The intruiging case of the Aussie all-rounder

[Beny]

Not since Keith Miller threw down his last post-match martini has the Australian team possesed a quality true all-rounder, the type of player who can score a ton and then take five wickets, coming to the aid of their imperiled captain when they are needed most. Sure we've had the Benaud's, the Davidson's and the Walter's, yet none of these have really done well enough in both skills to be able to hold a place with only their batting or bowling.

The great all-rounders of history- the Botham's, Miller's, Dev's, Sobber's, Haddle's and the like have not only been skilled tradesmen in both artforms but have been the cornerstone's of their teams, able to turn a match with the swing of a bat or the release of a ball. In a sense, Australia saw the potential of having a class all-rounder when Shane Warne set the Ashes allight, and it was undoubtedly Andrew Flintoff's bludgening batting and expert bowling which gave England the edge in the series.

So there remains two questions on the mind of every Australian cricket fan.

1. Do we need an Allrounder?

and

2. Do we have one in the stores?

A few names come to mind- Watson, Hopes, White, Thornely and Symonds. Out of these only really Symonds and Watson seem to be capable of cracking the test scene with sucsess in the next few years and one of those two must surely be getting on in years.

Another name which is raising eye-brows is young 18 year old Mosies Henriques... A name which you likely have never heard yet surely will be hearing much more about in the furture.

Ricky Ponting had this to say about him earlier.

Originally Posted by Ponting

Any kid who bats at three for his club, opens the bowling and comes with as big a raps as Mosies is one I personaly, and Cricket Australia have to earmark early, get in the system and bring up to speed as quickly as possible.

The young man has been a rookie with NSW for nearly 2 seasons now and proformed magnificently in the recent AUS U/19 tour of India, averaging 44 with the bat (including 85*) and 18 with the ball.

Ofcourse Watson and others are ahead of Henriqes at the momment but it is certinly exciting to think of the prospects.

[Rachael]

No captain NEEDS an all-rounder. What every captain needs is enough batting and a few bowling options. In the past decade Australia have had that: Gilchrist has been part of the solution (seven genuine top order bats means you haven't needed ANY batting from the last 4) and Warne has been the other part - not because he can bat... but with one player in the side who can manage 35 overs a day and who can do a job from a day one pitch to a day 5 pitch.... 3 seamers was no problem and more would have been excessive.

We saw this in the Ashes: if McGrath had stayed fit then he, Lee and Warne would have been enough to carry the side. It was only when McGrath broke down (and then had to bowl when not recovered) that problems arose. Warne and Lee alone was one bowler light (though Warne, McGill and Lee would have been fine).

Whilst Warne and McGrath are fit just bowl Lee and one from MacGill, Watson and Tait.... and whilst you have a 'keeper who bats as well as Gilchrist then feel free to just add a 5th specialist bowler if McGrath or Warne are out.

Long term... the answer is basically "never to go looking for an all-rounder". Marsh is adamant about that and for good reason: you pick your best batsmen and get a couple of them up to more than net-bowling standard... and you pick your best bowlers and best gloveman and teach them all to bat better. That way you end up with options without bits-and-pieces nonsense.

So the real question is "who's going to step up as the occasional bowler". Clarke? Maybe. Kattich? Possibly. Ponting? Did well at Old Trafford. You don't need genius from them... just a few overs a day.

[flanflinger]

Rachael,

You say you don't need an all-rounder and then point out that with Gilchrsit batted at 7... well in many ways Gilchrist is the all-rounder. Not in the traditonal sense, but in the sense that he covers two bases.

IMO Gilchrist is an all-rounder

Originally Posted by Rachael

and you pick your best bowlers and best gloveman and teach them all to bat better. .

You can teach yourself to bat better, but you cannot make a batsman who does not have the natural talent.

Ponting, for example, plays the ball just that bit earlier than most people. His natural hand-eye co-ordination means he reads length much quicker and gets into a much better postion to play it. This cannot be taught, it cannot be learnt.

