All-Rounders in Test Side - Page 2

gbatman · 8 Jan 2009, 05:51

If there is swing McDonald will find it and be dangerous. The ball comes out of his perfect for an outswinger but his batting has weaknesses. I still don't rate Watson or Symonds although Symonds fielding is good and if his bating and bowling is at his best then he's worth having. I just question Symonds desire and hunger to be in the test side.

grapedo · 11 Jan 2009, 07:37

Symonds is 33 and shouldn't be considered unless he can be batting and bowling brilliantly in first class cricket.

I would prefer Watson over Mcdonald IMO.

Watson is a handy bowler he was the best for Australia in India and made the most of some difficult conditions for seam bowling. He is also a technically sound batsman and has the ability to average 40 + with the bat in test match cricket and under 30 with the ball.

I think Mcdonald would need seamers conditions to help him he certainlw wouldn't have bowled as well as Watson did in India IMO.

BabyBlues · 11 Jan 2009, 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by grapedo

Symonds is 33 and shouldn't be considered unless he can be batting and bowling brilliantly in first class cricket.

I would prefer Watson over Mcdonald IMO.

Watson is a handy bowler he was the best for Australia in India and made the most of some difficult conditions for seam bowling. He is also a technically sound batsman and has the ability to average 40 + with the bat in test match cricket and under 30 with the ball.

I think Mcdonald would need seamers conditions to help him he certainlw wouldn't have bowled as well as Watson did in India IMO.

Change that to over 35 with the bat and under 35 with the ball, and you might be close. He doesn't have the ability of Kallis, for instance, and even Flintoff averages about 32 with both bat and ball.

gbatman · 11 Jan 2009, 18:31

He was one of the best in a B+ grade team, his bowling is very basic, simple seam up and hope for the best. In india he was the only bowler who could hit the seam as Lee failed and Johnson bowls off cutters. Had Siddle played he would have done miles better than Watson as a bowler. Watson's batting is only good if the wicket is a road. He's just nothing special with the bat. He is not good enough to play test cricket on his batting or bowling alone which makes me question if he should be in the side at all...

**a for effort** · 11 Jan 2009, 21:48

I think the best way forward for the time being is a spinning all-rounder and Haddin at 6/7, then 4 fast bowlers. There are a number of solid batsmen (North, D.Hussey, Voges to new a few) that could do an equal job to Hauritz with the ball, and I can't see McDonald being effective unless the pitch is a green-top (England?) or a mine-field.

grapedo · 11 Jan 2009, 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by BabyBlues

Change that to over 35 with the bat and under 35 with the ball, and you might be close. He doesn't have the ability of Kallis, for instance, and even Flintoff averages about 32 with both bat and ball.

Yeah okay will do mate.

Kallis is the best all rounder the game has seen IMO.

**a for effort** · 11 Jan 2009, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by grapedo

Yeah okay will do mate.

Kallis is the best all rounder the game has seen IMO.

Sir Garfield would like to have a word with you

**breeno** · 11 Jan 2009, 22:13

I rate Kallis as high as Sir Garfield.

grapedo · 11 Jan 2009, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by breeno

I rate Kallis as high as Sir Garfield.

Yeah me too.

I think he is a better bowler as well.

Kallis is definitley a genuine all rounder he could be selected in an nternational team fro his bowling if he couldn't bat and his batting if he couldn't bowl.

That is always a good indicater.