The 2014 has shown England's inability of shake off the lure of all rounders by bringing in Moeen Ali at number six... and the spinner. The perennial all rounder problem has emerged - how do we judge his success? His already shown form with the bat, scoring a century... but people are whingeing about his ability to take wickets with the ball.
What is Ali's role in the team? Strike spin bowler? Batter? A bit of both? How do we know if he's pulling his weight?
I do think it was a good idea to bring in a second all rounder - Stokes - to support him at eight. This reduces pressure on Ali and Stokes to score runs and take wickets.
But Ali is the only spinner, which feels unfair. I think it's going to be a mess and England should bring in a specialist.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Tony Cozier - paid up member of All Rounder Press Mafia
Tony Cozier, perhaps the best known West Indian cricket writer of all time, has shown himself to be a paid up member of the all-rounder press mafia with this piece bemoaning the lack of an allrounder in West Indies cricket.
West Indies cricket lacks a lot of things at the moment - opening batsmen, regularly performing top level batsmen and bowlers, decent fielders, consistency... and Cozier wants to add "all rounders" to the list. Like Shane Watson, Australia's erratic all rounder, or Ben Stokes, who made such a crucial contribution to England's four nil loss.
The West Indies became the greatest team in the world in the 80s without an all rounder. They had batsmen who could roll their arm over with the ball (eg Viv Richards) and bowlers who were handy with a bat (eg Malcolm Marshall).
They don't need an all rounder. No one does. Stop talking about the "all rounder" position like it's a given!
West Indies cricket lacks a lot of things at the moment - opening batsmen, regularly performing top level batsmen and bowlers, decent fielders, consistency... and Cozier wants to add "all rounders" to the list. Like Shane Watson, Australia's erratic all rounder, or Ben Stokes, who made such a crucial contribution to England's four nil loss.
The West Indies became the greatest team in the world in the 80s without an all rounder. They had batsmen who could roll their arm over with the ball (eg Viv Richards) and bowlers who were handy with a bat (eg Malcolm Marshall).
They don't need an all rounder. No one does. Stop talking about the "all rounder" position like it's a given!
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Case Study: Ian Botham
Having a look at the test match career of Ian Botham, one of the 70s and 80s greatest all rounders - scourge of Australia.
First Tests Against Australia
His first two tests (against Australia) England won. Botham played both in concert with other all rounders: Miller and Greig, then just Tony Greig.
Playing New Zealand & Pakistan
His next test against New Zealand, England lost - Botham played alongside Miller but with only four specialist batsmen and four specialist bowlers, meaning the tail was very long.
For the next tests, England dropped a bowler and brought in a specialist batsman, played Botham and Miller - and won then drew.
England then kept the two all rounders formula (Miller and Botham) going against Pakistan, which they won, then won, then drew (a rain-shortened game). And against New Zealand where they won, and won. They also won the next game, which didn't have Miller - it had Botham at six and four specialists. Well one of those specialists was John Emburey, who was a very handy batter.
1978-79 vs Australia
England kept the Botham-Miller combo though for all the tests in Australia which England won 5-1 - a win, win, loss, win, win, win.
1979 vs India
Then against India the firm of Botham-Miller saw England win, draw, and draw. Miller was replaced as the second all rounder by Peter Willey for the fourth test, which England drew.
1979-80 vs Australia and India
England came down a bit for the 79-80 test series against Australia, which they lost 3-0. The first test featured Miller and Botham... and Willey, meaning England had only four specialist batsmen. They lost. Miller didn't return for the second test, but just Willey and Botham saw England lose again. Ditto for the third test. However a combination of Botham and Emburey saw England triumph against India on the way home.
Botham as Captain - the West Indies and Australia
Botham was then appointed captain of the side and had to face the West Indies, at the time the greatest team in the world. For the first test, England used the Willey-Botham combination and the West Indies prevailed.... but only by two wickets. Then there was a draw, draw, draw, draw - not bad against the best team in the world (for all the criticism heaped on Botham's captaincy).
The second Centenary Test against Australia used Willey and Botham and saw another draw.
Then it was touring the West Indies. For the first test England picked only four specialist batsmen, plus Miller, Botham, Willey and Emburey, and lost badly. The second test was cancelled; they dropped Miller and went for five specialists plus Willey-Botham for the third test, and again lost but then drew the fourth test and the fifth.
1981 Ashes: Losing the Captaincy
Botham was kept as captain for the 1981 series against Australia. The combination of Willey-Botham couldn't stop England from losing the first test but they drew the second. Botham was axed as captain, replaced by Brearley, but kept as a player.
He and Willey featured in the famous victory in the third test and fourth test. Willey was dropped for the 5th test with Botham playing as a bowling all rounder and using six specialist batsmen - England won. This formation was kept for the drawn sixth test.
1981-82 vs India and Sri Lanka and Pakistan
England's next tour was in India. The Botham-Emburey combination was used for the first test, which England lost. The next three tests used Botham and six batters, resulting in a draw then a draw, then a draw.
Then the selectors flipped things on the head and used Botham, four bowlers and five batters, resulting in a draw then Botham-Embrey for the final game, another draw. The firm of Botham-Emburey also helped beat Sri Lanka.
Home against India, England went with a Botham-Derek Pringle combination, and won. The second test used Botham-Pringle-Miller and only two specialist bowlers, and resulted in a draw. Botham-Pringle alone for the third test was a draw.
Also that summer England played Pakistan. For the first test they went with Botham, Pringle and Ian Greig as all rounders, and only two specialist bowlers - and won. They kept this formation for the second test and were thrashed. However a combination of six batsman, Botham and a new all rounder Vick Marks, and two specialists, saw England win the third test.
1982/83 Ashes
In Australia for the 82/83 summer, England played the first test with three all rounders, Botham, Miller and Pringle, and two specialist bowlers, and drew. They went with a more conventional 5-2-1-3 formula for the second test, with Botham and Miller, and lost. The third test they added Pringle and went back to 5-3-1-2 and still lost but kept the faith with this combination and won the 4th test. Pringle went and it was back to 5-2-1-3 for the final fifth drawn test.
1983 vs New Zealand
The English summer of 1983 saw Botham up against New Zealand. For the first test he was teamed with Vic Marks, and England won. However Marks wasn't in the team for the second test, being replaced by a specialist bowler, meaning England went in 5-1-1-4... and lost.
But this combination was successful in the third test which England won. For the 4th test England went with six batters, Botham and three specialists - and won.
Unable to make up their mind, the selectors put Botham back to six and went with four specialist bowlers in the next test, against the Black Caps in New Zealand, which was drawn. They changed it again for the next test, with six specialist batsmen, Botham and three specialist bowlers - and lost. The third test saw a third different combination, 5-2-1-3, with Botham and Marks as the all rounders. England drew and lost the series.
1983 vs Pakistan
England kept Botham and Marks and a 5-2-1-3 combo against Pakistan, and narrowly lost. He was injured for the other two games of the series.
1984 vs West Indies and Sri Lanka
1984 saw England against the West Indies, then at their peak, and lose every test. For the first game they used three all rounders, Botham, Pringle and Miller, and lost. This combination (5-3-1-2) was kept for the second test, another defeat. They went with a more traditional arrangement, 5-2-1-3 (Botham and Pringle) for the third test, but still lost.
For the fourth test they moved things around again, playing just Botham as an all rounder and four specialist bowlers (5-1-1-4) - and lost. Then for the final test they once more adjusted the mix, playing six batsmen and three specialist bowlers and Botham - and still lost.
England's selectors of the early 80s were among the worst in history.
A one off test against Sri Lanka saw Botham played at number six without an all rounder and with four bowlers - it was a draw.
1985 Ashes
This series was a rare bright spot for England in the mid 80s, thumping an Australian team weakened by defections to South Africa and their own selectors dogged insistence of playing Simon O'Donnell as a fourth bowler. The old firm of Botham and Peter Willey united for the first test, which England won. Willey didn't return for the second test, which saw Botham and Emburey as the all rounders (if you could call Emburey one) - England lost. This combination was reused for the third test, a draw, the fourth test, another draw, the fifth, a massive victory, and the sixth, another big win.
It was England's most successful run in a long time.
1985-86 vs West Indies
They were brought back down to Earth against the West Indies while on tour. Botham and Willey were retunited for the first test, which was a defeat. The next test England only picked four specialist batsmen, using Willey, Botham and Emburey as all rounders - they lost. This combination was persevered with for the next test, another defeat. The next test was more conventional - five batsmen, Willey and Botham, and Emburey. But it didn't work and England lost again. The selectors showed their inclination to tinker again and for the final test picked six batsmen, plus Botham and Emburey. Another loss.
Botham was out of the team until a match against New Zealand, where he batted at six in concert with Emburey - it was a draw.
1986-87 Ashes
Australia once again offered redemption. Botham batted at number six throughout the summer, with Emburey and de Freitas in support. England were triumphant in the first test, drew the second and the third (which Botham missed), won the fourth, lost the fifth.
1987 vs Pakistan
England kept this combination that summer against Pakistan - five batters, Botham and Emburey - for the first test, which was drawn. So was the second test. For the third test Emburey was replaced by another all rounder, David Capel; England went with a 5-2-1-3 combination, and were thrashed. Emburey was back in Capel's place for the drawn fourth test and drawn fifth test.
1989 vs Australia
Botham was out of the English team for a while. He came back against Australia in 1989, reunited with Emburey in a 5-2-1-3 combination for the 3rd test, which was drawn. In the fourth test, England lost badly. So England's selectors, according to form, tinkered with the line up and played only one all rounder, five specialist batsmen and four bowlers. They lost.
Final Tests
Botham was next in the side for the 5th test against the West Indies. Playing along side Chris Lewis in a 5-2-1-3 combination, England pulled off a victory. This combination was also successful against Sri Lanka.
Botham then played a test against New Zealand in 5-2-1-3 concert with Dermot Reeve, which resulted in a draw.
