All-Rounders in Test Side

gbatman · 7 Jan 2009, 03:20

Should we really be looking at playing an all-rounder in the test side?

We don't have a deserving all-rounder in the country. IMO an all-rounder should only play test cricket if they are good enough on bowling or batting alone. Symonds has no defence and is an average bowler, Watson is very average at both and McDonald looks to have a massive batting weakness against the short ball although his bowling is quite good and would be dangerous if there was swing (England).

Mitchell Johnson actually looks like our answer. He makes runs and plays his shots as well as being a very good bowler.

IMO we have Johnson and a strong tail. Play a batsmen because the rest are just up to one day cricket and not test cricket.

Thoughts?...

the_socialite · 7 Jan 2009, 03:35

You're on the money with Johnson, the aussies future test all-rounder is right under their nose. I also believe McDonald is worth perservering with and that Symonds is not up to it, and Watson hasn't quite convinced me yet.

D.K · 7 Jan 2009, 04:13

Am going to write up a blog tonight at some time about Australia's all-rounder issue and how it can be solved.

Basically Mitchell Johnson is the answer for us. Confident, straight bat and simple shots that are effective. Not much else more you would want from him, oh yeah he also bowls up around teh 150 clicks.

McDonald was a horrible example of Hidditch actually having no idea with selctions. Yeah he did alright with the ball, but the pitch was that horrible that any grade cricketer could of sent down some slowies at 125km/h and come off effective. He is a handy, servicable medium pacer/middle order batsman for the vic's without setting the competition alight. Not sure if he has scored a domestic ton yet. But he is no Flintoff, Khan, Hadlee, Botham.

gbatman · 7 Jan 2009, 04:42

yep, McDonald doesn't appear to be a test player but would be good in the one day side.

Honestly we don't need an all-rounder, if Johnson continues his form and becomes known as an all-rounder so be it, we will have one. We especially don't need an all-rounder with a strong batting tail like we have.

breeno · 7 Jan 2009, 05:55

IMO if we are going to use Johnson as an All Rounder, they need to spend some nets time with him and get him really batting well.

He's a great bat already, but if they can push his average up to the 30-35 mark, which I believe is possible for him, he will truly become a devastating force in world cricket.

BabyBlues · 7 Jan 2009, 06:24

Symonds when fit and confident is a perfectly suitable Test number 6. Watson would be too. Pity he's rarely fit, and when he is, he's just coming off some major injury and lacks confidence. He showed in India what he can do with the ball, and he is capable of making big scores as well. Unfortunately, I fear he may be a lost cause.

Symonds is still our man, I reckon. Though I don't think he really counts as an allrounder anyway. At least, not any more than Michael Clarke would.

Moises Henriques, of all the young players on the state scene, probably has the most potential as the next Kallis/Flintoff. He is a long way away though, and it has to be said, he has been a little disappointing so far for NSW.

Oh, and also, Johnson might be a very good stroke maker, but he is fairly ordinary in defence. The closest we can reasonably expect him to come to being an allrounder is Vettori status - a bowler that can bat a bit and score a half century every now and then. I think people might be getting a LITTLE carried away by a couple of nice innings that he has played. Remember, he only averages 25 at First Class level. You'd want him to AT LEAST average 30 at First Class level to be considered a genuine allrounder.

grapedo · 7 Jan 2009, 07:24

I think at the moment Johnson is a bowler who bats.

But give him some technical nets sessions and I can see him becoming an all rounder.

Although If Symonds recaptures his form there is no reason not to include as his bowling is handy and he would do an equivalent job to any specialist batsman in the number six role IMO.

gbatman · 7 Jan 2009, 18:10

IMO Symonds has too many weakness' in his batting. He struggles against short bowling, genuine pace and any sideways movement. His bowling is only useful when conditios suite. Symonds attitude isn't good enough, appears he doesn't want it enough and appears he's not willing to do the hard yeards. Almost like he feels "now I have made it i can slack off"...

Watson's batting is no where near good enough. His bowling is just honest seam up and is not even as good as McDonald who can swing the ball and bowl accurate. His body isn't up to test cricket.

Consistancy is the key. Lower order batsmen must be attacking. Johnson is ticking all the boxes here.

Quick Single · 7 Jan 2009, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbatman

yep, McDonald doesn't appear to be a test player but would be good in the one day side.

Honestly we don't need an all-rounder, if Johnson continues his form and becomes known as an all-rounder so be it, we will have one. We especially don't need an all-rounder with a strong batting tail like we have.

Have to agree a bit, we became the best team in the world by picking our best 6 batsman, a keeper and 4 bowlers.
No need to pick an allrounder unless they deserve the spot (although i did think McDonald was okay).
Just pick a team that can keep making 400+ and bowlers who can get through 20 overs a day and we have no problems!!

eddiesmith · 7 Jan 2009, 20:10

Given the inexperience of the bowling attack its not such a bad idea to be playing an allrounder as the 5th bowler and Johnsons batting is a good reason why you can get away with it, rather than play him as an allrounder batting up the order

Macca will do very well in South Africa and England if given the chance and is a much safer bet with bat and a far superior bowler to Symonds