In an ideal world, your team sits atop the world rankings with policies and guidelines that allow them to maintain consistency and maximise performance.
The setup is clear on paper. You will have two confident and determined opening batsmen who can see off the new ball and cash in once the initial job is done.
The next two players, usually your two best, will hopefully score the bulk of your runs and bat you out of a hole when needed. Number five has often, but not always, been a spot where an up and coming star is allowed the freedom to play their shots.
They don’t have to face the new ball, and can often bat with flare when the lower order comes in. Skipping the number six spot for the moment, your wicketkeeper is hopefully an all-rounder in their own right.
You can trust them to do their job behind the stumps, while accumulating runs with the willow at the back end of an innings. Your four bowlers will be a variety of pace, seam, swing and spin, with the four most likely to take 20 wickets picked.
This leaves us with the number six spot, which is described as the all-rounder’s position.
This will be filled by someone who is still a high quality batsmen, can bowl some handy overs and break partnerships, and is an absolute weapon in the field. The ideal player will also be able to run drinks, paint the creases, collect the beach balls and know five overs in advance when his teammates needs new gloves.
We surely ask a lot, perhaps too much, of players in this position. One can argue that considering they are directly involved in all facets of the game, all-rounders should be performing in at least one area.
While we constantly bag selectors (often correctly) over who they pick in teams these days, it is tough to determine who the missing link is. Firstly, by sizing up the other ten players, you can determine where your weaknesses lie.
Only then should you be thinking of players that can fill that specific role, in whatever conditions are provided.
If your batsmen are set but you are struggling to take 20 wickets, move your keeper to number six and pick a bowling all-rounder, aka James Faulkner (F/C career average of 32) or Mitchell Marsh (F/C career batting average 29, F/C career bowling average 28).
Even Steve O’Keefe would be able to fill this role, with an impeccable First Class bowling average of 23.68, and respectable batting average of 29. If a team requires more depth in their batting and needs only a part time bowler, pick either Glenn Maxwell (F/C career batting average 39) or Travis Head (F/C career batting average 35).
Clearly both exciting players with a broad range of strokes, the can adapt to most conditions while also taking pressure off the frontline bowlers.
With already registered stars of the game in the current Australian team, consistency should be the first priority in the remaining players. Seeking consistency and nothing else, we have failed to nurture a certain Portuguese-born captain with an immense technique.
Moises Henriques, now the captain of New South Wales, made his debut in 2006. Since then he has gone on to play 69 first class matches, amassed over 3300 runs, taken 100 wickets, and in the most recent Sheffield Shield game, hit a ridiculous career best of 265 in back to back days of 35+ degrees.
Moises has played Test cricket, and while he didn’t set the world on fire, he certainly held his own. Playing three out of the four Tests during the infamous ‘Homework-Gate’ fiasco in India, he averaged 31 and hit two 50s, with a top score of 81*.
He only took two wickets, however went at under three runs an over, and applied pressure in arguably the most difficult Test conditions in world Cricket.
When considering potential all-rounders for the Australian cricket team, you can look at Mitchell Marsh, Glenn Maxwell, Travis Head, Hilton Cartwright, James Faulkner, Ashton Agar, Steve O’Keefe, Dan Christian, Marcus Stoinis, and Henriques. These have been the names thrown around the ring for the past few years, with up and comers also on the rise.
In those ten players, Henriques has the third best average (34.46) behind Maxwell (39.92) and Head (34.68). He has also scored more hundreds (while playing more games), and now easily has the highest score. In terms of bowling, he has the fourth best average (31.18) behind O’Keefe (23.68), Faulkner (24.77) and Mitch Marsh (28.38).
Andrew Symonds was one of the most talented all-round cricketers of his generation. He was a deadly batsmen, handy bowler of both medium pace and off-spin, and one of the best fielders in the world.
Unfortunately his personal issues got in the way of playing more Test cricket, and he managed only 26 matches. In this span, he averaged 40 with the bat and 37 with the ball. Shane Watson played 59 matches (injuries didn’t allow for more) and over the course of his ten-year career filled every role you can play in a team.
He started out as a tear-away quick, but broke down. He came back in as an opening batsmen, and often filled the number six spot with his intelligent swing bowling accounting for many well qualified batsmen.
Watson averaged 35 with the bat and 33 with the ball. Other players that have tried to fill the void in the Australian team came and went, such as Marcus North, Andrew McDonald and Cameron White.
If Australia wants to consistently sing Under the Southern Cross I Stand after matches, they need to build a strong nucleus with which they can take around the world, and progress as a unit. Right now they are in good stead. Their top five is sorted, Matt Wade seems to be the first choice keeper (a conversation for another day), and their bowling line up has an aggressive streak with ready at the wings replacements.