[Rachael]

I don't think the Aussies would have changed their team significantly over the past decade had Gilchrist only been a very ordinary batsman: they were happy with 4 bowlers and a 'keeper... and the fact that one of the 5 could bat was just a bonus.

On the coaching front... Ponting will never be a match for McGrath with the ball, and McGrath will never be a match for Ponting with the bat.... but the key thing is to improve Ponting's bowling so that he's a realistic option asa 4th seamer... and to improve McGrath's batting so that he's more than just the best no 11 in world cricket.

Even Devon Malcolm has a century to his name now!

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Even Devon Malcolm has a century to his name now!

A lot of Test match bowlers have centuries at club level, I think Anderson has a few, but you could nevermake him into a Test batter. It takes more than just a bit of coaching...

[Beny]

Brett Lee has come out only recently and said that he wants to be an all-rounder... I'm not sure, he's ok as a tail end bludgener but I doubt he'll ever have the tequnique to hold his test place based on his batting.

Really, most coaches these days are talking about the 'new cricketer'. That's how Steve Waugh described a young Shane Watson when he appeared on the scene- Fit, strong and good with both bat and ball as well as strong in the field. Buchanan even has players learning to play with their wrong hand i.e Make the left handed Hayden able to bat right handed and throw with both.

The danger of course is creating a generation of 'bits and pices' players.

[Rachael]

Lee is far more useful than a conventional all-rounder: he's genuinely good in the one discipline where being good really counts (bowling) and punches well above his weight in the discipline in which, to be honest, any Tom, Dick or Harry can contribute (batting).

There's too much **** talked about batting: it ain't difficult! Go and ask Mark Richardson about it: you don't have to have the timing, touch and grace of Gower to be a Test batsman... you just need to work at it. Occupy the crease and you'll do a job for the team. Stay there long enough and the runs will follow. The key thing is just to play within your limitations: most batsmen are only found wanting when they start looking to play shots they don't have - and at no 7 you don't need to do that.

If he wasn't able to bowl eight months I suspect Lee could become a useful Test opener. He'd never play like Barry Richards... but he's already got one thing going for him in that he recognises that the bat isn't a means of self-defense. Pietersen would do well to learn that lesson... and Lara for that matter: they both fend balls off their body with the bat. Lee knows that's a way of getting out and doesn't do it - I know which approach impresses me more.

If you're a big guy, you play with a straight bat, you get forward to anything pitched on the stumps, you drop your hands to anything short of a length and you have the discipline (note: no talent needed, just discipline) to not go chasing wide deliveries.... you'll do fine. Lee has the right head on his shoulders and with a good coach I'm sure the rest can follow.

At least he can bowl: that's the critical bit of being an all-rounder. That's the discipline in which excellence is most critical: a good batsman who can turn his arm over a little (like Kallis) is not THAT much more useful than a good batsman who cannot.... but we saw with Warne in the Ashes what a good bowler who can bat a bit can do.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

There's too much **** talked about batting: it ain't difficult! Go and ask Mark Richardson about it: you don't have to have the timing, touch and grace of Gower to be a Test batsman... you just need to work at it. Occupy the crease and you'll do a job for the team. Stay there long enough and the runs will follow. The key thing is just to play within your limitations: most batsmen are only found wanting when they start looking to play shots they don't have - and at no 7 you don't need to do that.

If he wasn't able to bowl eight months I suspect Lee could become a useful Test opener. He'd never play like Barry Richards... but he's already got one thing going for him in that he recognises that the bat isn't a means of self-defense. Pietersen would do well to learn that lesson... and Lara for that matter: they both fend balls off their body with the bat. Lee knows that's a way of getting out and doesn't do it - I know which approach impresses me more.

If you're a big guy, you play with a straight bat, you get forward to anything pitched on the stumps, you drop your hands to anything short of a length and you have the discipline (note: no talent needed, just discipline) to not go chasing wide deliveries.... you'll do fine. Lee has the right head on his shoulders and with a good coach I'm sure the rest can follow.

