View Full Version : So who is the best bet as an allrounder?
Nige_Bix
28 Jan 2003, 23:01
There's been a lot of discussion on various threads about our allrounder in ODI's.
It seems Hoggy now has taken over from the rest of the field. It would seem that no-one really has much time for Symonds or Harvey and many consider Blewett to be past it or not up to it. There is mixed feeling about Watson
It will be interesting to see the makeup of the team once Warnie stops playing and how they use Hogg down the track! Do they play him as bowler at 8 and use another eg Watson at 7 or play another bowler preferably one who can bat a bit maybe. and then bat Hoggy at 6 or 7.
IMO Watson has been "gold-passed" because he is seen by the selectors, rightly or wrongly, as the only player of his type and age who could make it at international level. We do have a tradition over the years of playing unproven players in the hope they make it - sometimes with success and sometimes not. Mind you its not happening as much now as players go on for more years and others are now starting their careers around 30 - give or take a year or two!
Apart from this group who else is out there? Any young hopefuls on the horizon?
The left armers of [B]Lehmann [now] and Clark [soon] could be an extra option. Its a pity Gilly can't bowl as well ;)
dzm
We don't have any all-rounders worthy of playing in the ODI side which is why we shouldn't play any.
Watson is a poor bowler and is still unproven as a lower order batsmen.
Harvey is great with the ball when in form but lacks the ability to score quickly with the bat without getting out.
Symonds is great with the bat when in the zone but is average with the ball.
Blewett is the best of the bunch with the bat and an OK bowler but his performances on the international level in ODI's have been less than impressive.
The jury is still out on Hogg, I don't know if you can really classify him as an allrounder or not, he has the occasional cameo performance with the bat but more regularly fails with it. His bowling has been successful recently but so has Darren Lehmann, doesn't mean I would pick Lehmann on his bowling alone though.
If I had to pick one to put in the current ODI side I'd take Harvey as it is our bowling dept that needs depth not the batting dept but if given the opportunity I would just forget about the allrounder and pick another specialist bowler, say Bracken/Noffke?
Reallistically we need to find a player like Paul Reifell who was a tidy bowler who could also bat a little without being classified as an allrounder.
Nige_Bix
28 Jan 2003, 23:24
Originally posted by Zombie
We don't have any all-rounders worthy of playing in the ODI side which is why we shouldn't play any.
Problem is - you need at least 5 bowlers - - good sides can get away with 4 bowlers and a part timer eg Windies with Richards - but these days you seem to need more options.
Mind you at times I think England over did the allrounder thing and didnt play enough specialist bowlers and batsmen for most of the series. dzm
Originally posted by dezzmo
Problem is - you need at least 5 bowlers - - good sides can get away with 4 bowlers and a part timer eg Windies with Richards - but these days you seem to need more options.
Mind you at times I think England over did the allrounder thing and didnt play enough specialist bowlers and batsmen for most of the series. dzm
McGrath
Lee
Gillespie
Warne
Lehmann/Martyn
Kenny_01
29 Jan 2003, 01:16
Originally posted by Zombie
McGrath
Lee
Gillespie
Warne
Lehmann/Martyn
That's an idea but maybe 6 batters and 5 bowlers could be more appropriate on certain pitches, especially considering our tail can bat a bit.
Kenny_01
29 Jan 2003, 01:20
By the way, Hogg should be our all rounder for the WC, ahead of Symonds, Harvey and whoever else. If we want pace, we should replace Hogg with Bichel (play 5 bowlers). If not Bichel, then Harvey.
EagleBlue
29 Jan 2003, 06:54
I think you will find Hogg will be the No1 spinner after the WC (when Warne retires) however I like the 4 specialist bowlers with Lehmann/Martyn as fifth bowler. We could also go with the 6 batters 5 bowlers theory on the flat pitches as ALL the bowlers except McGrath are more than handy batsman. Will be interesting to see how many games Hogg plays (i.e. 2 wrist spinners play) I would suggest ALL matches except India/ NZ/ Sri Lanka. I would rather have seen Blewett picked ahead of Harvey and Symonds. Agreed his international record as appalling but it is still better than those 2 duds.