His last two tests were against Pakistan. In the first England played six batters, then Pringle, Botham and Lewis.... They drew. His final match saw him with Lewis in a 5-2-1-3 combination, which England narrowly lost.
Conclusions
So what to make of the above? Yes, it covered a long period of time and an awful lot happened... but can any conclusions be drawn?
First, on the whole, Botham clearly worked best in concert with another all rounder - but only one all rounder, especially Willey and Miller. These were his teammates during the late 70s, when England and Botham were at their peak. He also had some success with Emburey, Marks and Pringle.
The reason is, I think, because Botham was a bits and pieces all rounder. He was probably the greatest bits and pieces all rounder in the history of the game... but a bits and pieces one nonetheless. His batting was never good enough to justify him a spot in the top six on the basis of batting alone; his bowling never good enough to consistently justify being picked in the bottom four. A Willey or Miller would compensate for him.
Secondly, England's selectors in the 1980s were appalling. Instead of picking two all rounders as they did for most of the 70s and early 80s, they constantly tinkered: one all rounder, two all rounders, three. They chopped and changed captains, and the wicketkeeper (who is the heart and soul of any decent side). Its like they were constantly trying to find a short cut instead of picking players and showing faith - five batters, a keeper, two all rounders, and three bowlers.
Botham won England so many test matches with the bat and ball. Had the selectors been better though other players may have won more.
First Tests Against Australia
His first two tests (against Australia) England won. Botham played both in concert with other all rounders: Miller and Greig, then just Tony Greig.
Playing New Zealand & Pakistan
His next test against New Zealand, England lost - Botham played alongside Miller but with only four specialist batsmen and four specialist bowlers, meaning the tail was very long.
For the next tests, England dropped a bowler and brought in a specialist batsman, played Botham and Miller - and won then drew.
England then kept the two all rounders formula (Miller and Botham) going against Pakistan, which they won, then won, then drew (a rain-shortened game). And against New Zealand where they won, and won. They also won the next game, which didn't have Miller - it had Botham at six and four specialists. Well one of those specialists was John Emburey, who was a very handy batter.
1978-79 vs Australia
England kept the Botham-Miller combo though for all the tests in Australia which England won 5-1 - a win, win, loss, win, win, win.
1979 vs India
Then against India the firm of Botham-Miller saw England win, draw, and draw. Miller was replaced as the second all rounder by Peter Willey for the fourth test, which England drew.
1979-80 vs Australia and India
England came down a bit for the 79-80 test series against Australia, which they lost 3-0. The first test featured Miller and Botham... and Willey, meaning England had only four specialist batsmen. They lost. Miller didn't return for the second test, but just Willey and Botham saw England lose again. Ditto for the third test. However a combination of Botham and Emburey saw England triumph against India on the way home.
Botham as Captain - the West Indies and Australia
Botham was then appointed captain of the side and had to face the West Indies, at the time the greatest team in the world. For the first test, England used the Willey-Botham combination and the West Indies prevailed.... but only by two wickets. Then there was a draw, draw, draw, draw - not bad against the best team in the world (for all the criticism heaped on Botham's captaincy).
The second Centenary Test against Australia used Willey and Botham and saw another draw.
Then it was touring the West Indies. For the first test England picked only four specialist batsmen, plus Miller, Botham, Willey and Emburey, and lost badly. The second test was cancelled; they dropped Miller and went for five specialists plus Willey-Botham for the third test, and again lost but then drew the fourth test and the fifth.
1981 Ashes: Losing the Captaincy
Botham was kept as captain for the 1981 series against Australia. The combination of Willey-Botham couldn't stop England from losing the first test but they drew the second. Botham was axed as captain, replaced by Brearley, but kept as a player.
He and Willey featured in the famous victory in the third test and fourth test. Willey was dropped for the 5th test with Botham playing as a bowling all rounder and using six specialist batsmen - England won. This formation was kept for the drawn sixth test.
1981-82 vs India and Sri Lanka and Pakistan
England's next tour was in India. The Botham-Emburey combination was used for the first test, which England lost. The next three tests used Botham and six batters, resulting in a draw then a draw, then a draw.
Then the selectors flipped things on the head and used Botham, four bowlers and five batters, resulting in a draw then Botham-Embrey for the final game, another draw. The firm of Botham-Emburey also helped beat Sri Lanka.
Home against India, England went with a Botham-Derek Pringle combination, and won. The second test used Botham-Pringle-Miller and only two specialist bowlers, and resulted in a draw. Botham-Pringle alone for the third test was a draw.
Also that summer England played Pakistan. For the first test they went with Botham, Pringle and Ian Greig as all rounders, and only two specialist bowlers - and won. They kept this formation for the second test and were thrashed. However a combination of six batsman, Botham and a new all rounder Vick Marks, and two specialists, saw England win the third test.
1982/83 Ashes
In Australia for the 82/83 summer, England played the first test with three all rounders, Botham, Miller and Pringle, and two specialist bowlers, and drew. They went with a more conventional 5-2-1-3 formula for the second test, with Botham and Miller, and lost. The third test they added Pringle and went back to 5-3-1-2 and still lost but kept the faith with this combination and won the 4th test. Pringle went and it was back to 5-2-1-3 for the final fifth drawn test.
1983 vs New Zealand
The English summer of 1983 saw Botham up against New Zealand. For the first test he was teamed with Vic Marks, and England won. However Marks wasn't in the team for the second test, being replaced by a specialist bowler, meaning England went in 5-1-1-4... and lost.
But this combination was successful in the third test which England won. For the 4th test England went with six batters, Botham and three specialists - and won.
Unable to make up their mind, the selectors put Botham back to six and went with four specialist bowlers in the next test, against the Black Caps in New Zealand, which was drawn. They changed it again for the next test, with six specialist batsmen, Botham and three specialist bowlers - and lost. The third test saw a third different combination, 5-2-1-3, with Botham and Marks as the all rounders. England drew and lost the series.
1983 vs Pakistan
England kept Botham and Marks and a 5-2-1-3 combo against Pakistan, and narrowly lost. He was injured for the other two games of the series.
1984 vs West Indies and Sri Lanka
1984 saw England against the West Indies, then at their peak, and lose every test. For the first game they used three all rounders, Botham, Pringle and Miller, and lost. This combination (5-3-1-2) was kept for the second test, another defeat. They went with a more traditional arrangement, 5-2-1-3 (Botham and Pringle) for the third test, but still lost.
For the fourth test they moved things around again, playing just Botham as an all rounder and four specialist bowlers (5-1-1-4) - and lost. Then for the final test they once more adjusted the mix, playing six batsmen and three specialist bowlers and Botham - and still lost.
England's selectors of the early 80s were among the worst in history.
A one off test against Sri Lanka saw Botham played at number six without an all rounder and with four bowlers - it was a draw.
1985 Ashes
This series was a rare bright spot for England in the mid 80s, thumping an Australian team weakened by defections to South Africa and their own selectors dogged insistence of playing Simon O'Donnell as a fourth bowler. The old firm of Botham and Peter Willey united for the first test, which England won. Willey didn't return for the second test, which saw Botham and Emburey as the all rounders (if you could call Emburey one) - England lost. This combination was reused for the third test, a draw, the fourth test, another draw, the fifth, a massive victory, and the sixth, another big win.
It was England's most successful run in a long time.
1985-86 vs West Indies
They were brought back down to Earth against the West Indies while on tour. Botham and Willey were retunited for the first test, which was a defeat. The next test England only picked four specialist batsmen, using Willey, Botham and Emburey as all rounders - they lost. This combination was persevered with for the next test, another defeat. The next test was more conventional - five batsmen, Willey and Botham, and Emburey. But it didn't work and England lost again. The selectors showed their inclination to tinker again and for the final test picked six batsmen, plus Botham and Emburey. Another loss.
Botham was out of the team until a match against New Zealand, where he batted at six in concert with Emburey - it was a draw.
1986-87 Ashes
Australia once again offered redemption. Botham batted at number six throughout the summer, with Emburey and de Freitas in support. England were triumphant in the first test, drew the second and the third (which Botham missed), won the fourth, lost the fifth.
1987 vs Pakistan
England kept this combination that summer against Pakistan - five batters, Botham and Emburey - for the first test, which was drawn. So was the second test. For the third test Emburey was replaced by another all rounder, David Capel; England went with a 5-2-1-3 combination, and were thrashed. Emburey was back in Capel's place for the drawn fourth test and drawn fifth test.
1989 vs Australia
Botham was out of the English team for a while. He came back against Australia in 1989, reunited with Emburey in a 5-2-1-3 combination for the 3rd test, which was drawn. In the fourth test, England lost badly. So England's selectors, according to form, tinkered with the line up and played only one all rounder, five specialist batsmen and four bowlers. They lost.
Final Tests
Botham was next in the side for the 5th test against the West Indies. Playing along side Chris Lewis in a 5-2-1-3 combination, England pulled off a victory. This combination was also successful against Sri Lanka.
Botham then played a test against New Zealand in 5-2-1-3 concert with Dermot Reeve, which resulted in a draw.
His last two tests were against Pakistan. In the first England played six batters, then Pringle, Botham and Lewis.... They drew. His final match saw him with Lewis in a 5-2-1-3 combination, which England narrowly lost.
Conclusions
So what to make of the above? Yes, it covered a long period of time and an awful lot happened... but can any conclusions be drawn?
First, on the whole, Botham clearly worked best in concert with another all rounder - but only one all rounder, especially Willey and Miller. These were his teammates during the late 70s, when England and Botham were at their peak. He also had some success with Emburey, Marks and Pringle.
The reason is, I think, because Botham was a bits and pieces all rounder. He was probably the greatest bits and pieces all rounder in the history of the game... but a bits and pieces one nonetheless. His batting was never good enough to justify him a spot in the top six on the basis of batting alone; his bowling never good enough to consistently justify being picked in the bottom four. A Willey or Miller would compensate for him.
