Why persisting with an all-rounder is un-Australian

Funny thing about replacements is they usually just need opportunity. Sam Robson springs to mind. Born in Paddington, played NSW under 19s couldn't get a game for NSW or any state team. Averaged 60 his first year of county cricket and now has a test ton for England. His overall FC average is a touch under 40. But at 26 I'd expect that to wind up at about 50 eventually

What complicated it was this need for an allrounder. Obviously there wasn't really an allrounder that screamed out for selection, so if you assume that was a must, then absolutely no. However if you're running the argument on batsmen alone, I would have persisted with Khawaja, but that's just me.

Scott Muller was picked as a bowler and batted 10 or 11, so not an all-rounder. He is universally derided for some reason, and fair to say he wasn't the best bowler to play for Australia and may well have been lucky to have been picked - but his figures weren't bad, and don't justify him being treated as a salutary tale. 7 wickets in 2 games Australia won, at 37 when the opposition averaged 31 or so, at a strikerate just under 50 (admittedly leaking runs at a high rate - 4.44). Except perhaps for that economy rate those figures would compare with those from the first 2 tests of many bowlers who subsequently became highly rated. Ideally, every team would between them be the 11 best batsmen, 10 best bowlers and best wicketkeeper available but given how unlikely that is, it's always a matter of compromise!

Did we persist and deny another young batsmen, or did we persist because there didn't appear to be many worthy young batsmen? Chris Lynn looks to be a great future lower order batsmen. The problem is he is injured as regularly as Watson.

Look no doubt TWAS they were simply looking for him to replicate the same form he had shown years before. The problem with that argument is that most players go into a decline from about 33/34 on wards, though some true stars like Hussey and Sangakarra seem to be able to maintain it up to 37 or beyond. The issue with Watto is that he had three years, 2011, 2012 and 2013, where he did not again climb back to the level he had shown in 2009-2010. After three years and at the age of 33, the fact that we expected anything other than a continued decline was ridiculous. There was no point looking at his average at that point, he was always going to be producing less moving forward and when his peak was years ago and his average had dropped to 35, we should have just accepted our lot and moved on. Instead we persisted for 2 years and denied another young batsman an opportunity to cement their place.

Yes and no, you're not looking at the full picture. The allrounder is not providing just a few overs of medium pace, they are providing the necessary breaks and pressure etc to allow the fast bowlers to be "explosive" and have more breakthroughs. It's about an overall picture, rather than just their specific contribution in isolation.

Certainly. The issue is that all of these great batsmen were long gone and suddenly the replacements became Alex Doolan, Rob Quiney, etc.

Bush where you are mistaken is what you perceive "potential" to be. In one respect I totally agree. The prospect that a player looks like they have the skills to be a decent player and haven't quite put them together yet, but may and explode at test level, is not something that should be considered once a player is past 30. Essentially expecting players to do something they never had before. The "potential" for Shane Watson was that he could maintain exactly what he had already shown. Were the selectors expecting something he had never done before? Absolutely not. It was they hope that he could replicate what he had already done. Perceived potential vs past realized potential. There are some disappointing returns there no doubt. I'm sure the fact that he was often injury hampered, thus unable to consistently work on his game at test level featured in the selectors patience though.

i think that says some very bad things about the quality of batting in shield cricket. I'm sure if you looked up a historical list of players who averaged over 40 it would be extremely long. Guys like jimmy maher, brad hodge who never really played test cricket, but who were fantastic state batsmen spring to mind

This seems like fodder for another article, so I'll be brief but the perfect test team woul ideally include 2 all rounders + a keeper batsman who could be argued is a 3rd. All rounders definitely have a place in test cricket, with nations like India, England, South Africa , and the West Indies having a long line of decent all rounders. A true batting all rounder is the greatest asset a captain could have. Australia has also tried many times to have a test quality all rounder. For the most part it is largely ineffective. Scott Muller ring a bell? but guys such as Shane Watson, Keith Miller and probably a few others that I'm not familiar with could be considered success stories. If you think of it in soccer terms all nations play different setups. The Dutch 4-4-2, many others 4-3-3 or a version of it. Japan plays 3-5-2 and Brazil traditionally plays 4-2-4. None is intrinsically better then the other. It's about talent and execution. Also Glenn maxwell's bowling stats are much better then I origionally thought. Has an average around 30 with a strike rate of 50 ( which is really good). He has a chance to be a really useful guy if he learns ever learns to do more with the bat them tonk.