ScouseCat
29 Jan 2003, 08:31
Ian Harvey will play if the pitches in South Africa suit the faster bowlers, otherwise Brad Hogg could be another option. Darren Lehmann's bowling will be very handy when he comes back after serving the last of his 5 game suspension against Pakistan. Symonds batting lets him down when he is given a game for us which is a shame as he is a great fielder and handy with the ball.
lamby29
29 Jan 2003, 10:01
Stick with Watson (when he gets back from injury).
dogboy23
29 Jan 2003, 11:23
I rank them in this order
Hogg-Good bowler,good batsman (if you have seen him play) and second best fielder in the side.Will be even more valuable when Warnes gone because he will be a genuine all rounder.Frontline spinner who will allow us to play an extra allrounder or batsman or bowler.
Blewett-Good enough to be in there on batting alone and is a better bowler than Symonds
Watson-Batting is not suited to batting number 7 in a one dayer.He will be a fine test batsman for Australia but he is pretty correct and you need someone who can improvise at number 7 in a 50 over game.
Harvey-More confidence that he will do one of the arts (batting or bowling) well than I do Symonds.
Symonds-Absolute retard.Honestly wouldn't get a bowl in my domestic side.He is no better a bowler than guys like Dean Jones and Geoff Marsh used to be.He can roll his arm over and thats it.
raiderman00
29 Jan 2003, 11:49
Ian Harvey has got to be the first pick all-rounder, i mean look at his bowling. And he is handy with the bat. Sometimes but his bowling should get him in.
Hogg is not an all-rounder and never will be he scores runs once and he is an all rounder, no i think not. likley hood of him contributing is 1 in 30 whers with Harvey and symonds 1 in 7.
Symonds stupid player who can field thats about it.
Play Harvey. I think he will come good this World Cup
Originally posted by Zombie
McGrath
Lee
Gillespie
Warne
Lehmann/Martyn
That sounds fine to me.
Allrounders are a bit of a joke really. Steve Waugh when young, Simon O"Donnell and Tom Moody were very good but since then It hasn't worked.
Greg Blewett bowls as well as the current crop of allrounders and he is a top batsman.
Originally posted by raiderman00
Ian Harvey has got to be the first pick all-rounder, i mean look at his bowling. And he is handy with the bat. Sometimes but his bowling should get him in.
Hogg is not an all-rounder and never will be he scores runs once and he is an all rounder, no i think not. likley hood of him contributing is 1 in 30 whers with Harvey and symonds 1 in 7.
Symonds stupid player who can field thats about it.
Play Harvey. I think he will come good this World Cup
Thank God it isnt up to u then.
Originally posted by Angus1
That sounds fine to me.
Allrounders are a bit of a joke really. Steve Waugh when young, Simon O"Donnell and Tom Moody were very good but since then It hasn't worked.
Greg Blewett bowls as well as the current crop of allrounders and he is a top batsman.
Agreed, South Africa are spoiled really with the likes of Kallis, Pollock and Kluesener as allrounders and all would make the side on either their batting or bowling alone.
Unless the player is good enough, or atleast close to, to make the side on either their batting or bowling alone then they shouldn't be picked.
Watson wouldn't go close to getting picked based on his batting alone and definitely not his bowling.
Blewett may go close with his batting but I would think that there would be plenty more Aussie batsmen in line before him, his bowling wouldn't go close either.
Harvey would go close with his bowling, which is why I'd pick him, but the question mark would be around his batting, would he do any better than a player like Brett Lee?
Hogg would make it for his bowling if Warne wasn't there but wouldn't make it for his batting, this sort of really just makes him a spin bowler and not really an allrounder.