Secondly, England's selectors in the 1980s were appalling. Instead of picking two all rounders as they did for most of the 70s and early 80s, they constantly tinkered: one all rounder, two all rounders, three. They chopped and changed captains, and the wicketkeeper (who is the heart and soul of any decent side). Its like they were constantly trying to find a short cut instead of picking players and showing faith - five batters, a keeper, two all rounders, and three bowlers.
Botham won England so many test matches with the bat and ball. Had the selectors been better though other players may have won more.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Case Study: England v Australia 1990-91
England's cricket selectors of the 80s and 90s always seemed to try to squeeze an extra player in the team: promoting batsmen to keepers, adding a fifth bowler or a seventh batsman. Picking six batters, a keeper and four bowlers was too hard for them. They simply could not do it.
The Ashes team of 90-91 is a case in point. It wasn't a bad side: you had Gooch, Smith, Gower, Lamb, Fraser, Tufnell, Atheron, Malcolm, Russell. Those are good players. Yes, Malcolm and Tufnell are comic as well, but they could also win matches.
But the selectors never had faith in batsmen to bat, bowlers to bowl and keepers to keep. They kept trying to take shortcuts.
In the first test they went with a 6-1-1-3 formation - Russell was kept as keeper but Chris Lewis, the allrounder, played at eight. England lost.
For the second test they swapped Lewis for Phil de Freitas, who occasionally the press tried to claim was an all rounder but with a first class batting average of 22, it's a doubtful call, notwithstanding the centuries he chalked up. England used a 6-1-4 formation... and lost.
For the third test they swapped de Freitas for Gladstone Small, but kept the 6-1-4 formation.... and what do you know? They almost one. They batted extremely well in their firs innings, had Australia on the ropes until we were rescued by Rackemann's 9 runs off 102 balls. Australia had retained the Ashes.
Then came the game against Qld and the Tiger Moth incident - although England won the game and should have been feeling positive, and still had two tests to go, they had an attack of the sillies.
England had been rattled by its failure to get out Rackemann in the 3rd test so for the 4th test they added an extra bowler, making way by replacing Russell as keeper with Stewart. England ended up drawing the same - they'd been set 472 to win and were making a decent go of it before running out of time.
This encouraged them to stick with their silly 5-1-5 formation for the 5th test, which they lost.
This shouldn't have been a miserable tour for England - several players were in form, Australia weren't that awesome. I don't think they would have won it had they simply stuck with 6-1-4 formation. But they would have done a hell of a lot better.
The Ashes team of 90-91 is a case in point. It wasn't a bad side: you had Gooch, Smith, Gower, Lamb, Fraser, Tufnell, Atheron, Malcolm, Russell. Those are good players. Yes, Malcolm and Tufnell are comic as well, but they could also win matches.
But the selectors never had faith in batsmen to bat, bowlers to bowl and keepers to keep. They kept trying to take shortcuts.
In the first test they went with a 6-1-1-3 formation - Russell was kept as keeper but Chris Lewis, the allrounder, played at eight. England lost.
For the second test they swapped Lewis for Phil de Freitas, who occasionally the press tried to claim was an all rounder but with a first class batting average of 22, it's a doubtful call, notwithstanding the centuries he chalked up. England used a 6-1-4 formation... and lost.
For the third test they swapped de Freitas for Gladstone Small, but kept the 6-1-4 formation.... and what do you know? They almost one. They batted extremely well in their firs innings, had Australia on the ropes until we were rescued by Rackemann's 9 runs off 102 balls. Australia had retained the Ashes.
Then came the game against Qld and the Tiger Moth incident - although England won the game and should have been feeling positive, and still had two tests to go, they had an attack of the sillies.
England had been rattled by its failure to get out Rackemann in the 3rd test so for the 4th test they added an extra bowler, making way by replacing Russell as keeper with Stewart. England ended up drawing the same - they'd been set 472 to win and were making a decent go of it before running out of time.
This encouraged them to stick with their silly 5-1-5 formation for the 5th test, which they lost.
This shouldn't have been a miserable tour for England - several players were in form, Australia weren't that awesome. I don't think they would have won it had they simply stuck with 6-1-4 formation. But they would have done a hell of a lot better.
Friday, February 21, 2014
De Villiers dropping Watson
A.B. De Villiers is probably the best batsman in the world at the moment. And he keeps wickets. South African selectors are no doubt high fiving at this ability for them to play seven batters.
And having a wicketkeeper who averages over 50 is a wonderful thing.
But he dropped Dave Warner on 43 - a simple chance that a specialist keeper would have taken. How many runs will this cost them?
It's time we started keeping stats for runs caused by dropped catches.
And having a wicketkeeper who averages over 50 is a wonderful thing.
But he dropped Dave Warner on 43 - a simple chance that a specialist keeper would have taken. How many runs will this cost them?
It's time we started keeping stats for runs caused by dropped catches.
5th bowler lust
South Africa's batsmen have scored a healthy total against Australia in the 2nd test - the healthiest against Australia's bowlers for some time. Accordingly, panic buttons have been pressed "We love five bowlers as we've always said," claimed Lehmann, in discussions about Shane Watson coming back.
Now Rogers is in poor form and the jury is still out on Doolan and Marsh as long term (please notice that word, long term) test players, so there is a very good place for Watson to come back as a batter.
But if he comes back, please let it be as a batter who bowls and not a bowler.
Incidentally, Smith, Clarke and Warner offered fine bit part support in the first innings. The art of bit part bowling is underrated.
Now Rogers is in poor form and the jury is still out on Doolan and Marsh as long term (please notice that word, long term) test players, so there is a very good place for Watson to come back as a batter.
But if he comes back, please let it be as a batter who bowls and not a bowler.
Incidentally, Smith, Clarke and Warner offered fine bit part support in the first innings. The art of bit part bowling is underrated.
Case Study: England vs India 1996
In 1996 England played India in a 3 match test series and won 1-0.
England used all rounders during this series but crucially they employed two in every test, using a 5-2-1-3 formation.
The first test, which England won, used Irani and Chris Lewis - plus Dominic Cork (who the press tried to turn into an all rounder) as a handy tail ender.
This combination was used for the second test, which was a draw. Ealham replaced Irani for the third test, another draw.
While England's one-allrounder policy often seems to result in defeat, playing two all rounders works better.
England used all rounders during this series but crucially they employed two in every test, using a 5-2-1-3 formation.
The first test, which England won, used Irani and Chris Lewis - plus Dominic Cork (who the press tried to turn into an all rounder) as a handy tail ender.
This combination was used for the second test, which was a draw. Ealham replaced Irani for the third test, another draw.
While England's one-allrounder policy often seems to result in defeat, playing two all rounders works better.
Case Study: England vs New Zealand 1999
1999 holds a special place in the heart of Kiwi cricket fans - the year their team beat the Poms in a series. This saw England ranked as the worst team in the world.
It was one of the rare times in the 90s England tried a 6-1-4 combination. For most of the series, anyway.
That's what they used in the first test. Mullaly and Tufnell meant the tail was long but it was a good enough combination to beat New Zealand (a side jam packed full of all-rounders or kind-of all-rounders: Cairns, Astle, Nash, Vettori).
England kept to a 6-1-4 combination for the second test, which they lost, and the third test, which they drew.
England clearly had problems - their bowling was lacklustre and their batting prone to collapse.
For the fourth test, as so often was England's want, the selectors panicked and resorted to all-rounders. They dropped a batsman, dropped Chris Read as keeper and replaced him with Alec Stewart, and brought in Ronnie Irani as the all rounder. Batting weakened, wicketkeeper position stuffed around with, the bowling not particularly strengthened.
England lost the test and the series. The all-rounder policy had yet again failed. Not that anyone seemed to notice.
It was one of the rare times in the 90s England tried a 6-1-4 combination. For most of the series, anyway.
That's what they used in the first test. Mullaly and Tufnell meant the tail was long but it was a good enough combination to beat New Zealand (a side jam packed full of all-rounders or kind-of all-rounders: Cairns, Astle, Nash, Vettori).
England kept to a 6-1-4 combination for the second test, which they lost, and the third test, which they drew.
England clearly had problems - their bowling was lacklustre and their batting prone to collapse.
For the fourth test, as so often was England's want, the selectors panicked and resorted to all-rounders. They dropped a batsman, dropped Chris Read as keeper and replaced him with Alec Stewart, and brought in Ronnie Irani as the all rounder. Batting weakened, wicketkeeper position stuffed around with, the bowling not particularly strengthened.
England lost the test and the series. The all-rounder policy had yet again failed. Not that anyone seemed to notice.
Monday, February 17, 2014
A note on Keith Miller
Keith Miller is recognised as one of Australia's greatest, if not greatest, all rounder - someone capable of opening the bowling and batting in the top six. And having sex with a lot of women.
But did he unbalance the team?
From 1946 to early 1952, Miller's test batting average was, for the most part, comfortably above 40. During that period Australia easily beat India, England twice, South Africa and the West Indies.
Over the 1952-53 test series against South Africa, Miller's batting average dropped to 40. It then fell into the 30s and never climbed out.
During that time Australia drew against South Africa, lost twice to England, beat the West Indies and lost to Pakistan.
Miller's bowling remained top quality - his average was never greater than 23.25 - but his batting had clearly slipped. Yet they insisted on playing him in the top six. And Australia would lose.
This is how even the greatest all rounders can unbalance a side.
But did he unbalance the team?
From 1946 to early 1952, Miller's test batting average was, for the most part, comfortably above 40. During that period Australia easily beat India, England twice, South Africa and the West Indies.
Over the 1952-53 test series against South Africa, Miller's batting average dropped to 40. It then fell into the 30s and never climbed out.
During that time Australia drew against South Africa, lost twice to England, beat the West Indies and lost to Pakistan.
