Bowling all rounder

[Ford Fairlane]

Does Australia have a good young fast bowling all rounder option coming through the ranks?

I'm out of touch these days with Shield and junior cricket ranks, so asking genuinely out of curiosity.

 

[Bwillow11]

Will Sutherland, son of former CA CEO James, has played 7 list-a matches and has a bowling average of 18 with 13 wickets, while he can bat a fair bit too (scored 115 in a Youth ODI in Sri Lanka in January). Hasn't played FC cricket however.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Whatever happened to Cartwright & Wildermuth? Vaguely remember them looking promising a while ago.

 

[corbies]

Whatever happened to Cartwright & Wildermuth? Vaguely remember them looking promising a while ago.

Cartwright is woefully out of form with the bat and his bowling is pretty s**t. Wildermuth's batting is probably not good enough to bat in Queensland's top 6 let alone any higher honours.

 

[Topkent]

Wonder why this thread came about.
After Flintoff in 05 now we are gonna be playing allrounders again for 10 years trying to emulate Stokes

 

[SirBont]

Michael Neser Seems pretty good of late his 29 though

 

[cricketnut14]

cummins, starc, pattinson - all capable of averaging 20 with the bat and all capable number 8's but I wouldn't go as far as saying a number 7.

I'd rather these types so the quality of bowling doesn't diminish.

 

[Ok Boomer]

We had a decent all rounder who was mocked for years.

 

[demondavey]

Wonder why this thread came about.
After Flintoff in 05 now we are gonna be playing allrounders again for 10 years trying to emulate Stokes

 

[burge13]

cummins, starc, pattinson - all capable of averaging 20 with the bat and all capable number 8's but I wouldn't go as far as saying a number 7.

I'd rather these types so the quality of bowling doesn't diminish.

Our current number 7 averages <25 since returning to the test arena so no reason why all of those named couldn't move to 7 atm.

With a real #7 I agree however

 

[big_e]

Massive over-reaction.

Without our best player and we played badly in a few key moments, that's all.

 

[Kappa]

Massive over-reaction.

Without our best player and we played badly in a few key moments, that's all.

Its not at all, we clearly can't play only 4 bowlers every test match. Sometimes you need a genuine 5th option who can build pressure and keep your quicks fresh.

 

[PhatBoy]

Massive over-reaction.

Without our best player and we played badly in a few key moments, that's all.

Lost a test after bowling a side out for 67.

That’s more than just losing a few key moments.

 

[The Passenger]

Its not at all, we clearly can't play only 4 bowlers every test match.

Ideally no, but when our all round options are as bare as they are, then it's just the way it has to be.

In England on bowler helpful pitches in a cool-ish summer, we'll get away with it.

When we get back to Australia the #6 will definitely be someone who can bowl.

Unfortunately our batting isn't strong enough to have a keeper at #6 and a bowling all rounder at #7 and hasn't been for a long time. James Faulkner was headed for that sort of role, but he's gone right off the radar and, as said, our team structure could never fit his type in. Michael Neser is possibly going to run into the same problem.

Of the batsmen who bowl it's Mitch Marsh, Glenn Maxwell, Hilton Cartwright at the head of the queue and all have massive questions marks hovering over them.

 

[Ishikawa]

When his confidence is there, he's the man for the role IMO.

 

[Van_Dyke]

Possibly in 5 years or so someone like Cam Green could be an option

 

[Ishikawa]

Possibly in 5 years or so someone like Cam Green could be an option

Definitely a huge amount of promise there, hope he can stay all clear on the injury front given the durability problems that other bowlers of his size have had.

 

[cricketnut14]

Our current number 7 averages <25 since returning to the test arena so no reason why all of those named couldn't move to 7 atm.

With a real #7 I agree however

and paine to #6 - no thanks.

even if wade kept and played @ 6 - not good enough to average sub 30 after given 25 tests and carey's first class average suggests he isn't a test # 6.

 

[Johnny Karate]

Despite a very poor fourth innings, the bowling isn’t the biggest issue. Totals of less than 300 are always going to come back to bite over the course of a test series.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Wonder why this thread came about.
After Flintoff in 05 now we are gonna be playing allrounders again for 10 years trying to emulate Stokes

Mitch Marsh to be the new Watson? Except at least Watson deserved his spot for 18 months or so.

 

[The Passenger]

Except at least Watson deserved his spot for 18 months or so.

I wonder if in time we may appreciate Watson a little more.

Guys who average more with the bat than ball and take over a wicket a test are nothing to sneeze at.

Had a batting average above 40 in Ashes tests as well.

Obviously he won't go down as a great, and rarely won us a match, and his use of reviews made him an easy target.

But boy he copped some serious s**t for a guy who pretty regularly contributed something each match - even if it was just a few wickets or a small half century - at a time when we had a lot of guys who were just complete passengers that copped far less.

 

[Topkent]

I wonder if in time we may appreciate Watson a little more.

Guys who average more with the bat than ball and take over a wicket a test are nothing to sneeze at.

Had a batting average above 40 in Ashes tests as well.

Obviously he won't go down as a great, and rarely won us a match, and his use of reviews made him an easy target.

But boy he copped some serious s**t for a guy who was a pretty regularly contributors at a time when we had a lot of guys who were just complete passengers that copped far less.

Watson was a very good cricketer he suffered from everyone expecting him to be Jacques Kallis

 

[The Passenger]

Watson was a very good cricketer he suffered from everyone expecting him to be Jacques Kallis

After Flintoff tore us a new one in 2005 so everyone wanted the next Freddy.

What everyone forgot is that up until 2003 Flintoff was a liability in the English team. Fairly deep into his career (about 30 tests deep) he had a batting average under 25 and a bowling average above 45. And not long after that 2005 series he became a liability again - his last 15 or 20 tests where only slightly more productive than his first 30.

 

[to1994]

We lost the test with the bat, suggesting that an all-rounder who'll bowl about 10 overs is the solution is silly.

If our bowlers weren't exception, England make 150-200 in their first innings and we lose the test with England only 4 down. What we needed was some consistency in he batting order to support Labuschagne and ensure a lead of 450. If we'd gotten a lead like that England would've fallen over for 250 or so.

We got complacent with the bat after bowling them out so cheaply and it cost us. We made some big errors in the field obviously but it never should've gotten to that point. Batsman should be under pressure, not the bowlers.

 

[to1994]

I wonder if in time we may appreciate Watson a little more.

Guys who average more with the bat than ball and take over a wicket a test are nothing to sneeze at.

Had a batting average above 40 in Ashes tests as well.

Obviously he won't go down as a great, and rarely won us a match, and his use of reviews made him an easy target.

But boy he copped some serious s**t for a guy who pretty regularly contributed something each match - even if it was just a few wickets or a small half century - at a time when we had a lot of guys who were just complete passengers that copped far less.

I think the main issue with Watson is there was a period where he was probably our best batsman, made runs in India and looked like he was going to be something special. It didn't pan out.

Then things went the other way and the only time he contributed with the bat was when we'd already won the game or it didn't matter (The Oval 2013, Melbourne 2013).

The problem is we didn't even need Watson the all-rounder, we needed Watson the batsman to support Clarke in a period where our top 6 was awful and he didn't deliver. Rolling his arm over for a handful of overs didn't excuse that unfortunately.