View Full Version : We need an all-rounder in Tests.
There was a point in the Herald Sun today about Australia and their lack of bowling depth. The paper wrote that Australia should look at giving a young all-rounder a spot in the test side. The only real option is Watson, with players like Clarke and Blewett basically part timers. The other option would be to bring in a fifth bowler, although that would leave us with a very long tail. So when Steve Waugh retires, could this be a possible Test Side?
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Love
Lehmann
Gilchrist
All Rounder
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath
Or should Australia just risk having 4 bowlers?
Dogwatcher
6 Jan 2003, 13:54
Gilchrist is an allrounder.
Meanwhile, while McGrath and Warne are available we don't really need an allrounder. Those pair make an awesome strike team, with Lee and Gillespie very good foils for those two.
A fifth bowler would remove a batsman from the side and it's not really necessary.
Lee, with an average of around 22, is virtually an allrounder anyway.
Usually when people consider an allrounder they think of him as a batsman foremost - I don't think we need a part time bowler - like Steve Waugh was when he first came into the side.
Lee, in my opinion is a good bowler, who will improve with age (look at Dennis Lillee as an example - fiery, fast and wayward early in his career, only to mature with age) and a useful bat.
BTW I'm not suggesting Lee will be as great as Lillee - he's just an example of someone who matured from being a wayward fast bowler to someone who could utilise his nouse.
Andrew Symonds - pathetic domestic form leads to World Cup place and now to a Baggy Green. I can see it now.
You just know this under-achiever will get it!. :rolleyes:
bluechampion
6 Jan 2003, 14:33
I notice you've left Martyn out of your side. Ironically, he can sorta bowl.
This is the first time in years that we've lacked a quality part-time bowler. Previously we've had folks like Blewett, M.Waugh, Bevan, Lehmann etc. in our batting ranks who could all roll the arm over. But the current side lacks anyone who can do this (even though Lehmann should return).
Also, Steve Waugh is reluctant to bowl anyone who isn't a bowler. Even when our bowlers were clearly exhausted, he kept on throwing them the ball, not even willing to try the odd trundler. Where's the harm, when the team is so successful?
Mark Taylor used to do it all the time. Remember in '97 when S. Waugh pulled a groin halfway trough an over and Ponting took two wickets when thrown the ball to finish off? Tubby even let Matthew Elliott have a bowl once.
Steve waugh bowled about 13 overs in the test, and let Marto have 4 (while Vaughan was flying). I mean Ricky Ponting was hardly sighted this test - hardly any runs, no catches, no impact. Throw him the ball, his luck can't all be bad! How can it hurt?
I'm not saying that this is a reason not to have an all-rounder or anything, but the side should have some flexibility. Find two reasons to have a bloke in the side, not just one, maybe.
Originally posted by Catman
Andrew Symonds - pathetic domestic form leads to World Cup place and now to a Baggy Green. I can see it now.
You just know this under-achiever will get it!. :rolleyes:
There is no way Symonds will get a Baggy Green. He is basically a batsman who bowls part time off spin.
Martyn is our worst batsman at the moment so he would be the one to be dropped.
bunsen burner
6 Jan 2003, 15:30
Unless an allrounder comes along with almost Bothamesque talent, we don't need an allrounder.
If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
OldSchool
6 Jan 2003, 19:10
Originally posted by Dogwatcher
Gilchrist is an allrounder.
Meanwhile, while McGrath and Warne are available we don't really need an allrounder. Those pair make an awesome strike team, with Lee and Gillespie very good foils for those two.
Tend to agree that with McGrath and Warne four bowlers is adequate however, without them we need a solid part timer who can either bowl tightly or aggressively.
When Bevan was bowling OK he would have been an ideal no 7 batter and good for an 8 over spell on the 4th and 5th days.
In the future it really comes down to a player like Watson at number 7 with Gilchrist at 6.
Kenny_01
6 Jan 2003, 19:40
Leave the side as it is.
Kane McGoodwin
6 Jan 2003, 19:47
Originally posted by Dogwatcher
Gilchrist is an allrounder.
Meanwhile, while McGrath and Warne are available we don't really need an allrounder. Those pair make an awesome strike team, with Lee and Gillespie very good foils for those two.
A fifth bowler would remove a batsman from the side and it's not really necessary.
Lee, with an average of around 22, is virtually an allrounder anyway.
Usually when people consider an allrounder they think of him as a batsman foremost - I don't think we need a part time bowler - like Steve Waugh was when he first came into the side.
Lee, in my opinion is a good bowler, who will improve with age (look at Dennis Lillee as an example - fiery, fast and wayward early in his career, only to mature with age) and a useful bat.
BTW I'm not suggesting Lee will be as great as Lillee - he's just an example of someone who matured from being a wayward fast bowler to someone who could utilise his nouse. I agree with this post. A wicket-keeper who averages just under 60 must be considered an allrounder. We don't really need a 5th bowler/allrounder with the current side & we have Lehmann, Martyn & Ponting (& Waugh if he continues) who can bowl the odd over if required. Also, Warne, Bichel & Lee are more than handy with the bat & are semi-allrounders.
I have thought for some time that Brett Lee should be called an all-rounder. He averages the same as Craig White, who is a pretty good batsman. But my point wasn't about how many all-rounders we have, it was about us using only 4 specialist bowlers, where as South Africa often use 6 and I think it may be a better option having an all-rounder in the side than Martyn.
i think with the bowling attack we currently have, its not worth including an allrounder unless he is good enough to make it with his batting alone.
larrikin
6 Jan 2003, 23:37
Originally posted by lamby29
Martyn is our worst batsman at the moment so he would be the one to be dropped.
Read - I don't like Martyn so I want him dropped.
He's no way the worst batsmen in the side (and is ranked no 9 in the world)
Navy Master
6 Jan 2003, 23:51
Well, the top two scores today were the tailenders... If there is no McGrath and Warne again, they should at least look at playing 5 bowlers with Bichel and Lee no mugs with the bat
Gilchrist is the all-rounder. Instead of playing a specialist keeper who bats at 7/8 averaging low 20s, Australia has a keeper who can play as a prime batsman averaging mid 50s, and fit in another bowler or batsman to suit its needs, because it plays six batsmen and a keeper within 6 people.
With Australia'a batting strength at the moment, it hardly seems necessary to bolster the batting even more. Especially if that comes at the expense of swapping a gun bowler for a guy who is only average. If the fifth test taught us anything, it's that we need to keep our stocks of top line bowlers up.
We definately went into Sydney one bowler short.
An off-spinner would have been ideal, and Lehmann would not have effected the batting. Pity he was injured.
Other than that, another strike bowler was needed especially if Gillespie was under an injury cloud.