Miller's bowling remained top quality - his average was never greater than 23.25 - but his batting had clearly slipped. Yet they insisted on playing him in the top six. And Australia would lose.
This is how even the greatest all rounders can unbalance a side.
Case study: Richie Benaud
Was Richie Benaud an all rounder?
At first class level definitely: averaging 36 with the bat, 24 with the ball. Incredible figures.
But at test level he averaged only 24 with the bat, and 27 with the ball. He never averaged over 25. with the bat.
Despite three centuries, that surely makes him a handly tail order batsman rather than a test quality allrounder?
At first class level definitely: averaging 36 with the bat, 24 with the ball. Incredible figures.
But at test level he averaged only 24 with the bat, and 27 with the ball. He never averaged over 25. with the bat.
Despite three centuries, that surely makes him a handly tail order batsman rather than a test quality allrounder?
Saturday, February 15, 2014
South Africa vs Australia 1st Test 2014
South Africa have just been thrashed by Australia.
The Australian side featured six specialist batsmen, a wicketkeeper batsmen, and four specialists.
The South African side featured a wicketkeeper who averages over 50 in tests, a bowling all rounder in McLaren, and a spinner who is a useful batter in Peterson (I can't really classify Peterson has an all rounder - he averages 25 with the bat and 32 with the ball at FC level).
I think they've used allrounder maths - five batsmen plus a batsman keeper plus a bowling all rounder and useful batting spinner and three fast bowlers equals more than six specialists, a keeper and four specialists.
The all rounder lobby will no doubt argue that "well Australia had Mitchell Johnson and South Africa don't have Mitchell Johnson so they need the extra bowling option, you know in case one of them gets injured".
But South Africa have Steyn, Morkel and Philander, who are all awesome.
What they don't have is a decent spinner so instead they've got a spinner who can at least bat a bit and another bowling option in McLaren who can at least bat a bit.
They've tied themselves up in a bit of a selection puzzle. How do you judge McLaren's performance? All he's required to do is score a couple of runs and take a couple of wickets. Ditto Peterson.
It's going to be very stressful for the Saffas. It was easier with Kallis because his spot in the side was justified by his batting alone - the bowling was this glorious extra option.
They don't have Kallis anymore. Which on one hand will give them an excuse for every test they lose from now on - "oh we don't have Kallis, balance, balance" - but also means they are going to wrap their heads in knots as they figure out how to replace him.
Jarrod Kimber, a cricket writer who is not a member of the pro-all rounder lobby, wrote this earlier today:
You know what South Africa should do? Pick six specialist batsman, make de Villiers one of them, choose a specialist keeper who is handy with the bat and a good team man, and pick four specialist bowlers.
It is the simplest, easiest way - you don't have to resort to tricky formulas and equations.
But when you've been brought up on the exploits of Kallis, Tony Greig, Shaun Pollock, Clive Rice, Trevor Goddard, Tiger Barlow, Mike Procter, Brian McMillan and Lance Klusener, the all rounder addiction is a hard one to shake.
The Australian side featured six specialist batsmen, a wicketkeeper batsmen, and four specialists.
The South African side featured a wicketkeeper who averages over 50 in tests, a bowling all rounder in McLaren, and a spinner who is a useful batter in Peterson (I can't really classify Peterson has an all rounder - he averages 25 with the bat and 32 with the ball at FC level).
I think they've used allrounder maths - five batsmen plus a batsman keeper plus a bowling all rounder and useful batting spinner and three fast bowlers equals more than six specialists, a keeper and four specialists.
The all rounder lobby will no doubt argue that "well Australia had Mitchell Johnson and South Africa don't have Mitchell Johnson so they need the extra bowling option, you know in case one of them gets injured".
But South Africa have Steyn, Morkel and Philander, who are all awesome.
What they don't have is a decent spinner so instead they've got a spinner who can at least bat a bit and another bowling option in McLaren who can at least bat a bit.
They've tied themselves up in a bit of a selection puzzle. How do you judge McLaren's performance? All he's required to do is score a couple of runs and take a couple of wickets. Ditto Peterson.
It's going to be very stressful for the Saffas. It was easier with Kallis because his spot in the side was justified by his batting alone - the bowling was this glorious extra option.
They don't have Kallis anymore. Which on one hand will give them an excuse for every test they lose from now on - "oh we don't have Kallis, balance, balance" - but also means they are going to wrap their heads in knots as they figure out how to replace him.
Jarrod Kimber, a cricket writer who is not a member of the pro-all rounder lobby, wrote this earlier today:
South Africa love allrounders. They love them more than any other
country, and they provide more than any other country. And they lost a
king.
But they couldn't replace him with a king. Sure they could have tried
someone like Obus Pinaar, to see if he was the next chosen one (a double
century in first-class cricket and a bowling average of 24.16 bowling
left-arm quick). But they didn't take the chance with him.
Instead they replaced Kallis with two allrounders: McLaren at No. 7, Robin Peterson
at No. 8. Two players who have done all they can to get the most out
of themselves, who can provide in many different ways. But they aren't
proper Test allrounders. Peterson is not strong enough to bat at seven
consistently and in 15 Tests he has taken 38 wickets at 37.26. McLaren
has only three first-class three hundreds from 100 matches. He has
bowling talent, but he is not in the best five seam bowlers in South
Africa.
They are both bandaids over the open Kallis wound. Carrying a partially
covered wound is not the way to play Mitchell Johnson.
You know what South Africa should do? Pick six specialist batsman, make de Villiers one of them, choose a specialist keeper who is handy with the bat and a good team man, and pick four specialist bowlers.
It is the simplest, easiest way - you don't have to resort to tricky formulas and equations.
But when you've been brought up on the exploits of Kallis, Tony Greig, Shaun Pollock, Clive Rice, Trevor Goddard, Tiger Barlow, Mike Procter, Brian McMillan and Lance Klusener, the all rounder addiction is a hard one to shake.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Case study: Henriques and Maxwell in India in 2013
When Australia's squad to tour India in 2013 was announced my first thought was "is this some kind of joke?" It included Glen Maxwell and Moises Henriques, two bits and pieces players who were just establishing themselves in the one day squad but hadn't really set the world on fire. But it was unclear if Watson could bowl any more and Mitchell Marsh and Andrew McDonald was injured, and Dan Christian hadn't had a good season, and the selectors were desperate - desperate - that the team have an all rounder.
"We feel there's a great need to have an allrounder there" said John Inverarity, despite the fact Australia became the world's best side without one.
As Jarrod Kimber put it about Henriques, "First class wise, his batting was rooted in the handy half-century. His bowling seemed to lose all venom as he veered into bowling straight medium deliveries that even club cricketers don't fear. In List A he became a rare wicket-taker who could be fairly economical. As a batsman he barely made a mark at all"
Nonetheless Henriques was picked in the first two tour games, taking 4-12 in the first and making useful runs in the second. This was enough encouragement for Australia to pick him in the first test, batting at seven after Wade, Australia using a 5-1-1-4 formula. Byron Coverdale at Cricinfo said he took "the allrounders' position" as if such a thing was a given.
Australia batted poorly and didn't bowl much better and lost the game. Henriques had been picked mostly for his bowling but actually batted well, scoring two fifties - meaning we were stuck with him for the next few tests.
The selectors decided to boost the batting in the second test - not by doing something like, picking an actual specialist batsman (Smith was in the squad), but they chose another all rounder, Glenn Maxwell. The reasoning for this sort of 5-1-2-3 selection seems to be two bits and pieces players will equal more than one specialist batsman and one specialist bowler. Maxwell did take four wickets at a cost of 127 runs... neither he or Henriques contributed much with the bat.
Then homework gate happened and Watson was booted out of side for the third test and Smith came in. They dropped Maxwell because, said Mickey Arthur, "we need to take 20 wickets to win this Test match so we wanted our specialists out on the park." However the selectors held the faith with non-specialist Henriques, which of course weakened the batting without particularly strengthening the bowling - he repaid them with 2 runs and one wicket.
Australia finally booted him for the fourth test but doggedly stuck to the 5-1-1-4 formula, picking Maxwell, who took a couple of wickets and a couple (literally) of runs.
Australia made a couple of selection blunders in India - Doherty for Lyon, for instance - but easily the most disastrous was their dogged insistence on the all rounder policy.
Henriques averages 30 with the bat at first class level after a lot of summers and has less than two wickets per game.
Maxwell averages a few runs more but has an even worse rate of return.
They are the Phil Carlson, Simon O'Donnell and Trevor Laughlin of their era - one day cricket fine, Twenty20 you beaut, Shield cricket awesome, test cricket no.
Did any cricket commentator or journo comment on this at the time? If they did please let me know because I sure as hell didn't see it.
And Henriques is in South Africa right now.
"We feel there's a great need to have an allrounder there" said John Inverarity, despite the fact Australia became the world's best side without one.
As Jarrod Kimber put it about Henriques, "First class wise, his batting was rooted in the handy half-century. His bowling seemed to lose all venom as he veered into bowling straight medium deliveries that even club cricketers don't fear. In List A he became a rare wicket-taker who could be fairly economical. As a batsman he barely made a mark at all"
Nonetheless Henriques was picked in the first two tour games, taking 4-12 in the first and making useful runs in the second. This was enough encouragement for Australia to pick him in the first test, batting at seven after Wade, Australia using a 5-1-1-4 formula. Byron Coverdale at Cricinfo said he took "the allrounders' position" as if such a thing was a given.
Australia batted poorly and didn't bowl much better and lost the game. Henriques had been picked mostly for his bowling but actually batted well, scoring two fifties - meaning we were stuck with him for the next few tests.
The selectors decided to boost the batting in the second test - not by doing something like, picking an actual specialist batsman (Smith was in the squad), but they chose another all rounder, Glenn Maxwell. The reasoning for this sort of 5-1-2-3 selection seems to be two bits and pieces players will equal more than one specialist batsman and one specialist bowler. Maxwell did take four wickets at a cost of 127 runs... neither he or Henriques contributed much with the bat.
