Proper, genuine all rounders are rare as hens’ teeth. As you’ve noted, a genuine all rounder is one who is good enough with both bat and ball to be considered for selection based on either discipline. I’ve often used a test of averaging over 35 with the willow and under 35 with the leather for this purpose.

Based on the above criteria, in the history of Test cricket, five players have accomplished this over their careers with a requirement for 1000 runs/100 wickets … Sir Garfield Sobers, Jacques Kallis, Tony Grieg, Imran Khan and Keith Miller. Two current players are there … Shakib Al Hasan and Ravi Ashwin (Ravi currently at 34.92 with the bat). Some might debate the two current players based on home vs. away performances. Others have come close, but even then I reckon you’d be flat out gaining agreement on another 10 names.

I find this acid test, along with the difficulty of naming genuine all rounders even in the absence of straight stats, demonstrates how rare the true all rounder is. The players most will throw up beyond the list above … Dev, Hadlee, Botham, Pollock, Akram … are all generational players that were not only outstanding cricketers, but carried their teams above what they might have otherwise been capable of, perhaps despite some quibbles on statistical return. By all means, if you have one of these in your ranks they should absolutely be nurtured as they can transform a team. But, they are rare, with perhaps one existing at Test level around the world at any point in time. Even then, from a statistical perspective they are mixed in with the likes of Ravi Shastri, Chris Cairns, Irfan Pathan, Mitchell Johnson and Chaminda Vaas … all fine players, but not exactly the type of players you would consider able to hold their position based on either discipline.

The rarity of all rounders also shows how foolish it is to attempt to “manufacture” one. This usually ends up playing someone out of position … usually batting someone at 6 who is incapable of scoring runs regularly, or one at 8 who can’t take the wickets necessary. By definition, this then leaves the team effectively one short as the defects of the weaker side are so great that the stronger side can’t make up for them.

So to find the answer, we must start with the question. I would have thought the question is how does 10 – 15 overs a day get absorbed by a fifth bowling option who will keep it tight and pick up the odd wicket, in order to limit the seamers to about 15-18 overs per new ball? In my mind, the answer is the quintessential “part-timer” who is actually used … Andrew Symonds immediately springs to mind along with others down the years.

So it comes back to the time honoured view of 6 batsmen, 1 keeper and 4 bowlers … with the twist that one (or more) of your batsmen can roll out a handful of tidy overs each day to give the quicks a bit of a rest and not leak runs while they’re at it.

What’s the point of having a left arm quick churning up the pitch outside off if the off spinner isn’t going to pitch into the rough?

I don’t find not enforcing the follow on, even though I find it odd that it’s now something that’s simply not done, all because of one partnership between Dravid and Laxman.

That said, I think if you are not going to enforce the follow on you need to be ruthless with your declaration. I appreciate their were some weather concerns that would have come into calculation and the desire the bowl at night was a factor, but you also need to take all hope out of the opposition. We need to remember that as pitches are generally holding together longer (at least in Australia) that giving sides more than 2 days to chase a target may not be the best way to go. If you’ve got the ability to do so, set 600+ and give yourself five sessions to bowl them out.

To be fair though, if you’ve set just on 500 there are really no excuses if the other side chase you down … or even get close. This is the point that needs real scrutiny. What happened out there to allow the Pakistanis to get anywhere near this chase?

I agree that this Test still has a lot of cricket in it, but also agree with the sentiment that things are not all OK. I had that feeling when Pakistan passed 350 here, let alone at 8/430-odd.

Yeah, who cares about the World Cup? Chappell-Hadlee trophy clearly the most important.

Indeed.

Did anyone say Brad Hodge? Obviously got a few white ball games, but the 6 Test only is perhaps the greatest Australian selection travesty.

This is perhaps even more staggering (worrying) than just the championship points outcomes.

Last 100 by an Australian no 6. was Steve Smith vs. South Africa, February 2014. It’s been slim pickings in that department since the days when Hussey was batting 6.

This is a good point. The two man teams are more naturally aligned to better coverage. In theory it’s the play-by-play commentator supported by the expert analyst (basically exactly the way ABC presents). This naturally means there is (a) one less voice clamouring to have their say and (b) lessens the likelihood of buffoonery as both are that much more focused on the action and not mindless sidetracks (any remember the dirty rotten episode?).

Hallelujah! The term “batter” is perhaps the worst neologism to come into the game. Where did it come from ???

Unfortunately these days, you must take the opinions of Channel Nein commentators at your peril.

Agreed.

I don’t have a problem with the coach and captain being an off-field team. Indeed the coach should be able to add a different dimension of perspective to that of the captain. That is that the coach can (should) very much provide an arm’s length view. The captain needs to lead the team on the field. The coach works with the captain to ensure he’s got the best possible team on the park.

Agree re. Ferguson and Mennie.

The Ferguson seemed a selection almost of “well done old mate, you’ve been close for years, here’s your cap” rather than either (a) genuinely the next best batsman or (b) a young, future prospect to be blooded at six with the idea of moving up over time.

The Mennie selection was even more perplexing. There seemed to be so many others higher in the pecking order. Admittedly I don’t get to watch much first class action these days so I can’t comment on the details of what’s led up to the selection, but the performance in Hobart seemed mediocre.