The number six spot is still up for grabs. For heaven’s sake, the last number six they picked isn’t even in the squad to travel to India. They need a consistent performer at that level. This year, Henriques is averaging 70 with the bat, and can bowl stump to stump in order for your front-liners to have a rest.
Being captain of his state means that he also possesses the knowledge and spirit to play at the top level.
The selector’s first need to figure out the type of player best suited to fill the gaps in their side. With Australia currently happy with the bowling stocks and batting depth, they should be looking for someone to fill the number six position for years to come. At this moment, you can’t look past the Portuguese captain, who is in the form of his life.
Craig
Guest
No Shane Watson is a positive.
AREH
Roar Guru
Yep I still think Faulkner at 8 can almost solve this problem; allowing for number six to be mainly a batsman who chips in with a few overs when needed to relieve the four bowlers; I'm talking about any of Cartwright, Head, Maxwell, Henriques or Turner.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Forgot Mo, yes he deserved his pl;ace.
JohnB
Guest
His batting stats were good (average 41, 4 hundreds, 12 fifties in 53 innings), suggesting (as John Benaud says in his book) he should have tried to be a batsman, who also offered handy back-up spin. Overall bowling - ordinary - less than 2 wickets per test, average 48, strike rate 102. A great performance in the tied test against India teasingly suggested he might have turned a corner, and he did more than Shane Warne in the famous game v SL where Warne came of age, but his bowling stats were distinctly ugly otherwise.
Adrian
Guest
Faulkner is an all-rounder, the only legitimate test quality one in the country. Okay so he's no Shane Watson, but at least he can bowl all day and doesn't break down very often.
Adrian
Guest
Greg Matthews never really settled in to the Australian team. Mind you, a lot of people didn't like him, so it might have been that more than his performances. His stats were actually really good.
Bugs
Guest
There are some fine points in this article, but I find the outcome contrived. The public has become convinced of the need for an all-rounder when history says the need doesn't exist. This article falls into the same trap and is twisting facts to suit the agenda of picking the "completely necessary" all-rounder. I agree you want some flexibility in your side, but let's not leave that all up to the # 6. The team only needs 4 main bowlers, and one or two decent part-time bowlers from your batting group. Symonds was the last to do the role successfully, with a batting avg of 40. But look at his bowling stats: 24 wickets from 26 matches at a strike rate of 87. That's not an all-rounder. Watson was a better bowler than Roy, and maybe even a better batsman, but he never got the results long-term he should have, and on results shouldn't have been in the team as long as he was. And, the few times he excelled in one discipline, he wasn't doing much of the other. So the premise that we need an all-rounder is one I disagree with. Further, a lot of the names you have mentioned are simply NOT all-rounders. To throw their names up as possible all-rounders is disingenuous, as they simply shouldn't be considered all-rounders! Faulkner - NOT an all-rounder. Is a bowler who can bat a bit. Bowling not good enough to make the side. Period. O'Keefe - NOT an all-rounder. Is a bowler who can bat a bit. Like Warnie, who is NEVER mentioned as an all-rounder Maxwell - NOT an all-rounder. In the mould of Symonds. Partnership breaker, but # 1 function is as a batsman. Head, Cartwright, Stoinis, Henriques - NOT all-rounders. See Maxwell and Symonds: Batsman who occasionally bowl. MMarsh - Like Watson, has the ability to be better than he is in both disciplines, but simply isn't (yet, hopefully). Agar - See MMarsh... Dan Christian - Now here's an all-rounder. Shame he's not good enough for the national team. And to say that Marcus North was seen as an all-rounder...?? 14 wickets from 21 matches at a strike rate of 90...? Same with Cameron White. Calling their roles within the national team all-rounders is revisionist history. #6 in the test team should ALWAYS be a batsman. Sure it helps if they can roll their arm over, but that's not a necessity. Most people agree that Mike Hussey was a decent # 6, but his 7 wickets in 79 matches show he was no all-rounder.
Bugs
Guest
I think it's more of a captaincy issue as opposed to the boys currently in the team not being able to bowl much. Everyone talks about Warner and Smith's leggies, and Adam Voges bowls consistently in state cricket and is very much a partnership breaker, but they almost never bowl(ed) for Australia. Smith needs to rotate the bowling a little more. Warner won't get a bowl unless Smith requests it...
Andy
Guest
I just think we should ignore the all rounder and any team that thinks they need one has already stuffed up. If the 6th best batsman can bowl a little awesome or if one of your four bowlers can bat yeahs but to go searching for an all rounder is just setting yourself up for punishment. Are other countries as obsessed with an all rounder as Australia seem to be? I dont get that impression, i think its mainly us and mainly because of Flintoff haha.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
"This leaves us with the number six spot, which is described as the all-rounder’s position." And this is where it all goes horribly wrong. Number six is a batsmen's position. If the four bowlers can't get the wickets, you;re going to need all the batting you can get because the opposition are going to put on a good score. Six batsmeb, one wicketkeeper, four bowlers. If you keeper or a bowler can bat, or your batsmen can roll an arm over that's a bonus - not an essential.