Then homework gate happened and Watson was booted out of side for the third test and Smith came in. They dropped Maxwell because, said Mickey Arthur, "we need to take 20 wickets to win this Test match so we wanted our specialists out on the park." However the selectors held the faith with non-specialist Henriques, which of course weakened the batting without particularly strengthening the bowling - he repaid them with 2 runs and one wicket.
Australia finally booted him for the fourth test but doggedly stuck to the 5-1-1-4 formula, picking Maxwell, who took a couple of wickets and a couple (literally) of runs.
Australia made a couple of selection blunders in India - Doherty for Lyon, for instance - but easily the most disastrous was their dogged insistence on the all rounder policy.
Henriques averages 30 with the bat at first class level after a lot of summers and has less than two wickets per game.
Maxwell averages a few runs more but has an even worse rate of return.
They are the Phil Carlson, Simon O'Donnell and Trevor Laughlin of their era - one day cricket fine, Twenty20 you beaut, Shield cricket awesome, test cricket no.
Did any cricket commentator or journo comment on this at the time? If they did please let me know because I sure as hell didn't see it.
And Henriques is in South Africa right now.
Case Study: 2013-14 Ashes and Ben Stokes
England became the number one team and won the 2013 Ashes using a 6-1-4 combination, albeit with a very skilled keeper batsman in Prior, plus some handy lower order batsman in Broad and Swann. They were successful enough to stop (or at least reduce) the incessant whining in the English press for balance and longing for an all rounder. The English squad included Gary Ballance, a chunky Zimbabwean with a first class average over 50, and Ben Stokes, an all rounder who averaged 35 with the bat and 28 with the ball. They also had Jonny Bairstow, a second rate keeper and occasional specialist batsman with an excellent first class average of over 40.
For the first test England went with their established team and 6-1-4 combination. Australia picked something similar, although Watson is technically an all rounder.
The first test was a joyous surprise for the Aussies - Haddin rescued them with the bat in the first innings, and Johnson tore through them with the ball. Trott then quit the tour for depression, leaving open a spot in the batting line up for the second test.
Australia's batting order was wobbly, but England had become nervous by their counter-attacking at key points in the game. Also, Swann's bowling had seemed iffy and the third speedster had done badly and they wanted to play two spinners in Adelaide.
So instead of showing faith in their four specialists and picking Ballance, which they should have done, they went with Stokes - which would bolster the bowling. Apparently they were nervous about playing two spinners because you can't have only two seamers or something.
Anyway, Australia's batsmen pulverised the five-man attack for 570 and the English batsman folder. Another victory for Australia.
For the third test, England's selectors dumped Panesar and brought in Tim Bresnan, in part because of his batting. Stokes had a far better test of it in his second go, picking up three wickets and scoring a second innings century in an unsuccessful chase. England still lost but the all rounder lobby was cheered. "See! Ben Stokes is England's bright spot on the tour!"
Anyway, for the fourth test Swann retired and Prior was dropped but Stokes was kept on and England managed to lose a game despite being 51 runs ahead on the first innings, being wiped out in their second dig by Nathan Lyon. England also lost the fifth test, with Stokes getting a few runs plus a six wicket haul.
Stokes wound up England's third highest run scorer, and second highest wicket taker. for the series. He was, in all fairness, a bright spot for England on the tour. He was about the only player who came back with his reputation enhanced - Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Root, Bell, Prior, Bairstow, Broad, Anderson, Panesar, Swann and Finn all came back in the negative.
A tour where Trott had a nervous breakdown, Cook captained like a wet sock, Prior was dropped for poor form, Swann resigned from cricket altogether and Pietersen would wind up being kicked out of the English team indefinitely.
Was it really hard to look like a bright spot?
But you know something? I still think it was a mistake to pick him in the second test. The series was still alive then - and you don't simply replace a batsman who averages 46 at test level with a bits and pieces cricketer - which is what Stokes was. And is.
They should have risked Ballance.
As a result England's team was unbalanced, especially with Prior losing form. And as so often happens the selectors reconstructed the team around an all rounder - they got rid of the keeper, the heart and soul of the side, because of his batting; got in Bresnan, who wasn't match fit, for his batting. And they had to do this because they'd weakened the batting in the top six by using Stokes.
England are going through so much turmoil now that they'll probably stick with Stokes. And they'll lose or at least continue to lose unless they find a number seven or eight who is strong enough with the bat to compensate for him. And that will mean they might pick a seven or eight who isn't really good at what should be their day jobs (i.e. keeping and batting) but are okay with the bat. And that increases the risk England will lose.
And yet the all rounder lobby will still insist Stokes' presence "balances" the side.
An aside: Shane Watson, the allrounder whose presence supposedly so balances Australia, picked up four wickets and bowled a grand total of 47 overs during the Ashes. Is this not something part timers could have done?
For the first test England went with their established team and 6-1-4 combination. Australia picked something similar, although Watson is technically an all rounder.
The first test was a joyous surprise for the Aussies - Haddin rescued them with the bat in the first innings, and Johnson tore through them with the ball. Trott then quit the tour for depression, leaving open a spot in the batting line up for the second test.
Australia's batting order was wobbly, but England had become nervous by their counter-attacking at key points in the game. Also, Swann's bowling had seemed iffy and the third speedster had done badly and they wanted to play two spinners in Adelaide.
So instead of showing faith in their four specialists and picking Ballance, which they should have done, they went with Stokes - which would bolster the bowling. Apparently they were nervous about playing two spinners because you can't have only two seamers or something.
Anyway, Australia's batsmen pulverised the five-man attack for 570 and the English batsman folder. Another victory for Australia.
For the third test, England's selectors dumped Panesar and brought in Tim Bresnan, in part because of his batting. Stokes had a far better test of it in his second go, picking up three wickets and scoring a second innings century in an unsuccessful chase. England still lost but the all rounder lobby was cheered. "See! Ben Stokes is England's bright spot on the tour!"
Anyway, for the fourth test Swann retired and Prior was dropped but Stokes was kept on and England managed to lose a game despite being 51 runs ahead on the first innings, being wiped out in their second dig by Nathan Lyon. England also lost the fifth test, with Stokes getting a few runs plus a six wicket haul.
Stokes wound up England's third highest run scorer, and second highest wicket taker. for the series. He was, in all fairness, a bright spot for England on the tour. He was about the only player who came back with his reputation enhanced - Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Root, Bell, Prior, Bairstow, Broad, Anderson, Panesar, Swann and Finn all came back in the negative.
A tour where Trott had a nervous breakdown, Cook captained like a wet sock, Prior was dropped for poor form, Swann resigned from cricket altogether and Pietersen would wind up being kicked out of the English team indefinitely.
Was it really hard to look like a bright spot?
But you know something? I still think it was a mistake to pick him in the second test. The series was still alive then - and you don't simply replace a batsman who averages 46 at test level with a bits and pieces cricketer - which is what Stokes was. And is.
They should have risked Ballance.
As a result England's team was unbalanced, especially with Prior losing form. And as so often happens the selectors reconstructed the team around an all rounder - they got rid of the keeper, the heart and soul of the side, because of his batting; got in Bresnan, who wasn't match fit, for his batting. And they had to do this because they'd weakened the batting in the top six by using Stokes.
England are going through so much turmoil now that they'll probably stick with Stokes. And they'll lose or at least continue to lose unless they find a number seven or eight who is strong enough with the bat to compensate for him. And that will mean they might pick a seven or eight who isn't really good at what should be their day jobs (i.e. keeping and batting) but are okay with the bat. And that increases the risk England will lose.
And yet the all rounder lobby will still insist Stokes' presence "balances" the side.
An aside: Shane Watson, the allrounder whose presence supposedly so balances Australia, picked up four wickets and bowled a grand total of 47 overs during the Ashes. Is this not something part timers could have done?
Robin Peterson and the Spare Tire Theory
Robin Peterson, South Africa's Ashley Giles equivalent, is pushing for Australia to play an all rounder in the first test to replace Shane Watson. "You don't want to leave yourself short in South Africa," he says. "If you only have three seamers and one breaks down, you could end up short."
In other words, pick an all rounder in case one of your bowlers breaks down. Have a spare tire.
Weaken the batting, put the team at risk of constant collapse, just in case someone has a hamstring.
Here's an idea - why not pick four fit bowlers?
Peterson is either very dumb or cunning and wants to encourage Australia to weaken the team. And is Henriques in the squad it might just happen.
In other words, pick an all rounder in case one of your bowlers breaks down. Have a spare tire.
Weaken the batting, put the team at risk of constant collapse, just in case someone has a hamstring.
Here's an idea - why not pick four fit bowlers?
Peterson is either very dumb or cunning and wants to encourage Australia to weaken the team. And is Henriques in the squad it might just happen.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Why Inverarity Has a Hard On for All Rounders
Inverarity has never made secret his love of players who can bat a bit and bowl a bit. He (and the panel) have backed this with his selections over the years: Henriques, Maxwell, Faulkner. Despite Henriques lack of success in India and an underwhelming first class record, somehow he's in South Africa as a replacement for Shane Watson.
Why does Inverarity feel so passionately about this issue? Two main reasons, I think:
1) Inverarity was an all rounder himself. A batting all rounder admittedly - he averaged 35 at first class level, and under one wicket per match, but his bowling was good enough to see him selected on the 72 Ashes Tour and also come second to Bob Holland in the first class spinning wicket takers list in 84-85.
2) His vice captain at Western Australia for many years was Ian Brayshaw, a very good bits and pieces all rounder. He also enjoyed a lot of support from Tony Mann and Bruce Yardley, spinners capable of performing excellently with the bat.