Symonds would make it for his batting alone if he could gain some consistency, although his bowling like Watson and Blewett should really be reserved for the back yard.
lamby29
29 Jan 2003, 16:06
I disagree about SA's all-rounders, Zombie. Pollock wouldn't make their side on his batting alone, and Klusener wouldn't make it on his bowling alone, although Kallis would make it on either his batting or bowling alone.
Originally posted by lamby29
I disagree about SA's all-rounders, Zombie. Pollock wouldn't make their side on his batting alone, and Klusener wouldn't make it on his bowling alone, although Kallis would make it on either his batting or bowling alone.
Yes but Pollock would make it on his bowling alone and Klusener would make it on his batting alone. Personally I reckon Klusener would make it on his bowling alone aswell.
Where as Watson (or any Aussie allrounder) wouldn't make it on his batting alone and wouldn't make it on his bowling alone.
Watson for mine. He should be batting up the order, say #4. And his bowling is coming along.
Originally posted by lamby29
I disagree about SA's all-rounders, Zombie. Pollock wouldn't make their side on his batting alone, and Klusener wouldn't make it on his bowling alone, although Kallis would make it on either his batting or bowling alone.
Klusener is a package, like most of our "all rounders", he wouldn't make it on either assett alone.
this time next year we will be singing the praises of one of these two all rounders, Lee Carselidine and James Hopes, my bet is carseldine will gain alot of interests from the selectors next season.
Originally posted by DaveW
Klusener is a package, like most of our "all rounders", he wouldn't make it on either assett alone.
No? A batting average of 42.72 with a strike rate of 90.06 isn't good enough for ODI cricket any more? those 170 wickets at an average of 29.42 would also be very hard to deny a spot for aswell. Not quite as good a bowler as Gillespie but better than Bichel.
Klusener would be guaranteed a spot for his batting alone, he would probably also get a game for his bowling alone aswell.
Originally posted by acuguy
this time next year we will be singing the praises of one of these two all rounders, Lee Carselidine and James Hopes, my bet is carseldine will gain alot of interests from the selectors next season.
Hmmm.... A 27 year old player who has a batting average of under 20 and has taken a total career tally of 6 wickets in state One Dayers.
I don't think so for some reason.
Hopes has some chance though, although he hasn't shown much with the bat yet.
EagleBlue
29 Jan 2003, 18:52
Originally posted by Zombie
Symonds would make it for his batting alone if he could gain some consistency
HA HA HA HA HA HA:D
Checked his inernational average AND strike rate over the past 12 months. Not to mention his domestic batting record. I would say that there are some Redbacks batsman with better records than Symonds and THAT is saying something
Originally posted by EagleBlue
HA HA HA HA HA HA:D
Checked his inernational average AND strike rate over the past 12 months. Not to mention his domestic batting record. I would say that there are some Redbacks batsman with better records than Symonds and THAT is saying something
Obviously the reason I said "if he could gain some consistency" :rolleyes:
He is clearly a very gifted batsmen, he shows that when he turns it on like he did when he played for the 'A' side against Sri Lanka in the 2nd match at Adelaide Oval.
EagleBlue
29 Jan 2003, 19:08
And if Blewett and Harvey could get some consistency they would be there too. The question is how long must we wait for these hacks for consistency. My argument (along with Bob Simpson) why do we need to play an allrounder. We have 7 batsmen (who call ALL bowl except Gilly and Hayden) and 5 bowlers (who can ALL bat except McGrath) along with Hogg. Why do we need 3 (2 of them useless) all-rounders. Remember the all-rounder we had in 1999. Tom Moody. I rest my case
Originally posted by Zombie
No? A batting average of 42.72 with a strike rate of 90.06 isn't good enough for ODI cricket any more? those 170 wickets at an average of 29.42 would also be very hard to deny a spot for aswell. Not quite as good a bowler as Gillespie but better than Bichel.
Klusener would be guaranteed a spot for his batting alone, he would probably also get a game for his bowling alone aswell.