Well Ronan we’ll need to agree to disagree on this one. By “just” having a spinner to tie up one end while the seamers do the work means that your attack takes on the feeling of being one dimensional … blast ’em out with seam and bounce! While that’s great when it works (and when conditions are favourable) it means there’s no Plan B. Or in other words we basically just accept that the current line up is incapable of being competitive in Asia. My view is that a spinner should serve as an “attacking bowler” in their own right, not just a defensive one.

As an aside, and by way of contrast, I’d much rather focus our attention on building quality spin bowling stocks rather than the recent fascination with all rounders. At least this particular fascination seems to have been suspended for Adelaide!

“He is Australia’s best ever offie but can you ever remember him being truly decisive in a match or being the quintessential co-star, respected for his supporting roles?”

Tim … this is a great question and certainly one I’ve struggled with over the journey. This article caused me to have a quick look a Graeme Swann’s stats for the purposes of comparison. I would see the two of them as very similar, particularly in the context of the teams they have played in. Interesting, Swann played 60 Tests to Lyon’s current 59 so the comparison is timely.

Swann
Tests – 60
Wickets – 255
Average – 29.97
5WI – 17
10 WM – 3
Overs bowled – 2,558.1

Lyon
Tests – 59
Wickets – 213
Average – 33.61
5WI – 7
10 WM – 1
Overs bowled – 2,254.5

What the above tells me is that Lyon is simply not as valuable to the team as Swann was and by extension is not the decisive figure to answer your question. Not only has Lyon taken 40-odd fewer wickets at a cost of another 4 runs a piece, but the big hauls (5WI/10WM) are not there. His contribution seems more as one that chips in to take some workload off the seamers, but is not seen as a genuine wicket taker in his own right.

I included the overs bowled stat as I though this added to the question of the “value” seen in him by the team/captain. 300-odd fewer overs seems to indicate he is not called to do the heavy lifting. While it only comes down to a few overs a match, it does give some weight to the view that Lyon has rarely “spun Australia to victory”.

So, in answer to your question, there have been few occasions. The 12-fa against India in Adelaide two years ago perhaps, but there would be few other occasions.

I reckon you could make a pretty good argument for Herath to come into the “all time” squad. Would likely be pushing for 600 Test wickets if not for the chucker Murailitharan.

Agree totally on the Mennie front. Really didn’t seem to threaten at all.

On a related point, what is doing with his action? Far from classical and hardly surprising he’d struggle to get much movement.

Agree on the Marsh point, although not on the bat at 5 point.

The selection of Marsh continues to befuddle. Australia are simply not getting enough from him with either willow or leather. A batting average of 24 and a bowling average of 36 are simply not good enough. Australia have had this all rounder at any price mentality since 2005. Andrew Flintoff had the series of a lifetime and Australia’s selectors have been spooked ever since.

Batting at 5 is not the answer. Firstly, who gets the chop? Voges to 6? The proper answer, of course, would be to get that sort of exposure at first class level, but this just doesn’t happen with international cricket being what it is these days. The more pragmatic answer, that you have alluded to, is to have six proper batsmen in the side to being with, something that hasn’t existed in the Australian team more many years.

That’s not quite true … it’s just that the NRL made the move and stuck with it. It moved the grand final to the long weekend (so typically the first Sunday in October) from 2001.

In the period from 1980 the GF was usually on the last Sunday in September. Going back to the period from 1964 it was typically on the third Sunday in September. Prior to that it was a bit all over the place.

Not withstanding the issue of the AFL bye prior to the finals, I would have thought it makes sense for both codes to have it on the same weekend and the October long weekend makes sense. Why on Earth Dan Andrews thought putting the new public holiday on the Friday and not on the Monday though is an entirely different issue that only those in Danland can possibly fathom.

There’s just no way the AFL will agree to reduce the season to 17 rounds. The commensurate loss of revenue (basically 25%) means that despite all the arguments, it just won’t happen.

I think the issue of slow over rates is a general one. Obviously it gets put in the spotlight in situations such as this most recent example, but the issue of bowling teams being slow in the field is far more prevalent than batting teams. Over rates seem to poor from the get go, not just in the last hour of close contests. On that basis, I’ll let my comments stand.

With respect to delays being brought about by the batting team, there are laws already in place to deal with this, although (a) it is toothless in terms of teams attempting to survive for a draw and (b) is up to umpires to enforce. The second point is difficult to change, although the first could be made much stronger, ultimately resulting in offending batsman being given out. Combine this with outlawing the constant running on of drinks, gear, etc. and we’ll go a long way to eradicating the problem.

You won’t find a more strident supporter of improving over rates than me, but placing the blame on the umpires is misplaced. The modern umpire’s role has been diminished to one of administrator. Just look at what happens to umpires who do anything other than the most basic functions. Their ability to actually “control” the match has been increasingly eroded through match referees, 3rd umpires, DRS and associated technologies, not to mention the abominable state of play with respect to bent arm no balls and ball tampering.

The solution is quite simple. The bowling team is responsible for the over rate during their time bowling. Their over rate may be able to move up and down over the course of a bowling innings, but at the cessation of that innings they must have got through the number of overs expected to be bowled given the duration of the innings … based on 90 overs in a day, that’s an over required every four minutes over the totality of the innings. In other words, if the innings lasts 400 minutes, they must have got through 100 overs. If they are unable to do this, a run penalty applies, perhaps 6 runs per over short.

It’s been said many times … place a direct penalty on poor over rates and they will improve overnight. It is up to the ICC to amend the laws accordingly.

He’s made a significant contribution to lining the pockets of the 49ers as Australian band wagoners jump on board and get their fill of merch!