At times I get the feeling Inverarity is trying to recreate that 70s West Australian side, with its combination of Ric Charlesworth-style intelligent-but-plodding-openers (Cowan), Kim Hughes-like swashbuckling-but-idiotic batsmen (Shane Watson, Warner, Shaun Marsh), Tony Mann/Bruce Yardley-esque not-very-good-spinners-who-can-still-bat (why else pick Doherty and Agar over Lyon?), Rob Langer-Greg Shipperd-shaped honest-grinding-good-bloke-batters (Quiney, Bailey), Rod Marsh-like tough keepers (Haddin), Lillee/Clarke speedsters (Johnson, Harris), Terry Alderman-mode beanpole swing bowlers (Jackson Bird), Inverarity-ish sons-of-old-boys (Shaun Marsh, Tony Mann)... and of course Ian Brayshaw-esque bits and pieces players (Henriques, Maxwell).
It's something worth discussing anyway. Never seems to be raised, though.
Why does Inverarity feel so passionately about this issue? Two main reasons, I think:
1) Inverarity was an all rounder himself. A batting all rounder admittedly - he averaged 35 at first class level, and under one wicket per match, but his bowling was good enough to see him selected on the 72 Ashes Tour and also come second to Bob Holland in the first class spinning wicket takers list in 84-85.
2) His vice captain at Western Australia for many years was Ian Brayshaw, a very good bits and pieces all rounder. He also enjoyed a lot of support from Tony Mann and Bruce Yardley, spinners capable of performing excellently with the bat.
At times I get the feeling Inverarity is trying to recreate that 70s West Australian side, with its combination of Ric Charlesworth-style intelligent-but-plodding-openers (Cowan), Kim Hughes-like swashbuckling-but-idiotic batsmen (Shane Watson, Warner, Shaun Marsh), Tony Mann/Bruce Yardley-esque not-very-good-spinners-who-can-still-bat (why else pick Doherty and Agar over Lyon?), Rob Langer-Greg Shipperd-shaped honest-grinding-good-bloke-batters (Quiney, Bailey), Rod Marsh-like tough keepers (Haddin), Lillee/Clarke speedsters (Johnson, Harris), Terry Alderman-mode beanpole swing bowlers (Jackson Bird), Inverarity-ish sons-of-old-boys (Shaun Marsh, Tony Mann)... and of course Ian Brayshaw-esque bits and pieces players (Henriques, Maxwell).
It's something worth discussing anyway. Never seems to be raised, though.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Case study: Flintoff in Australia in 2006-07
England's test team that won the Ashes in 2005 - Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff, Jones G, Jones S, Giles, Hoggard, Harmison. I can rattle off the names easily even now. Several of these were world class: the batsmen, the fast bowlers, and on his day Flintoff. The lesser good players were Jones, a dodgy keeper, and Giles, a not particularly good spin bowler. But both were decent with the bat, which helped when your number six was Flintoff.
In 2005, Flintoff, Jones and Giles all made crucial contributions with the bat, especially Flintoff. It sort of covered for the fact that Jones dropped a few too many easy balls and Giles was no Shane Warne. But they held it together long enough for England to win the series.
England's coach, Duncan Fletcher, loved all rounders, having been one himself (or kind off - his record suggests a bowler useful with the bat). He was big on England having an all rounder and when Flintoff discovered that magic vein of form, Fletcher seemed like a genius. The 5-1-1-4 formula was the way to go! Fletcher also loved bowlers who were handy with the bat, like Shane Udal, or batters handy with a ball like Paul Collingwood.
They kept this formula in Pakistan, losing the test series 2-0. In India for the first test they tried 5-2-1-3 formula, teaming Flintoff with Ian Blackwell, a batting all rounder (he averaged nearly 40 with the bat but less than two wickets a game with the ball) who was played as spinner. It resulted in a draw. They went back to one all rounder for the 2nd test which they lost, but won the 3rd game (Flintoff getting two fifties). So clearly the formula worked - so long as Flintoff contributed with the bat.
At home in the summer of 2006, England kept the 5-1-4 formula for the first test, where they should have won but couldn't push it over the line. They won the second test, lost the third.
The side was feeling unbalanced by this stage - England had lost Giles to injury, so lacked a decent number eight batsman to make up for Flintoff's weakness at six. They had discovered in Monty Panesar a spin bowler who was much better than Giles - England's batting was forever weak.
Then Flintoff fell injured and England resorted to a 6-1-4 formula for the series against Pakistan - which they won handsomely 3-0. Rather it was 2-0 with one victory due to forfeit. But still, it was a good result.
England's team in many ways looked stronger than that 2005 line up: Pietersen, Trescothick and Strauss were still there; Bell and Collingwood had flowered, Cook had emerged; Harmison and Hoggard were still potent, Mahmood/Anderson offered good support; Jones had been replaced by a genuinely talented keeper in Chris Read, and Giles by a decent spinner in Panesar.
England had reason to believe they had the players to ensure a tough Ashes defence.
That is, until Flintoff recovered from injury.
Now Flintoff could have been slotted in at number seven, replacing Mahmood or Anderson, meaning England had a devastating counter-attack option available at seven - like Australia had with Gilchrist.
But Fletcher was wedded to the idea of a five man attack so the bowlers could rest and wouldn't have to work hard.
This meant the team had to be completely restructured. If Flintoff played at six, then the English tail essentially started from there, which meant the batting quality of the lower order had to be boosted. So Panesar was dropped for Giles, a lesser bowler but better batter, and Read made way for Jones, a worse keeper but better batsman.
England's first test team thus had Flintoff at six, a third rate keeper who cost England a lot of runs by dropping balls at seven, a mediocre bowler at eight. Fletcher was trying to repeat the past. Only this time England were slaughtered. Giles and Jones got their little "useful tallies" in the second innings but not enough to stop the onslaught.
England managed to lose the second test despite declaring at 6-551 in the first innings. The batting was weak and collapsed horridly in their second dig, and the much vaunted five man attack couldn't stop Australia's batters from piling on the runs.
Changes were made for the third test, with Panesar being brought in for Giles and promptly taking eight wickets, but England still used the 5-1-1-4 combo and still got thrashed. They dropped Jones for Read in the fourth test but still kept Flintoff at six and were beaten. Ditto in the fifth test.
It was an insanity that was barely commented on at the time. Flintoff was clearly not up to batting in the top six, but Fletcher insisted on doing it anyway - as a result he dickered with the rest of the team with disastrous results.
In hindsight the best thing for England would have been if Flintoff had been injured. Strauss was a good captain and would later take England to being the number one team in the world (without an all rounder). But since he was available to play they should have used Joyce at six, Flintoff at seven and used Read and Panesar all summer.
I still think Australia would have won (they were playing at home, their hunger was too great) but it wouldn't have been 5-0.
(Incidentally after the Ashes, Flintoff became injured, England used the 6-1-4 formation and beat the West Indies 3-0. They did lose 1-0 to India and Sri Lanka though.)
In 2005, Flintoff, Jones and Giles all made crucial contributions with the bat, especially Flintoff. It sort of covered for the fact that Jones dropped a few too many easy balls and Giles was no Shane Warne. But they held it together long enough for England to win the series.
England's coach, Duncan Fletcher, loved all rounders, having been one himself (or kind off - his record suggests a bowler useful with the bat). He was big on England having an all rounder and when Flintoff discovered that magic vein of form, Fletcher seemed like a genius. The 5-1-1-4 formula was the way to go! Fletcher also loved bowlers who were handy with the bat, like Shane Udal, or batters handy with a ball like Paul Collingwood.
They kept this formula in Pakistan, losing the test series 2-0. In India for the first test they tried 5-2-1-3 formula, teaming Flintoff with Ian Blackwell, a batting all rounder (he averaged nearly 40 with the bat but less than two wickets a game with the ball) who was played as spinner. It resulted in a draw. They went back to one all rounder for the 2nd test which they lost, but won the 3rd game (Flintoff getting two fifties). So clearly the formula worked - so long as Flintoff contributed with the bat.
At home in the summer of 2006, England kept the 5-1-4 formula for the first test, where they should have won but couldn't push it over the line. They won the second test, lost the third.
The side was feeling unbalanced by this stage - England had lost Giles to injury, so lacked a decent number eight batsman to make up for Flintoff's weakness at six. They had discovered in Monty Panesar a spin bowler who was much better than Giles - England's batting was forever weak.
Then Flintoff fell injured and England resorted to a 6-1-4 formula for the series against Pakistan - which they won handsomely 3-0. Rather it was 2-0 with one victory due to forfeit. But still, it was a good result.
England's team in many ways looked stronger than that 2005 line up: Pietersen, Trescothick and Strauss were still there; Bell and Collingwood had flowered, Cook had emerged; Harmison and Hoggard were still potent, Mahmood/Anderson offered good support; Jones had been replaced by a genuinely talented keeper in Chris Read, and Giles by a decent spinner in Panesar.
England had reason to believe they had the players to ensure a tough Ashes defence.
That is, until Flintoff recovered from injury.
Now Flintoff could have been slotted in at number seven, replacing Mahmood or Anderson, meaning England had a devastating counter-attack option available at seven - like Australia had with Gilchrist.
But Fletcher was wedded to the idea of a five man attack so the bowlers could rest and wouldn't have to work hard.
This meant the team had to be completely restructured. If Flintoff played at six, then the English tail essentially started from there, which meant the batting quality of the lower order had to be boosted. So Panesar was dropped for Giles, a lesser bowler but better batter, and Read made way for Jones, a worse keeper but better batsman.
England's first test team thus had Flintoff at six, a third rate keeper who cost England a lot of runs by dropping balls at seven, a mediocre bowler at eight. Fletcher was trying to repeat the past. Only this time England were slaughtered. Giles and Jones got their little "useful tallies" in the second innings but not enough to stop the onslaught.
England managed to lose the second test despite declaring at 6-551 in the first innings. The batting was weak and collapsed horridly in their second dig, and the much vaunted five man attack couldn't stop Australia's batters from piling on the runs.