Hmmm... I stand corrected, much better than I thought. Surprises me as he seems to bat in such a 'hit and miss' fashion. And his bowling looks pedestrian at times.
you know that blokes that perform around the domestic one day finals and shield finals always leave a lingering impression in the national selectors memories, carseldine has only recovered from a back injury, hence why he is bowling more, he is a class bat and a brilliant field, his bowling will become more and more effective. Hopes on the other hand bowls well enough, his batting at grade level is damaging, i think he just needs opportunities with the bat.
Lets see what this discussion is like in twelve months. don't forget who made the prediction.
EagleBlue
29 Jan 2003, 19:19
Originally posted by DaveW
Watson for mine. He should be batting up the order, say #4. And his bowling is coming along.
Agreed, perhaps not No4 but his bowling which needed work is getting better. Clearly our best option (apart from Hogg who will be the No1 spinner after the WC) [p
EagleBlue
29 Jan 2003, 19:23
Originally posted by acuguy
Hopes on the other hand bowls well enough, his batting at grade level is damaging, i think he just needs opportunities with the bat.
Lets see what this discussion is like in twelve months. don't forget who made the prediction.
Interesting you bought up Hopes, have seen a bit of him in the ING cup over the last couple of years and looks OK, about the same time I saw Hauritz for the first time. Both these players look to have what it takes at ODI level at least although they have had disappointing seasons so far
Originally posted by DaveW
Hmmm... I stand corrected, much better than I thought. Surprises me as he seems to bat in such a 'hit and miss' fashion. And his bowling looks pedestrian at times.
Probably because of the way South Africa play him, the only positions he hasn't batted is 10 and 11.
An interesting stat is that when South Africa bats or bowls second his batting average goes up to 45.58 and his bowling average comes down to 24.88 which probably suggests that he performs well under pressure.
Originally posted by EagleBlue
Why do we need 3 (2 of them useless) all-rounders. Remember the all-rounder we had in 1999. Tom Moody. I rest my case
You mean Tom Moody, Wisden Cricketer of the Year 2000, with a 1999 World Cup batting average of 117 with a strike rate of 109 and a bowling average of 31 aswell as picking up 2/17 from 5 overs in the World Cup final?
Yep I'm disgusted at the decision to take Moody in 1999 :rolleyes:
Originally posted by raiderman00
Hogg is not an all-rounder and never will be he scores runs once and he is an all rounder, no i think not. likley hood of him contributing is 1 in 30 whers with Harvey and symonds 1 in 7.
Bit harsh, Hogg has a good record with the bat at first class level, certainly as good as Harvey. And he's done more for Australia in his last 5 matches than Harvey has done in his whole career.
larrikin
30 Jan 2003, 01:08
Originally posted by Rob
Bit harsh, Hogg has a good record with the bat at first class level, certainly as good as Harvey. And he's done more for Australia in his last 5 matches than Harvey has done in his whole career.
"List A" One Day Batting Averages (Includes domestic, international and A games)
Brad Hogg 28.42
Andrew Symonds 26.30
Ian Harvey 24.29
I think Hogg is clearly a good enough bat to be considered an all-rounder. He originally made the warriors four day side as a batsmen, and has been a regular life-saver in WA's middle order in both forms of cricket.
Originally posted by larrikin
"List A" One Day Batting Averages (Includes domestic, international and A games)
Brad Hogg 28.42
Andrew Symonds 26.30
Ian Harvey 24.29
I think Hogg is clearly a good enough bat to be considered an all-rounder. He originally made the warriors four day side as a batsmen, and has been a regular life-saver in WA's middle order in both forms of cricket.
