runs at 21. England look poorly balanced with both he and Stokes in their side.
Stokes has been taking the spot of a frontline bowler despite the fact he looks more likely, in the short term at least, to cement himself in the top six than as one of England’s four best bowlers.
On Caribbean pitches which offered little assistance to the fast men, Stokes was both innocuous and expensive, with three wickets at 85 from three Tests, going at a lofty four runs per over. He is far better suited to being the fifth bowler. As a frontliner Stokes has no obvious role – he is not incisive enough to be a strike bowler and is far too loose to help his captain build pressure.
The strategy of Stokes playing as a frontline quick and Moeen as the sole spinner has heaped the pressure on Broad and Anderson. The former has looked well below his peak and, although Anderson lifted to the challenge against the Windies, England were much too reliant on him to the shape the course of each Test.
There simply must be better pace options in the county circuit than Stokes. England may also be better served by entrusting the spin duties to someone who has made a career out of that art, rather than Moeen with his handy but raw offerings.
Send Stokes to six in place of Moeen, and pick a specialist spinner and frontline quick to partner Anderson and Broad – that would be my advice to England.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Well, Watto isn't Jacques Kallis (a sin for which he will be eternally condemned) but I reckon he's been if not 'great', then a good Test all-rounder. 35 with the bat and 33 with the ball. He doesn't set the world on fire every time he walks out to bat or runs in to bowl, but he's handy. He can bowl you a string of maidens and he still averages over 40 batting in the Top 3. It always strikes me as a bit harsh that a player isn't simply allowed to be 'good' - if he isn't a legend, he's shite, drop him. You can't have a team of XI Steve Smiths, you've got to have some blokes who just plug away in the background. Mind you, Watto's had his moments. He was our form player in 2010 and 2011, that epic 161* in the ODI against England at the MCG, single-handedly got us past group stage in the World T20 in 2012 (man of the match all four games), butchering Simon Kerrigan at the Oval, destroying Graeme Swann in Perth, he even bowled South Africa out for 96 once - only for Australia to wipe it from memory by getting bowled out for 47. I don't know about you, but in the absence of Jacques Kallis, I'd take Shane Watson.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Yeah, he's a more than handy tailender, but on the other hand, would you bat him in the Top 6? Not really. He and Ryan Harris are very useful with the bat, but they're selected because they're the two best bowlers in the country, and you can't really rely on their batting to be consistent.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Yes, agree with that. Watto performed the middle order role well in the World Cup, and showed that he could adapt to the various circumstances and play the innings the team needed. His scores after his comeback in the middle order, excluding the match against Scotland when he batted at 3, were: - 67 off 44 against SL, building a partnership with Maxi to get a massive total against a very good chasing side. - 64* off 114 against Pakistan, in a fightback partnership with Smith and then taking them home with Maxwell. - 28 off 51 against India, initially sent in to get quick runs, but after Finch got out he and Clarke changed plans to a period of rebuilding, got them to a safe total, then both got out slogging after upping the ante with some shots. - 2* off 10, basically his only job was to not get out so it was a 7 wicket victory, and he succeeded. He's done the job in ODIs, so I'd at least give him a run at it in Tests, batting at No. 6. Watto in form is in the Best XI, all formats.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Exactly, the wickets in India in 2013 were dusty as hell and in some cases, like Delhi, were turning and bouncing alarmingly from day one. The decks in the UAE offered very little to the Pak spinners apart from some natural variation. They also gave nothing to the quicks - they were as flat as any pitches Australia have played on in the past decade. That's why I said that series should have just been a very high-scoring 0-0 draw - neither side should have been losing 20 wickets in a Test on those surfaces. That was evident from the way Pak bossed Australia's bowlers, even at times when the Aussies were bowling well. Pakistan's batsmen played perfectly to the conditions. The Aussie batting was just deplorable.
BurgyGreen
Guest
Very true. However, with Smith hopefully being promoted to first drop and Voges coming into the middle order (although S. Marsh will unfortunately probably get the first shot), to my mind Watson has a role at 6.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
They weren't the same sort of wickets as you get in India at all.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
The major issue with Watson is that he's made a bad habit of going missing with the bat when it really matters and then inflating his average by making runs in pressure-free situations. In both of the last two Ashes, when the series was alive he floundered with the bat. Once the series were basically done and dusted he started making runs.
BurgyGreen
Guest
I absolutely agree with you on Watson - he is without doubt my first pick as allrounder (batting at 6), and I think some people are going to get a rude shock when he retires and leaves a gaping hole in the side. The 'petering out' comment is mostly in reference to the fact that since 2013 he's averaged 48.75, compared to his good career average of 33.09. I definitely agree that he was very useful against India recently, and did as well, or better, than could be expected in those conditions. Also agree on Hazlewood. I wasn't convinced that he initially deserved a call-up, but he was the only bowler to escape the Border-Gavaskar Trophy with an average under 30. He was also excellent in the World Cup. I'd pick him along with Johnson and Harris as our first-choice pace attack.
BBA
Guest
Without doing any research, you would have to think for lower order batsmen, (or batsmen with lesser ability) at the very least that batting is comparatively easier with covered pitches, more protective gear, bouncer restrictions etc. Certainly while there may be more pressure there is certainly less fear when batting now.