Sometimes you do write some things I find hilarious.

As someone who was an allrounder and faced bowlers and batsmen in my earlier days who went on to a FC and Test level, I find it strange that you would say batting is not difficult.

It is. Unequivocably so.

Though Mark Richardson might have made something of a career whilst not having the finer qualities of Gower, as you say, does not mean any Tom, Dick or Harry can just work on it and become some lower middle order genius.

Those who are ale to do so already had that ability and just enhanced it. Richardson had lesser talent than most and made better use of it, but he had a slice of talent none the less.

You state occupying your crease as if that in itself is something that does not require a degree of skill.

I played against guys who probably bowled 80mph and a couple who probably broke 90mph at times.

Discipline alone does not allow you to judge what to play and what to leave. Batsmen are found wanting the most when they improperly execute or choose a shot to a ball.

Now considering the time needed to judge what ball you are receiving (even for a slow bowler it is short in reailty) and to get in the proper place etc... that is understandable.

That is why those with the TALENT are the ones feted and the ones with lesser or none are mentioned in "What happened to him?" articles.

Now I could go on and elaborate that the reason history had found so few players who have excelled at both disciplines is because the skill or talent sets needed are rarely present in one body.

You can be as disciplined as you like, if you ain't got it, you ain't got it.

Now Brett Lee, is a better batsman than most bowlers but the idea he could become a useful Test opener makes me chuckle.

Never going to happen.

Let's not go crazy.

And the idea that Brett Lee's approach suits you more than say, Lara's approach says nothing about batting just something about yourself.

And don't take that in a negative way. One man or woman's meat....and all that.

Secondly, as someone who is 2m tall (the very definition of a big guy) and one who apparently has it so easy at bowling too, your description of how to bat is so simplistic as if to not say anything at all.

[Rachael]

I'm not suggesting that it's easy to play as Ponting and Lara do.. or that it's easy to score runs. I'm not even suggesting that it's easy to play as Mark Richardson did. I'm not even suggesting that anyone with the sporting credentials to be playing Test cricket can be taught to be more than just a bunny (i.e. useful) with the bat... and that many can be taken a lot further than that.

Take Hoggard as an example: a guy who can now do a wonderful job for his team. He doesn't excercise great judgement when playing outside off stump... the plays the line of the off stump (as Hussain did) and just concentrates on not following the ball (not a great temptation to him as he hardly ever looks to score). Does he have anything to offer to the short ball? No: and nor need he. Again.. he doesn't look at the short ball as a scoring opportunity... doesn't regard the bat as something to be used in self defense.... and is therefore unlikely to EVER get out to a ball that would go more than 6" over the stumps.

IF you packed the top order with players like Hoggard you'd never win anything as they would mostly get just the streaky runs off thick edges. That said... if your tail has a few players like that the top order bats can build decent partnerships and push the score along. It will not happen everywhere.. and if your opposition has a guy sending down reverse-swinging yorkers as Waqar Younis often did at his peak.. it's going to be even less common... but let's get this in perspective - Flintoff bowling at his very best could do absolutely nothing about Brett Lee's batting at Edgbaston... and that's bowling to a guy who bats at 9!

Piling on the runs is tough.. but if Flintoff can become a top 6 bat (he was not EVER a natural like Gower or Mark Waugh: recent success comes through improving his technique and that's been down to nothing but hard work) then the likes of Kamran Akmal, Bravo, Read and many others should be able to do the same.

If McGrath can get a Test 50... most bowlers can also do that. IF Devon Malcolm can score 100 at ANY level... there's hope for number XIs anywhere.

[djdannybrown]

The Aussies didnt need a allrounder when the likes of McGrath and Warne play.
However the Aussies will need 1 when the old bowlers hang their boots.
Dunno if the Aussies will have a quality allrounder though in the future.