Lets take into account the fact that Hogg bats alot further down the order than Symonds and Harvey do. Now if we take out not outs from each players record and take a look:
A.Symonds 24.1
I.Harvey 21.6
B.Hogg 16.8
Hogg is not an allrounder, he is simply a handy tailender who is quite often there at the end of the innings because the fast bowlers get dismissed easily.
larrikin
30 Jan 2003, 19:21
Originally posted by Zombie
Lets take into account the fact that Hogg bats alot further down the order than Symonds and Harvey do. Now if we take out not outs from each players record and take a look:
A.Symonds 24.1
I.Harvey 21.6
B.Hogg 16.8
Hogg is not an allrounder, he is simply a handy tailender who is quite often there at the end of the innings because the fast bowlers get dismissed easily.
His first class average (where he bats at 6 or 7) is over 30, that makes him more than a tail-ender. He also bats at 7 for WA in one-dayers.
dr nick
31 Jan 2003, 06:39
Originally posted by Zombie
Lets take into account the fact that Hogg bats alot further down the order than Symonds and Harvey do. Now if we take out not outs from each players record and take a look:
A.Symonds 24.1
I.Harvey 21.6
B.Hogg 16.8
Hogg is not an allrounder, he is simply a handy tailender who is quite often there at the end of the innings because the fast bowlers get dismissed easily.
take away not outs??? a greater fudge of statistics.. ive never seen.
EagleBlue
31 Jan 2003, 07:20
Originally posted by Zombie
You mean Tom Moody, Wisden Cricketer of the Year 2000, with a 1999 World Cup batting average of 117 with a strike rate of 109 and a bowling average of 31 aswell as picking up 2/17 from 5 overs in the World Cup final?
Yep I'm disgusted at the decision to take Moody in 1999 :rolleyes:
Yes the batting average and strike rate were boosted significantly by his 50 odd off about 30 balls against the might of Bangladesh. His career average was about 23 with a strike rate of 69. His bowling average was near 40. Hardly match-winning career statistics. Was simply a case of being in the right place at the right time. His opposition came in the form of S.Lee and Julian. Neither set the world on fire so Moody came in late in the tournament. As for his Wisden award, that would have been for his County cricket exploits, not international. A decent player YES but , BEFORE the World Cup I remember virtually everyone being disgusted at Moody being selected given his age and appalling record. He DID have a good world cup in 99 and his selection in the end was justified but MY point was do we really need an allrounder as virtually all of our batsman bowl and all our bowlers (with the exception of McGrath) bat
Originally posted by nicko18
take away not outs??? a greater fudge of statistics.. ive never seen.
IMO Not outs shouldn't be included in One Day statistics, Tests fair enough as there is a reason for it but In One Dayers you know that you only have a certain amount of time out there and you should bat accordingly.
For example you compare the likes of Sachin Tendulkar's and Michael Bevan's ODI averages and with Bevan on 54.8 it looks like he is a clearly better player than Tendulkar on 43.7. But if you take away Not Outs all of a sudden Bevan is down to 35.9 and Tendulkar is on 39.3 which shows that Tendlukar is actually the better batsmen.
Kenny_01
31 Jan 2003, 14:10
Originally posted by Zombie
Lets take into account the fact that Hogg bats alot further down the order than Symonds and Harvey do. Now if we take out not outs from each players record and take a look:
A.Symonds 24.1
I.Harvey 21.6
B.Hogg 16.8
Hogg is not an allrounder, he is simply a handy tailender who is quite often there at the end of the innings because the fast bowlers get dismissed easily.
LOL, This is the funniest (and stupidest) thing I've ever read. So if a batsman comes in with a few balls left, his average deserves to get dragged down? Of course Hogg's average is going to be less when you take away not outs, because he bats lower down so has less time to get out. I agree with a lot of your points on the cricket board Zombie, but this one is just utterly ridiculous.
Originally posted by Kenny_01
LOL, This is the funniest (and stupidest) thing I've ever read. So if a batsman comes in with a few balls left, his average deserves to get dragged down? Of course Hogg's average is going to be less when you take away not outs, because he bats lower down so has less time to get out. I agree with a lot of your points on the cricket board Zombie, but this one is just utterly ridiculous.
My point is that if you put Brad Hogg out in the middle in a One Dayer he will not score 28 runs on average every time he bats. He will score on average 16 runs.
