View Full Version : Allrounders at International Test level?
Looking at the South African test line up you see they have 3 classy allrounders, Kallis, Pollock and Klusener. All have batting averages in the mid 20's or higher (Kallis) and all are good bowlers. With the question over whether Australia should employ only 5 batsmen and use 5 bowlers, should we be looking at an allrounder? Some of the more well known allrounders in Australia:
Michael Bevan
Ian Harvey
Brett Lee
Andrew Symonds
All of the above players are used in International one dayers and all are good players at state level in tests. The pick of the lot for me is Symonds. He can bowl both spin (right arm off break) and pace (medium). At state level he also averages over 40 with the bat. What does everyone else think? Should we employ the tactic of an allrounder with the #6 batsman and who would it be?
Bulldog1954
15 Dec 2001, 18:31
I think you mean Shane Lee, not Brett
I personally wouldn't play an all rounder but if I did it would be Ian Harvey. I think he is the best bowler of the lot and is also a great batsmen and fielder.
London Dave
15 Dec 2001, 18:48
Shane Lee..not a good enough bowler at test level...
Harvey, same to a lesser extent.
Bevan...test career finished a while ago...
symonds...only one with a chance, but he'd have to earn his spot as a bat on merit first.
daddy_4_eyes
15 Dec 2001, 19:10
Of the current Aussie test team, these are IMO all-rounders:
Brett Lee - has shown enough with the bat to warrant the allrounder tag
Shane Warne - has also lifted his batting performances lately
Adam Gilchrist - the Herald Sun has written several articles on him, naming him the best allrounder in the world
Originally posted by Bulldog1954
I think you mean Shane Lee, not Brett
No, I most definitely mean Brett Lee.
At International Test level he averages 26.63 with the bat after 14 innings. These stats are up to the 30th of November this year. He is fast making a reputation as an allrounder at International level.
Originally posted by London Dave
symonds...only one with a chance, but he'd have to earn his spot as a bat on merit first.
He hasn't played at International Test level yet but at domestic level he averages over 40 for QLD as an opener (I think). He also plays for Australia in International 1-Dayers as an opener. I believe he is a player that could be used by Australia as an allrounder.
I just remembered another player that could be classified as an allrounder. Matty Nicholson from WA is fast becoming known to be quite handy with the bat (made over 100 against South Africa) though his bowling is inconsistent.
Fall Out Boy
15 Dec 2001, 20:22
Originally posted by Visro
He hasn't played at International Test level yet but at domestic level he averages over 40 for QLD as an opener (I think). He also plays for Australia in International 1-Dayers as an opener. I believe he is a player that could be used by Australia as an allrounder.
Andrew Symonds has NEVER opened the batting in domestic cricket and has only opened for Australia once, usually bats at 6 or 7.
Originally posted by London Dave
Harvey, same to a lesser extent.
I would have thought that was his strong point, his bowling. I'd think his inconsistent batting would be a negative.
London Dave
15 Dec 2001, 20:53
Harveys bowling gets a lot of wickets in ODI's with variation, and batsmen have to 'have a go', to a certain extent, don't think he would be a wicket taking bowler in tests on a regular basis/or unhelpful decks. Bats can afford to be more patient. His batting has come along in the last couple of seasons though, so he has a more realistic chance of making it than most others.
Of the four mentioned, I think Symonds is the most likely to make it as an all rounder, though B Lee will develop into a reasonable late order bat, not genuine all rounder class though.
The thing is genuine test allrounders have always been scarce on the fround.By genuine I mean a guy who could conceivably make the Test side for his batting or his bowling alone.
World cricket in the 80s was spoilt with having 3 or 4 great allrounders in Botham,Imran,Dev & Hadlee.The reason I say 3 or 4 is that Hadlee was borderline on his batting but his bowling at the end of his career was so good that it compensated.Obviously they were all good enough bowlers to hack it at Test level but if the other 3 had just had their batting to concentrate on I'm sure they would still have ended up making it at Test level on that alone.
England have been sucked into the idea of having an allrounder due to the botham legacy but in reality all it's meant is that we've picked guys who's bowling lacks penetration & who maybe give the side another 10 runs over the real tailenders.I'd say it's a dodgy road to go down trying to pick an allrounder just because you feel you need one rather than because there's someone out there who can definitely fullfill the role.