Changes were made for the third test, with Panesar being brought in for Giles and promptly taking eight wickets, but England still used the 5-1-1-4 combo and still got thrashed. They dropped Jones for Read in the fourth test but still kept Flintoff at six and were beaten. Ditto in the fifth test.
It was an insanity that was barely commented on at the time. Flintoff was clearly not up to batting in the top six, but Fletcher insisted on doing it anyway - as a result he dickered with the rest of the team with disastrous results.
In hindsight the best thing for England would have been if Flintoff had been injured. Strauss was a good captain and would later take England to being the number one team in the world (without an all rounder). But since he was available to play they should have used Joyce at six, Flintoff at seven and used Read and Panesar all summer.
I still think Australia would have won (they were playing at home, their hunger was too great) but it wouldn't have been 5-0.
(Incidentally after the Ashes, Flintoff became injured, England used the 6-1-4 formation and beat the West Indies 3-0. They did lose 1-0 to India and Sri Lanka though.)
Case study: 1978-79 Ashes
The 1978-79 Ashes saw a strong English touring team take on an Australian side decimated by defections to World Series Cricket. The previous summer Bob Simpson had come out of retirement to lead a rag-tag group of youngsters and people who would have thought time had passed them by (eg Sam Gannon) to 3-2 victory against India; they'd fared less well against the West Indies, but had enjoyed some good moments.
In neither of those series did Australia employ an all rounder except on one occasion - Trevor Laughlin in the final test. Apart from that they used the 6-1-4 formation, with batsmen capable of rolling their arm over (Cosier, Simmo) and bowlers very handy with the bat (Tony Mann, who has been called an all rounder, but his first class average is 24, and Bruce Yardley).
But the lure of the all rounder is strong, especially when playing an English side featuring Ian Botham, one of the most exciting players of the 70s. Botham made a big splash on his debut in 1977 and continued to impress; I think his presence in England's side turned the Aussie selectors a little ga-ga.
They already made a mistake by dumping Bob Simpson, which is what they effectively did by not guaranteeing his job for the summer. I understand by this stage many of the Australian players had gotten jack of Simmo in the West Indies, but he was still in good form as a batsman. They compounded this by not replacing him with John Inverarity, who was clearly the best captain in Australia, and was in strong enough form with the bat (he scored 187 early in the season in a shield game).
Instead they went with Graham Yallop, who to be fair had been in good form in the West Indies and captained Victoria to a Shield win, but who badly lacked experience.
So did the whole Australian side for the first test, but the biggest mistake was picking Trevor Laughlin to bat at six. Laughlin was a decent cricketer, a solid bits and pieces all rounder for Victoria (averaged 32 with the bat, 31 with the ball) but he wasn't good enough to bat at six. Botham batted at six but he had Geoff Miller coming in at eight. Miller wasn't an all rounder but he averaged 25 at first class level; we had Bruce Yardley, who was capable of the odd great innings but who averaged 20.
So Australia's batting collapsed twice, and we won a game we actually had a chance of winning. Inverarity was no Bradman, but averaged 37 with the bat at first class level and was a handy bowler - he would have been a far better choice as a player, even if he wasn't captain.
Australia returned to the 6-1-4 formula for the second test, which they lost, and the third test, which they won. They kept it too for the fourth test which they could have won and should have won, but the players stuffed it.
This made the selectors panic and they brought in a new "our Botham" for the last two tests - Queenslander Phil Carlson, who was having the Sheffield Shield season of his life. Australia lost the 5th and 6th tests, the batting collapsing on both times and Carlson's contribution being negligible.
A great "what if" of Australian cricket history.... what if John Inverarity had been picked at six instead of Laughlin in that first test, and to captain? You would have had his captaincy, the batting of Hughes and Yallop, the bowling of Hogg, Hurst, Higgs and Yardley.... I don't know whether we would have regained the Ashes but it sure as hell wouldn't have been 5-1. And maybe the ACB would have been inspired to fight Packer another season.
I know it's all well and good to speak in hindsight but even at the time it was mysterious why the Australian selectors looked at a team with a dodgy batting order and strong bowling, and decided to add bits and pieces all rounder who would weaken the batting and not particularly boost the bowling. They would have been much better off a genuine batsman, or at least a batting all rounder like John Inverarity, at six for the whole series. But Botham made them all silly.
No one every seems to discuss this when talking about the 78-79 series: it's all about Rodney Hogg's dynamic bowling, or Yallop's bad captaincy, or Brearley and Boycott's erratic form with the bat, or everyone preferring World Series Cricket.
Australia's dodgy all rounder policy never seems to get a mention.
In neither of those series did Australia employ an all rounder except on one occasion - Trevor Laughlin in the final test. Apart from that they used the 6-1-4 formation, with batsmen capable of rolling their arm over (Cosier, Simmo) and bowlers very handy with the bat (Tony Mann, who has been called an all rounder, but his first class average is 24, and Bruce Yardley).
But the lure of the all rounder is strong, especially when playing an English side featuring Ian Botham, one of the most exciting players of the 70s. Botham made a big splash on his debut in 1977 and continued to impress; I think his presence in England's side turned the Aussie selectors a little ga-ga.
They already made a mistake by dumping Bob Simpson, which is what they effectively did by not guaranteeing his job for the summer. I understand by this stage many of the Australian players had gotten jack of Simmo in the West Indies, but he was still in good form as a batsman. They compounded this by not replacing him with John Inverarity, who was clearly the best captain in Australia, and was in strong enough form with the bat (he scored 187 early in the season in a shield game).
Instead they went with Graham Yallop, who to be fair had been in good form in the West Indies and captained Victoria to a Shield win, but who badly lacked experience.
So did the whole Australian side for the first test, but the biggest mistake was picking Trevor Laughlin to bat at six. Laughlin was a decent cricketer, a solid bits and pieces all rounder for Victoria (averaged 32 with the bat, 31 with the ball) but he wasn't good enough to bat at six. Botham batted at six but he had Geoff Miller coming in at eight. Miller wasn't an all rounder but he averaged 25 at first class level; we had Bruce Yardley, who was capable of the odd great innings but who averaged 20.
So Australia's batting collapsed twice, and we won a game we actually had a chance of winning. Inverarity was no Bradman, but averaged 37 with the bat at first class level and was a handy bowler - he would have been a far better choice as a player, even if he wasn't captain.
Australia returned to the 6-1-4 formula for the second test, which they lost, and the third test, which they won. They kept it too for the fourth test which they could have won and should have won, but the players stuffed it.
This made the selectors panic and they brought in a new "our Botham" for the last two tests - Queenslander Phil Carlson, who was having the Sheffield Shield season of his life. Australia lost the 5th and 6th tests, the batting collapsing on both times and Carlson's contribution being negligible.
A great "what if" of Australian cricket history.... what if John Inverarity had been picked at six instead of Laughlin in that first test, and to captain? You would have had his captaincy, the batting of Hughes and Yallop, the bowling of Hogg, Hurst, Higgs and Yardley.... I don't know whether we would have regained the Ashes but it sure as hell wouldn't have been 5-1. And maybe the ACB would have been inspired to fight Packer another season.
I know it's all well and good to speak in hindsight but even at the time it was mysterious why the Australian selectors looked at a team with a dodgy batting order and strong bowling, and decided to add bits and pieces all rounder who would weaken the batting and not particularly boost the bowling. They would have been much better off a genuine batsman, or at least a batting all rounder like John Inverarity, at six for the whole series. But Botham made them all silly.
No one every seems to discuss this when talking about the 78-79 series: it's all about Rodney Hogg's dynamic bowling, or Yallop's bad captaincy, or Brearley and Boycott's erratic form with the bat, or everyone preferring World Series Cricket.
Australia's dodgy all rounder policy never seems to get a mention.
Case study: Simon O'Donnell
The summer of 1984-85 was a turbulent one for Australian cricket fans - Kim Hughes resigning in tears, defections to South Africa, massacre at the hands of the West Indies - but by the end of it there were signs for optimism.
Australia won the 5th test in Sydney off the back of some exciting spin bowling from Bob Holland and Murray Bennett, who gave Australia's attack some much needed variety. Craig McDermott was a new pace find, Kepler Wessells and Alan Border had rediscovered their form with the bat. True, Australia's pace stocks had been decimated by the South African rebel tours (we lost Terry Alderman, Rodney Hogg, Carl Rackemann, John McGuire and Rod MccCurdy) but we still had Geoff Lawson and McDermott, plus Holland, Bennett and Greg Matthews.
We also had Simon O'Donnell.
Simon O'Donnell was a young good looking Victorian all rounder who had scored a century and taken four wickets in his Shield debut in 83-84. He had a decent summer in 84-85, scoring a century and averaging over 50 with the bat although over 40 with the ball. Still he clearly had promise and was picked in Australia's one day team where he did well, taking some wickets and scoring some runs (playing some spectacular late innings knocks in losing causes) - becoming a good solid one day international all rounder.
Australia's selectors though thought he could be the next Keith Miller and he was picked on the 85 Ashes tour. I guess that was understandable - he was young and exciting, and Australia needed to rebuild, and there was another all rounder on board in the form of Greg Matthews.
Anyway O'Donnell played in all Australia's one day games on tour, where he did his nice bowling and useful batting, without excelling in either.
His bowling figures on the first class tour matches in England were 1-25 and 1-27, 0-77, and 0-17. But in that second game he scored a century, which impressed the selectors. He's a bowler and he scores centuries!
So he was picked in the first test as a bowler. He wasn't in bowling form but he was in batting form so they picked him as a bowler, shut their eyes and hoped he could bowl and contribute with the bat. The other three specialists were McDermott, Lawson and Jeff Thomson. Bob Holland, who won Australia their last test, was dropped.
O'Donnell actually bowled okay in that first test, picking up four wickets, but Australia still lost - a test they mightn't have lost had they picked a Holland over O'Donnell.