BBA
Guest
Well to be fair who wouldnt want a good Root in their team
JohnB
Guest
Lies, damned lies and statistics as they say. Bradman's an outlier in any statistical discussion - but made many more runs pre war than post. As Bush says, Pollock and Headley barely got to 20 tests - and all but 3 of Headley's tests and virtually all of his runs were pre-war. Pollock was a hell of a player and who's to say he wouldn't have maintained his standard with more opportunities. Similarly, Hammond barely played post war - 8 of 85 tests, about 350 runs out of 7000 plus. Weekes and Sobers - helped by pitches in the WI being absolute roads for much of their careers, but unarguably players of the 50s and 60s (the period, with the 70s, that I would say the "averages lower" comment is usually made about incidentally). Similarly Barrington very much a 50s and 60s player - and a very underrated one. Having said all that means it's really 3 of the players you nominate, plus Pollock who barely qualifies, who played their careers in the 40s, 50s and/or 60s. If you allow it as 4 out of 11, that's not any great departure from the proportion you would expect, given how long test cricket has been played (and how few tests there were pre world war 1). If instead of looking at a somewhat arbitrary top 11 you go to the top 20 (excluding those with less than 20 tests) that trend continues - you add 2 more players, Walcott (and I don't think it's coincidental that another WI player from that era crops up - both he and Everton Weekes, and to a lesser extent Sobers, did a lot better in the WI than away) and Hutton, who played at least mostly in the 40s to 60s period, one more, Dudley Nourse, who played a little more post war than pre, and 6 who weren't from that era. That gives you around one-third of the top 20 who played all or a majority of their careers in the 40s to 60s - hardly evidence of anything given how big a slice of the total period of test cricket that represents.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Clueless.
tinfoil hat
Guest
"That series should have been a very high-scoring, boring, 0-0 draw" On what do you base that on? Oz's wonderful history on such decks? Like the infamous homework-gate Indian tour? Oz is an easybeat in those conditions.
tinfoil hat
Guest
Agreed. In that great period for all-rounders, they could get picked on their strongest role and provide useful contributions with the minor role. Now, all-rounders generally would be unable to command a position in the team as a specialist, but get a run because of they are mediocre at both bowling and batting. The scars of the 2005 Ashes loss run deep, despite the major factor in that being McGraths rolled ankle.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Bradley and Pollock played very few Tests, so it's hard to say and Hammond played predominately before WWII. But you're right I haven't done the research! You have to admit a lot of guys pre-1990 who were considered all-rounders have batting averages in the ballpark of Johnson and Starc...
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"This is the thing, batting averages were lower in the 40s, 50s and 60s." Is that definitely the case? Without doing a detailed analysis of batting averages in that era vs the modern era it is worth noting that 7 of the top 11 highest Test batting averages are from that era: - Bradman (100) - Pollock (61) - Headley (61) - Barrington (59) - Weekes (58) - Hammond (58) - Sobers (58)
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
I don't reckon Watto's bowling looks like 'petering out' yet - after all, he stepped up in Brisbane when Marsh injured his hamstring, bowled 27.4 overs and did a great job. When Johnson tore through India that morning in the second innings, Watto was bowling at the other end the whole time, giving absolutely nothing away. Smithy opened the bowling with him in several sessions, and used him as part of a genuine wicket-taking plan for the rest of the series. Call me crazy, but I reckon they should play Watto ahead of Marsh in the Ashes, as a middle order batsman and a fifth bowler. I think that while we have Johnson and Harris as strike bowlers and Hazelwood and Lyon getting regular wickets, there's room for a fifth bowler like Watto, who offers a bit of a change of pace and style, keeps things incredibly tight and while he doesn't take wickets all the time, when he does they're almost always set top-order batsmen, it isn't as if he has his stats skewed by getting slogged to the fielders by tailenders. Marsh will be great, but I'd say that an in-form Watto still makes our Best XI.
The Bush
Roar Guru
This is the thing, batting averages were lower in the 40s, 50s and 60s. By those that saw him and his contemporaries, Miller is held in the highest esteem, yet his stats with the bat are that "great" by modern standards.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I agree that the sport seems to have evolved to a point, based on the reasons you list, that make an all-rounder more valuable. I also agree that Australia's test bowling line up was so good that we didn't even need a fourth bowler. However I disagree that Australia "regularly" used all-rounders during their period of dominance. Taking your list, Julian played 7 Tests, Hogg played 7, McDonald played 4 (all after 2007), Watson's Test Debut was 2005. whilst Symonds was only the year before. S Waugh may have started off a handy bowler or "genuine" all-rounder but by 1995 he was a batsman that roled the arm over and M Waugh was never more than that. The team that dominated all comers for the decade 1995 to 2005 did not in anyway, regularly feature an all-rounder. Finally, the argument as to why the obsession with all-rounders in Australia is unhealthy is because we have, on occasion, picked or stuck with all-rounders who aren't contributing in either facet of the game and thus putting pressure on the specialists. To be honest Watson's Test contributions have been so poor over the last year that the team would have been better off picking 5 specialist bowlers.
JohnB
Guest
Correct JGK - in terms of averages, Benaud was barely better than Mitchell Johnson (24.45 to 23.06), and a tiny fraction worse than Alan Davidson (24.59). Benaud was certainly more of a batsman than either Johnson, reflected by the fact that from 97 innings for each of them (to date in Johnson's case), Benaud scored a fair few more runs - 2201 to 1868. Johnson has 16 not outs to 7, affecting the averages. They're not far away in terms of 50 plus scores however - Johnson 1 hundred and 10 fifties, Benaud 3 and 9. Davidson also had more not outs proportionally than Benaud, and made 50 plus scores and runs per game at a lesser rate - still handy with the bat and still worth worth thinking of as just about a bowling all rounder. And many of the teams Benaud and Davidson were in also had Ken Mackay as a batting all rounder. On total figures (batting average 33.48 and bowling 1.3 wickets per game at 34.42) he's getting close to being in the bits and pieces category, but maybe overall lower batting averages back then bring his rating up a little.