The nearest thing most of the time is a wicketkeeper who's worth his place as a batsman eg Gilchrist, flower, Stewart, Dasgupta.
Look around Test cricket & there's not many allrounders, even Kallis is a batsman who's developed his bowling over the years (pretty well at that) & Pollock is a bowler who has a lot of batting talent but you wouldn't pick him on his batting alone.Kluesener whilst starting off as a bowler who batted a bit has let his bowling go to the extent that I've seen Boucher standing up to him in test matches.
THe thing is Australia have had this pretty rigid selection of picking 6 batters, wk & 4 bowlers but I've often thought that as the strongest side in the world whether at times they could have been a bit riskier & dropped a batsman for the extra bowler especially when it's on a spinners track.They've tried the 2 pacemen 2 spinner attack before but it's not tended to be too successful as it's left them a bit short on the pace front.Even England with our very shaky batting line up went into all our Tests in Pakistan & Sri Lanka last winter with 5 batters, 3 pacemen & 2 spinners & managed to win both series.Sometimes I think it has to be done.Batting is funny it seems to me that soemtimes the more respnsibility on batsmen the more they rise to it, the more you pack a batting line up the more excuse there is for blokes not to stand up & be counted.
Kangas_Big_Fan
16 Dec 2001, 06:45
how can you call bevan an all rounder what he can bowl and bat that means McGrath and Hayden are all rounders everyone who plays cricket is an allrounder you ***** idiot
Originally posted by Kangas_Big_Fan
how can you call bevan an all rounder what he can bowl and bat that means McGrath and Hayden are all rounders everyone who plays cricket is an allrounder you ***** idiot
Three words...have a sad!
I based my opinion on his stats at International Test level, International 1-Dayers, Domestic Tests and Domestic 1-Dayers. Whilst he is more of a batsman, he can still bowl a lot better than most of our current batsmen (with maybe the exception of M Waugh).
So next time before you go call someone a ****ing idiot, ya ****ing idiot (see I can do it too, takes heaps of skill that :rolleyes: ) make a plausible argument that people can read and don't state the fricking obvious.
Over the last few years, not many genuine all-rounders have had much success.
Of the batting & bowling type (not including 'keepers) :
Steve Waugh started as one, but he doesn't bowl anymore.
Simon O'Donnell was a bitser (bits o' this, bits o' that)... a few runs short of being picked as a batsman alone, and not enough wickets to be picked as a bowler alone. With his batting being explosive, at one-day level this sort of player is useful. Harder to make a case for the long game.
Brad Hogg started as a batsman, then started getting picked as a spinner, and now seems to be a batsman again. Has "potential" at age 30, but probably isn't good enough at either facet to play more Tests.
Shaun Young is probably the most consistent all-rounder Australia has produced in the last few years, but would probably struggle bowling at a higher level. Shane Lee is pretty much the same.
England has tried a few, with little success. Dominic Cork was going to be the next big thing, but the reality has set in that he is a decent medium pacer and capable low order batsman, not the next Ian Botham.
Chris Lewis bowled briskly but was a crap batsman for a #7. Phil De Freitas was just ordinary. Ashley Giles looks OK, but rather than an all-rounder, he too seems more of a tailender who can bat.
Craig White - is he picked as a batsman, a bowler or a genuine all-rounder? Batting average of 21, bowling average of 37. Either way, at Test level he has been only moderately successful.
Wasim Akram has a highest Test score of 257 and has made a few centuries, but averages low 20s. I think it was Ian Chappell that once said, that if a players batting average was higher than his bowling average, he could call himself an all-rounder. Akram's averages are 22.64 (bat) and 23.60 (bowl) which are quite impressive as a package.
Asanka Gurusinha (bat 39, bowl 34) used to bat in the top 3, bowl medium pacers first change in a tame bowling attack, and occasionally keep wicket. Hashan Tillekeratne also bats anywhere from 1-8, can keep wicket, and bowl a few gentle offies (although he seems to play solely as a batsman now).
Why is it Australians persist in claiming Gilchrist is an all-rounder?