That's exactly right, no one should be questioning the initial selection Watson all those moons ago, the bloke had a FC average that would have screamed selection irrespective of any bowling by today's standards (and pretty much did then - I think it was about 45 or 46 when first selected). The reason why people grew so frustrated with Watto was that he had this great return to the side in 2009 and up to the end of 2010 seemed to be finding his straps. Then at the age of 29/30 in 2011, right when a batsman should be at their peak, this was Watto's returns for the next five years: 2011: 24.09 2012: 31.45 2013: 33.75 2014: 25.80 2015: 30.33 The thing is it should never have been about his "potential", once you're at 30, it should be about your returns, there's no more potential to be found, and Watto's returns during his "peak" were well below the standards expected of a top 6 batsman.

Yes with a career FC average of 39, McDonald is only bettered by about 15 candidates over their career. Clarke, Smith, Warner and Rogers are in those 15. The only untried option with consistent success is Lynn. But he has consistent injuries.

I have had no issues with Shane Watson being picked in the test team for that exact reason. For a stretch he was legitimate test quality opening batsman and could be picked as one. His bowling was a bonus. It was only as his batting dropped off that his place in the team came into question. As for Symonds again it's a non issue as he could justifiably be picked solely for his batting. Especially in limited overs cricket. but I can't think of any captain who would want to bowl Symonds 15-20 overs a day unless there was a injury or it was a dust bowl. Both Symonds and Watson had one proven test skill and it translated. Although selecting Symonds was a much more questionable decision then Watson due to age and technique. (Symonds test bowling strike rate is 87' that's worse historically then most part timers) As for McDonald. When a test batsman starts averaging less then 40 they are usually dropped for a batsman averaging 50+ that year in FC Cricket. 40 is a minimum threshold for a batsman. In my books he wouldn't get a game for Victoria based on that batting average alone. His bowling however is good enough to be picked as a bowler, but given the way he bowled (stump to stump medium pace) it was pretty obvious he was never going to translate successfully into test cricket.

I think in making your argument you've glossed over some facts. Shane Watson has an FC batting average of 43 and bowling average of 29. Right within your own noted parameters that an all-rounder would be worthy of selection. Andrew Symonds has an FC batting average of 42 and bowling average of 36. Just outside on bowling but adequate on batting. Andrew McDonald has an FC batting average of 39 and bowling average of 29. Just a shade short on batting. The issue has been the ability of these players to convert this to test level. The lack of consistent superior performers as top 6 batsmen is why they were repeatedly persisted with. David Hussey is the only batsmen to consistently perform, but not get a baggy green.

Not sure about Smith (or Warner) being able to fill that bowling consistently and keeping the pressure on role - both strike me more as someone capable of bowling a very good wicket taking ball in the midst of a fair bit of dross. Keep out the good ball, don't make a dumb mistake and you can cash in the rest of the time pretty comfortably. Regarding other possible bowling batsmen currently - Voges bowls a bit and Lynn very occasionally does - but I can't think of any of other contenders who do (maybe I'm doing someone an injustice there). It's that gap that raises this issue more and to some extent explains why the selectors have tried Maxwell a couple of times before he he's had the batting performance to warrant that and appear keen to give M Marsh every chance. With all the players they've tried in the past 40 odd years who you could call "all rounders" few have been successful in either role (I'd say Gary Gilmour, Greg Matthews, Tony Dodemaide, Michael Bevan, Andrew Symonds and Shane Watson could be argued to have performed reasonably at one of batting or bowling, with none of the current players, Maxwell, M Marsh and Faulkner yet having succeeded or definitively failed. Steve Smith is an exceptional case - failed all rounder who succeeded way beyond expectations, but as a batsman who only bowls occasionally). Batsman who have been handy bowlers (over more than a few tests) in the same time included Doug Walters, Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Steve and Mark Waugh, Greg Blewett, Darren Lehmann, arguably Michael Clarke and Marcus North. There have been a few others who bowled quite well, but who only either played or bowled in a few tests in the period - for example Simon Katich, Tom Moody, Bob Simpson, Gary Cosier and John Inverarity - so to be honest not as many handy bowling batsmen as I would have guessed. Bob Simpson is an interesting one there, as a throwback from the 60s - when at different times you had teams with a number of players you could call all rounders - Richie Benaud, Ken Mackay, Alan Davidson, and to a lesser extent players like Johnny Martin, Tom Veivers and Peter Philpott with a number of bowling batsmen - Simpson (a very decent bowler), Bob Cowper, Ian Chappell, Keith Stackpole. Incidentally, take your search back to 1945 and you see lots of all rounders being tried - some names in the list are unfamiliar to me so there are no doubt valid arguments about how you classify some of them, but you could point to these possibilities - Ian Johnson, Colin McCool, Keith Miller, George Tribe, Bruce Dooland, Sam Loxton, Graeme Hole, Ron Archer.