Craig
Guest
Australia only need to find an "all rounder" because none of our batsman are able to roll the arm over. In years gone by, the Waugh brothers could both roll the arm over, Ponting did in his early days, Michael Clarke, Bevan (for his brief test career), Mike Hussey did a few times, Greg Blewett. These are all blokes who were picked purely for batting, but could come in and try to break up a partnership or offer some variation. Watson could from opening the batting. Steve Smith or Warner need to step up and start working on their bowling. 10-15 overs between them in a match occasionally isn't too much to ask. If a couple of these blokes could be asked to bowl a 4 over spell every now and then (one spell per innings!), we wouldn't even be debating about who to pick at #6. We would be picking SMarsh there. Instead, we're tossing up between Khawaja/Marsh and Maxwell (who seemingly cant bowl any more if the ODI captaincy is anything to go by), Faulkner, Stoinis, Mitch Marsh, Cartright.
Casper
Guest
Bit harsh on Greg Matthews, didn't warm to him much but definitely a reasonable all rounder equal to Gus Gilmour who had a reputation but not the performance, and I did spectate during that era. Like to see them now put time into Stoinis who could allow us the luxury of playing 2 spinners on some pitches. I notice Joe Burns has decided to by roll the arm over nowadays, is he aiming at number 6?
Adrian
Guest
Well, we have Faulkner.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
I hate this rally for an allrounder at 6. We don't have any! Watson was the last real allrounder we had and that was in his earlier days. Before that it was Gilmore and that's 40 years ago. We need to stick with the 6 batsmen, keeper and four bowlers. In the past we were blessed with players like the Waugh twins, Border, Walters and Greg Chappell. Players who were there for their batting and who could bowl a few useful overs. Sadly, we don't seem to have these type of players coming through. Apart from Smith, the batsmen rarely turn their arms over.
JohnB
Guest
There's not really any such thing as a 265 at first class level that isn't a very very good innings, and it was certainly also a physical feat in the circumstances, so Henriques fully deserves praise for that innings. But you do need to add some context before saying it automatically puts him back at the top of the queue. By the time he got in the bowling was already wrung out because of very good innings, in much harder batting conditions initially, by Larkin and Patterson and because of the extreme heat (which then persisted throughout the NSW innings). That pitch seems to have been about as flat as can be. The Queensland attack is pretty thin, especially in its spin bowling. Henriques' other ton this season (and Neville's highest) was also on a very flat wicket (good enough for James Faulkner to bat most of the last day) against a pretty average attack. You did notice by the way that Henriques bowled 2 out of the more than 200 overs NSW bowled in the match? As with anyone though, if Henriques keeps making runs, regardless of the conditions, he deserves to be considered as a batsman. However, whether because of injury or other causes, his bowling has fallen away to such an extent he's not remotely an all-rounder now.
Adrian
Guest
Henriques gets one good score and suddenly there's an article written about him. Yeah, nah.
qwetzen
Guest
1. Henriques last 6 Test inns; 5, 0, 0, 2, 4 & 4. 2. Henriques recent seasons SS bowling stats; 14/15 - 1/98, 15/16 - 2/114, 16/17 - 2/150 3. Henriques Test bowling stats; 4 innings, 2 @ 82.0 4. "He [MH] came back in as an opening batsmen...". Henriques has had one innings for NSW as an opener. And this was in the 2nd innings of his 2nd 'comeback' game. (Incidentally, his opening partner, Shane Watson, was run out.) 5. "Moises has played Test cricket, and while he didn’t set the world on fire, he certainly held his own.". A batting average of 23 and bowling average of 82 says otherwise. 6. "Being captain of his state means that he also possesses the knowledge and spirit to play at the top level.". Matt Wade is captain of Victoria. Generally: I think you'll find that Henriques is essentially a batsman now after many unfortunate injuries.
Rob JM
Guest
In the last four shield seasons Henriques has taken 11 wickets @ 55, so not what you would call impressive. With the bat he was excellent in 13/14 averaging 50, but the following two years before this he averaged 32 and 16 admittedly with a string of injuries from memory. Combined with his career batting average there is nothing about him that screams test player. A great double hundred against a dreadful bowling attack doesn't change anything. The No 6 I'm tipping is Ashton turner. Average is currently 37.5 with the bat and is much better than a part timer with the ball. I actually think the Aussies are missing a trick by not playing a spin bowling allrounder at 6 as it then gives you the option of playing 4 quicks if the conditions suit.