Bowling all rounder

[Topkent]

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.

Only averaged more than 30 twice in series before 2003 and after 2006.

Before 2003 and after 2005 he never averaged less than 28 in a series with the ball either

 

[burge13]

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.

Who said Paine to 6? Get him the hell outa the side!

 

[melanChronic]

The thing with an all-rounder is you should never pick someone as an all-rounder. They are either in the top 6 available bats or in your top 4 available bowlers. Anything they do with their secondary skill is a bonus to the team, but should not be a bonus to their selection.

Stokes is legitimately England's best batsman now. The fact that he can bowl ripper spells is just a significant bonus, but they'd be picking him if he never bowled another ball.

 

[cricketnut14]

Who said Paine to 6? Get him the hell outa the side!

well who's your keeper then - I mean we've only had 2 keepers in our history to average 30+ (gilly and haddin and even they didn't play as a regular #6). so whoever you are picking as a keeper is going to be a liability #6 then.

 

[burge13]

well who's your keeper then - I mean we've only had 2 keepers in our history to average 30+ (gilly and haddin and even they didn't play as a regular #6). so whoever you are picking as a keeper is going to be a liability #6 then.

Why are you fixated on Paine/his replacement at 6. Wade to 7 and bring a batsmen in at 6?

Literally anything is better than the liability that is Paine. Bat him at 9 in the current side

 

[cricketnut14]

The thing with an all-rounder is you should never pick someone as an all-rounder. They are either in the top 6 available bats or in your top 4 available bowlers. Anything they do with their secondary skill is a bonus to the team, but should not be a bonus to their selection.

always believed in this in the test arena.

and if one of the top 6 can bowl then , bonus !

white ball cricket is a little different.

 

[The Passenger]

I can handle picking a slightly weaker batsmen at #6 if they provide a fifth bowling option, particularly in Australia where it's hot and good batting conditions. But they still should really be in your top 10 batsmen, or very close to that mark.

But you don't weaken your bowling to pick a #8 batsmen.

 

[LawrenceJameson]

The thing with an all-rounder is you should never pick someone as an all-rounder. They are either in the top 6 available bats or in your top 4 available bowlers. Anything they do with their secondary skill is a bonus to the team, but should not be a bonus to their selection.

Stokes is legitimately England's best batsman now. The fact that he can bowl ripper spells is just a significant bonus, but they'd be picking him if he never bowled another ball.

Amazing to think Australia has not had a great all rounder since Keith Miller. Gilchrist batting 7 and Aussies didn’t require one but he is a once generation. What Australia would do now to find a Stokes.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Docker82]

Bowling all rounders are overrated.

Stokes is more a batsman than a bowler. Whilst his bowling is good I doubt he's in the England team if he averaged 15 with the bat. Batting wise hes their second best player at worst.

Picking a guy that bowls the level Stokes does normally (like Watson he has his good days there) who can barely average 25 with the bay destroys cricket teams. You're shott either a batsman or bowler of quality.

Watson was worth it most of his career. Mitch Marsh and whoever else we have now aren't.

 

[Damon_3388]

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.

Henriques?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Why are you fixated on Paine/his replacement at 6. Wade to 7 and bring a batsmen in at 6?

Literally anything is better than the liability that is Paine. Bat him at 9 in the current side

Wade with the gloves is an absolute "no". Absolute. If you're going to do that you might as well play Bancroft as a keeping #7.
But they're reportedly considering playing Mitch Marsh, so clearly they couldn't give a *.

 

[burge13]

Wade with the gloves is an absolute "no". Absolute. If you're going to do that you might as well play Bancroft as a keeping #7.
But they're reportedly considering playing Mitch Marsh, so clearly they couldn't give a fu**.

Paine statistically has given up more byes since his return than anyone else. He isn't as good with the gloves as people suggest, nor Wade as bad. Give him the gloves & the captaincy for all I care, just get rid of Paine.

Marsh in means our tail starts at 6, very strange decision if they are doing that. Surely common sense prevails?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Wade with the gloves is an absolute "no". Absolute. If you're going to do that you might as well play Bancroft as a keeping #7.
But they're reportedly considering playing Mitch Marsh, so clearly they couldn't give a fu**.

Yep, I'm tired of this band-aid approach to selecting a Test team. Give Wade back the gloves? No thank you. Time to get back to basics, pick the best 6 batsmen, the best batsman/keeper, and 4 bowlers. Once you have the XI, you pick a captain. In this era of "professional' cricketers, surely it's not too much to ask at least 2 of these bowlers to develop their batting to a Davidson/Benaud standard, and it shouldn't too much to ask at least one of the 6 batsmen to develop their bowling. The days of the batsman who doesn't bowl and the rabbit tail-ender should be a thing of the past ..... but sadly it's not.