'The present issues with Australia’s test bowling attack are more about the batsmen giving them reasonable totals to bowl with and finding a replacement for Ryan Harris.' Exactly it's about the runs on the board. No surprise considering the hammerings dished out to England when the batsmen got runs. If Wade can have a good Shield season you could almost look at him coming in at six as an out and out batsman.

I agree with what you are saying. However Steve Smith and Michael Clarke when his back was fine were/are perfectly acceptable part time bowlers. I think most of these issues have been caused by selectors mismanaging the ageing and transition of the side. Most 19-22 year olds haven't bowled enough to be handy, while most over 30 cricketers have dropped off enough that what was previously mediocre is now rubbish. However surely a joe burns, or Chris Lynn, or Callum Ferguson or Jordan Silk or whoever the next cab off the rank is might be able to bowl some handy medium pace. Faulkner looks the goods as a batsman if he'd get his head on straight, and some time in the middle. but that looks to be a few years away.

Agreed Bush. It would not hurt if Burns, Bancroft and Khawaja got busy bowling in the nets too, just on the off chance. As you say, it doesn't matter who makes the breakthrough.

the funny thing about your list of Legendary bowlers is that they are not especially that special. Obviously McGrath and Warne were great bowlers, but before them Damien Fleming was a dropped Warnie catch away from a 2nd test hatrick. A few years earlier it was Paul rifle. Before him Dennis Lillie. All the way back to Ray Lindwall of the invincibles era, probably further. Every era's bowling unit has its leader. Ryan Harris being the most recent example. In fact Brett Lee was largely considered expensive and ineffective as a test bowler before the 2005 ashes. Australia went undefeated at the 2003 one day World Cup without Shane Warne. The present issues with Australia's test bowling attack are more about the batsmen giving them reasonable totals to bowl with and finding a replacement for Ryan Harris. McGrath and Warnes number of wickets is a credit to their longevity as much as their quality. However the team still functioned with adaquet replacements. In most cases given reasonable time and assistance from the pitch a test quality attack will manage to take 20 wickets Edit: things only start to get complicated when your replacement frontline bowlers aren't up to test standard. (Ie the Steve smith, Ashton agar,Michael beer experiments)

This is the thing, we seem to have lost those Mark Waugh types who were perfectly handy with the ball whilst being genuine top 6 batsmen. I have now fully accepted the proposition, that Ronan has explained over and over again, that we now need more bowling options than just four bowlers so that the quicks can be rested and rotated through their work. But perhaps that doesn't mean we need an allrounder necessarily, it just means we need overs to be bowled that either maintain the pressure (the Watson argument) or takes wickets (always great no matter who is taking them and brings a new batsman to the crease, likely to keep the scoring down). I always wondered, for example, if we'd have needed an allrounder if Clarke's back had been capable of bowling more, as he was a more than handy bowler. The question moving forward then, unless either M Marsh or Faulkner prove capable of averaging 40+ with the bat and 30is with the ball (i.e. capable of selection as a batsman regardless of their bowling), is do we persist with the middling allrounder a la Watson (i.e. doesn't warrant a place in the top six, but needed for bowling) or can we put together extra overs between the best six batsman (here I'm thinking of Smith's bowling especially, but of course you'd like another option or two as well).