Because One Dayers have specific amounts of overs they are different from Tests, if you are not out during a test match then you would have had the opportunity to bat on if other batsmen were still there, generally with One Dayers if you are not out at the end of the innings it is because the amount of overs have been reached.
I understand what you are saying about a batsmens average being dragged down by only coming in with a few balls left, but realistically if they were a better batsmen then they would be batting higher up the order.
To say Hogg is a better batsmen than Harvey and Symonds because his average is higher is silly because of the fact that whilst he is no bunny with the bat he still is not considered good enough to be promoted up the order and doesn't score as many runs as Harvey and Symonds do.
raiderman00
31 Jan 2003, 14:58
Lets way up what everyone can offer,
Ian Harvey-he is a good solid bowler that is always dangerous with the ball sometimes not consistent but still a good bowler. His batting is o.k and defiently good enough to be called and allrounder.
Symonds-nothing he can offer would make me pick him a average bat, average bowl on his best day. Got in on a feerby by Pointing.
Hogg- good solid bowler who makes a few runs and everyone calls him an allrounder, he's not.
Originally posted by Zombie
but realistically if they were a better batsmen then they would be batting higher up the order.
what a load of crap.
the way i see it, averages in one day cricket should be the opposite of what you say. some out's should be classed as not outs. a suicidal single on the last ball of the innings should not drag down an average compared to some selfish guy who doesnt take on the fielder.
Originally posted by nicko18
what a load of crap.
Do the best batsmen not bat at the top of the order?
the way i see it, averages in one day cricket should be the opposite of what you say. some out's should be classed as not outs. a suicidal single on the last ball of the innings should not drag down an average compared to some selfish guy who doesnt take on the fielder.
You can't give a not out to a player who has been dismissed. But what you suggested gives you the same statistical result as I mentioned, the only difference is that all players would then have an inflated average.
Why not just not include the selfish players not out in their average, this works the same way as you suggested about giving the player who took the suicidial single not out.
If you take the current ODI side and add their averages together you should get the average Australian score right? Well i put up each players average and then their average without including n/o's.
Gilchrist 34, 33
Hayden 46, 38
Ponting 41, 36
Martyn 40, 27
Lehmann 37, 30
Bevan 55, 36
Watson 36, 19
Warne 13, 10
Lee 16, 11
Gillespie 10, 7
McGrath 4, 2
average: 332
average w/out no's: 249
Which one is a more realistic reflection of an average Australian ODI score?
Kenny_01
1 Feb 2003, 22:05
Originally posted by Zombie
Which one is a more realistic reflection of an average Australian ODI score?
Batting first, 332 :D
Seriously Zombie, this is a stupid point your raising. Your average should definitely be divided by number of times you get out and not number of innings or it would be grossly unfair to players batting down the innings. What chance would they have of building a decent average?
Originally posted by Kenny_01
Batting first, 332 :D
Seriously Zombie, this is a stupid point your raising. Your average should definitely be divided by number of times you get out and not number of innings or it would be grossly unfair to players batting down the innings. What chance would they have of building a decent average?
What is your average supposed to show? Your average score per match. If you play M.Bevan for 10 matches according to his average you would expect him to score about 550 runs, but he won't, he will score only about 350.
One day averages are not an accurate representation of a batsmens average score. It has nothing to do with being fair to players batting down the innings, if they were better batsmen they would be batting up the order anyway.
larrikin
1 Feb 2003, 23:58
Originally posted by Zombie
if they were better batsmen they would be batting up the order anyway.
That's just a plain stupid argument. If Gilly and Hayden bat for 49 overs, and Ponting comes in for one over and scores three should that count as an innings? No way in hell.
You may as well give every batsmen who didn't come in a 0 and count it towards an average according to your logic.
Kenny_01
2 Feb 2003, 02:57
Originally posted by Zombie
What is your average supposed to show?.
Do I have to spell it out for you?