When was the last time you ever saw a wicket-keeper at the international level, even first class for that matter, that was not expected to contribute with the bat. In fact for wicketkeepers more emphasis is on batting than keeping. Provided he is tidy, scoring runs, and not missing to many dismissals he will keep his job.
Surely Wicket-Keeper/Batsman is a redundent designation. For every pure wicketkeeper you can think of, I bet I can name at least a dozen wicketkeeper/batsman.
If a keeper could bowl that would be an all-rounder.
Originally posted by Player
When was the last time you ever saw a wicket-keeper at the international level, even first class for that matter, that was not expected to contribute with the bat.
True, but recently a good batting average for a keeper would have been regarded as mid-high 20s.
Probably with the professionalism entering the game in the last 20 years or so, career cricketers playing the game as their full-time job, are expected to be more proficient at other things.
Picking the best batsman among a group of specialist keepers might have advantageed a team by an average of 4-5 runs, whereas picking a batsman who keeps wicket is often a 15-20 run advantage.
The exception to this seems to be in Victoria and South Australia, where Darren Berry and Graham Manou struggle to make runs. I'm amazed that the standard batting order of 6-7 batsmen, 1 keeper and 3-4 bowlers is retained when Berry and Manou should be batting lower than some of the bowlers.
Come to think of it, there are also less genuine batting bunnies than in previous years - these days even number 11s like Walsh, McGrath, Donald, etc. average 7 or 8 in most cases, which is better than guys like Chandrasekar, Higgs, Reid, Ironmonger, Malcolm, Tufnell... Merv Hughes started out as a complete rabbit, but with diligence and professionalism worked on his batting and made some 50s & 70s, and at one stage was touted in the (admittedly biased) Melbourne print media as an all-rounder.
Originally posted by Player
If a keeper could bowl that would be an all-rounder.
Tim Zoehrer surprised the $hit out of everyone when he threw the gloves to Mike Veletta in a Sheffield Shield match around 1991, and started bowling leg-spin. He took 5 wickets in that innings. He developed his bowling to become a semi-regular bowler, while remaining first choice 'keeper for WA, and at one stage, it looked as if he was a smokey to be considered for a Test berth, such was the scarcity of spinners in Australia before Shane Warne made his mark.
Zoehrer's career stats :
Tests - 10 Tests, 246 runs @ 20.50, HS 52* - Ct 18, St 1
F/Class - 147 Matches, 5348 @ 29.54, HS 168 (7 centuries) - 38 wickets @ 46.52 BB 5/58 - Ct 423, St 38
Jimmy Adams was also a player whose ability to combine all three facets was impressive. Damien Martyn has kept wicket for WA (may even have been selected as 'keeper for a domestic one-dayer, not sure about this).
Macca19
16 Dec 2001, 18:15
Originally posted by Visro
Looking at the South African test line up you see they have 3 classy allrounders, Kallis, Pollock and Klusener.
I wouldnt call Klusener an all rounder anymore. His bowling has really turned to crap and is really only in the side for his batting ability. The last year he has basically done nothing with the ball!
Victor Trumper
16 Dec 2001, 19:14
Michael Bevan has bowled five overs and taken 0/16 in shield cricket this year....he is not an all rounder.
Great_Unknown
17 Dec 2001, 05:31
Originally posted by Player
Why is it Australians persist in claiming Gilchrist is an all-rounder?
When was the last time you ever saw a wicket-keeper at the international level, even first class for that matter, that was not expected to contribute with the bat. In fact for wicketkeepers more emphasis is on batting than keeping. Provided he is tidy, scoring runs, and not missing to many dismissals he will keep his job.
Surely Wicket-Keeper/Batsman is a redundent designation. For every pure wicketkeeper you can think of, I bet I can name at least a dozen wicketkeeper/batsman.
If a keeper could bowl that would be an all-rounder.
Wicketkeepers are selected primarily on thier 'keeping ability, with a minor emphasis on their batting ability. Given Gilchrist's exceptional batting average (over 51), he should be considered an all-rounder. If you look at some of the more "genuine" 'keepers that Australia has produced such as Marsh and Healy (all with record-breaking dismissal records), you'll find that their batting performances overall woud not be enough to class them as all-rounders.