Your average shows how many runs you would score on average normally before losing your wicket. It is not meant to show your average score per match..
Seriously Zombie, I can't believe you're even bringing this up.
What about Simon Katich coming into the ODI side as a batting all-rounder?
OldSchool
2 Feb 2003, 17:00
Originally posted by lamby29
What about Simon Katich coming into the ODI side as a batting all-rounder?
If he could get into the test team as the number six in a year or two he would be very handy second spinner of the fourth and fifth day. Needs to work on his bowling because it might just give him an edge over a few other players
Originally posted by larrikin
You may as well give every batsmen who didn't come in a 0 and count it towards an average according to your logic.
exactly, this point proves how ridiculous zombie's argument is. most matches, glenn mcgrath doesnt bat. so if you wanted to work out an average australian score, mcgrath would probably average less than 1.
averages were never intended to be an estimation of a teams probable score. it is how many runs a batsman is likely to get until he gets out.
i suppose viv richards was not as good a batter as desmond haynes then?? i spose you also think that michael bevan is, and always has been the weakest batter in the australian line-up?
OldSchool
7 Feb 2003, 20:40
Originally posted by lamby29
What about Simon Katich coming into the ODI side as a batting all-rounder?
After today performance with the ball, he might be a bowling all-rounder. Still think he would be better suited as a test cricketer and very handy on the 4th or 5th day as a 2nd spinner
Originally posted by OldSchool
After today performance with the ball, he might be a bowling all-rounder. Still think he would be better suited as a test cricketer and very handy on the 4th or 5th day as a 2nd spinner
Could be the next Mark Waugh in a way. Now, I'm not suggesting Katich will necessarily play 120-odd Tests and make 8,000 runs, but he could well fill the role of the middle order batsman who is a genuine option as a part time bowler. I'm pretty sure he's bowled some medium pace while playing for WA, and I agree with an earlier statement here that if his bowling is developed a little it could put him ahead of the others vying for a spot if it's hard to separate them on batting alone.
OldSchool
8 Feb 2003, 05:39
Originally posted by Darky
Could be the next Mark Waugh in a way. Now, I'm not suggesting Katich will necessarily play 120-odd Tests and make 8,000 runs, but he could well fill the role of the middle order batsman who is a genuine option as a part time bowler. I'm pretty sure he's bowled some medium pace while playing for WA, and I agree with an earlier statement here that if his bowling is developed a little it could put him ahead of the others vying for a spot if it's hard to separate them on batting alone.
The Herald Sun ran an article a few weeks ago looking at the likely test line-up the next time England tours here and they didn't list Katich. They had Watson slotted in at the number six position however, a batsman that could bowl decent spin might be a better option. Perhaps they feel that Clarke's bowling might improve enough
In the early 90s when Australia's last generation of batting talent came through, most of the players were also part-time bowlers (Blewett, Law, Martyn, Bevan, Lehmann). Is it just me, or are there less of this type around these days? It seems there aren't as many part timers used in Australian first class cricket.
Is this because some teams have very strong top-line attacks and can win a game with only four bowlers, is their fitness better meaning they can bowl longer spells and get through overs quicker, or is the part time bowler becoming a thing of the past?
Unwritten_Law
8 Feb 2003, 11:38
Originally posted by Darky
In the early 90s when Australia's last generation of batting talent came through, most of the players were also part-time bowlers (Blewett, Law, Martyn, Bevan, Lehmann). Is it just me, or are there less of this type around these days? It seems there aren't as many part timers used in Australian first class cricket.
Is this because some teams have very strong top-line attacks and can win a game with only four bowlers, is their fitness better meaning they can bowl longer spells and get through overs quicker, or is the part time bowler becoming a thing of the past?
The part timers will be back. Wait until there is no world class spinner in our team. Warne can hold up an end for virtually the whole day. Add that to the loss of our premier pacemen (McGrath and Gillespie) and odds are that we will be spending more time in the field in a few seasons time.