But because O'Donnell was an all rounder and nothing is ever their fault he was kept on in the team for the next four tests. In the second test O'Donnell took 1-82 but hit a useful six during a nervy run chase; Australia won off the back of bowling from Holland and McDermott.
Against Essex O'Donnell took no wickets, so naturally was kept on for the third test as the third paceman where he took 1-104 and 0-26 but did score 46 runs. In the fourth test he was teamed with another all rounder, Matthews, and took 0-82 but scored another 40 plus score. In the 5th test he took 0-69. He was eventually dropped.
He made his way back into the test team against New Zealand, where he took no wickets in a spin dominated game.
O'Donnell had been found out, like all bits and pieces players - like Henriques was in India.
He never should have been picked at all in the test team - he was selected as a bowler because of his batting. Even when it was patently obvious his bowling wasn't up to test standard they kept picking him.
Australia were going to struggle in England in 85 because they lacked a third back up bowler to McDermott and Lawson - Thommo was too old and Gilbert too young. In hindsight they probably should have played two spinners for the games. Even without hindsight they should have played Holland every game. (I also think Wayne Phillips should have been a batsman not a keeper but that's another issue. Also Border was an inexperienced captain at this stage - he had two excellent part time bowlers at his disposal in the form of himself and Wessels that he hardly ever used.).
But such was the lure of an all rounder they went Mr Bits and Pieces, and were slaughtered.
O'Donnell went on to have a fine career - an integral part of Australia's one day side when they mastered that form, a skilled leader who took Victoria to a Sheffield Shield win, and a cancer survivor. It doesn't change the fact that his test selection was the biggest preventable factor in our losing the Ashes in 1985.
Australia won the 5th test in Sydney off the back of some exciting spin bowling from Bob Holland and Murray Bennett, who gave Australia's attack some much needed variety. Craig McDermott was a new pace find, Kepler Wessells and Alan Border had rediscovered their form with the bat. True, Australia's pace stocks had been decimated by the South African rebel tours (we lost Terry Alderman, Rodney Hogg, Carl Rackemann, John McGuire and Rod MccCurdy) but we still had Geoff Lawson and McDermott, plus Holland, Bennett and Greg Matthews.
We also had Simon O'Donnell.
Simon O'Donnell was a young good looking Victorian all rounder who had scored a century and taken four wickets in his Shield debut in 83-84. He had a decent summer in 84-85, scoring a century and averaging over 50 with the bat although over 40 with the ball. Still he clearly had promise and was picked in Australia's one day team where he did well, taking some wickets and scoring some runs (playing some spectacular late innings knocks in losing causes) - becoming a good solid one day international all rounder.
Australia's selectors though thought he could be the next Keith Miller and he was picked on the 85 Ashes tour. I guess that was understandable - he was young and exciting, and Australia needed to rebuild, and there was another all rounder on board in the form of Greg Matthews.
Anyway O'Donnell played in all Australia's one day games on tour, where he did his nice bowling and useful batting, without excelling in either.
His bowling figures on the first class tour matches in England were 1-25 and 1-27, 0-77, and 0-17. But in that second game he scored a century, which impressed the selectors. He's a bowler and he scores centuries!
So he was picked in the first test as a bowler. He wasn't in bowling form but he was in batting form so they picked him as a bowler, shut their eyes and hoped he could bowl and contribute with the bat. The other three specialists were McDermott, Lawson and Jeff Thomson. Bob Holland, who won Australia their last test, was dropped.
O'Donnell actually bowled okay in that first test, picking up four wickets, but Australia still lost - a test they mightn't have lost had they picked a Holland over O'Donnell.
But because O'Donnell was an all rounder and nothing is ever their fault he was kept on in the team for the next four tests. In the second test O'Donnell took 1-82 but hit a useful six during a nervy run chase; Australia won off the back of bowling from Holland and McDermott.
Against Essex O'Donnell took no wickets, so naturally was kept on for the third test as the third paceman where he took 1-104 and 0-26 but did score 46 runs. In the fourth test he was teamed with another all rounder, Matthews, and took 0-82 but scored another 40 plus score. In the 5th test he took 0-69. He was eventually dropped.
He made his way back into the test team against New Zealand, where he took no wickets in a spin dominated game.
O'Donnell had been found out, like all bits and pieces players - like Henriques was in India.
He never should have been picked at all in the test team - he was selected as a bowler because of his batting. Even when it was patently obvious his bowling wasn't up to test standard they kept picking him.
Australia were going to struggle in England in 85 because they lacked a third back up bowler to McDermott and Lawson - Thommo was too old and Gilbert too young. In hindsight they probably should have played two spinners for the games. Even without hindsight they should have played Holland every game. (I also think Wayne Phillips should have been a batsman not a keeper but that's another issue. Also Border was an inexperienced captain at this stage - he had two excellent part time bowlers at his disposal in the form of himself and Wessels that he hardly ever used.).
But such was the lure of an all rounder they went Mr Bits and Pieces, and were slaughtered.
O'Donnell went on to have a fine career - an integral part of Australia's one day side when they mastered that form, a skilled leader who took Victoria to a Sheffield Shield win, and a cancer survivor. It doesn't change the fact that his test selection was the biggest preventable factor in our losing the Ashes in 1985.
All rounders and one day cricket
You need all rounders in one day cricket, definitely.
It makes sense - you've got to bowl fifty overs, no one can bowl more than ten of them, you need someone else who can bowl ten (or two who can bowl five).
You also need to score more runs - in one day cricket, scoring runs is more important than taking wickets, all out for 213 will beat 0-210. So it makes sense to have a deep tail.
Bits and pieces all rounders thrive in one day cricket - James Faulkner, Simon O'Donnell, Ian Harvet.
It does NOT follow they should be picked in a test team, where it's more important you make large scores over long periods with the bat and can take wickets as opposed to just "keeping things tight".
It makes sense - you've got to bowl fifty overs, no one can bowl more than ten of them, you need someone else who can bowl ten (or two who can bowl five).
You also need to score more runs - in one day cricket, scoring runs is more important than taking wickets, all out for 213 will beat 0-210. So it makes sense to have a deep tail.
Bits and pieces all rounders thrive in one day cricket - James Faulkner, Simon O'Donnell, Ian Harvet.
It does NOT follow they should be picked in a test team, where it's more important you make large scores over long periods with the bat and can take wickets as opposed to just "keeping things tight".
All-rounders and team balance
A common mantra - dogma, really - of many cricket writers is that all rounders "balance" sides. I think they are attracted to the symmetry of 5 batsmen and 5 bowlers plus one keeper, as opposed to 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers.
But all rounders can unbalance sides. Badly.
It's common sense. If you've got a top six, you like them to average at least 40, right? But if you get in a bits and pieces all rounder you have an number six who averages 30. That's going to seriously weaken your batting. That happened for Australia in India in 2013 when they put Moises Henriques in the team.
But, the counter argument goes, having this extra bowling option will help you get the other team out faster, won't it?
Thing is, it doesn't seem to work out like that. All rounders, especially bits and pieces players, tend not to be awesome bowlers. They hold up an end, get a few handy wickets. They are not Andy Roberts.
A possible way to do it is to use two all rounders in a team. This means you have 5 specialist batsmen, 3 specialist bowlers, 2 all rounders and a keeper. It gives you a lot more options.
England had their greatest success with Ian Botham when he played with another all rounder (or a bowler who was a very good batsman) - Peter Willey, Geoff Miller. They did less well when Botham was the only all rounder and playing at number six; England kept collapsing and of course they were going to do that with a number six who averages not much over 30.
The same thing happened with Andy Flintoff. When Flintoff's batting held, when he batted good enough for a number six (as in 2005), England won. But normally it didn't because he wasn't really good enough to go at six. Flintoff cost England a lot of test matches. They won in 2009 but by then Prior was in fine form with the bat - good enough to be an all rounder. So England essentially had two all rounders.
I always thought it was a shame that England never tried Flintoff as a specialist bowler and played him with six batsmen. But I think the selectors were reluctant because it would mean too much work for him or something. Which is another thing that gets me about all rounders - the team gets shaped around them, and they're not worth it.
But all rounders can unbalance sides. Badly.
It's common sense. If you've got a top six, you like them to average at least 40, right? But if you get in a bits and pieces all rounder you have an number six who averages 30. That's going to seriously weaken your batting. That happened for Australia in India in 2013 when they put Moises Henriques in the team.
But, the counter argument goes, having this extra bowling option will help you get the other team out faster, won't it?
Thing is, it doesn't seem to work out like that. All rounders, especially bits and pieces players, tend not to be awesome bowlers. They hold up an end, get a few handy wickets. They are not Andy Roberts.
A possible way to do it is to use two all rounders in a team. This means you have 5 specialist batsmen, 3 specialist bowlers, 2 all rounders and a keeper. It gives you a lot more options.
England had their greatest success with Ian Botham when he played with another all rounder (or a bowler who was a very good batsman) - Peter Willey, Geoff Miller. They did less well when Botham was the only all rounder and playing at number six; England kept collapsing and of course they were going to do that with a number six who averages not much over 30.
The same thing happened with Andy Flintoff. When Flintoff's batting held, when he batted good enough for a number six (as in 2005), England won. But normally it didn't because he wasn't really good enough to go at six. Flintoff cost England a lot of test matches. They won in 2009 but by then Prior was in fine form with the bat - good enough to be an all rounder. So England essentially had two all rounders.
I always thought it was a shame that England never tried Flintoff as a specialist bowler and played him with six batsmen. But I think the selectors were reluctant because it would mean too much work for him or something. Which is another thing that gets me about all rounders - the team gets shaped around them, and they're not worth it.
Bits and pieces all rounders
In the interests of fairness I should clarify that most of my ire is directed against bits and pieces all rounders.
A bits and pieces player is someone who can bat a bit and bowl a bit - someone who could not get in a team based solely on their batting or bowling.
These tend to be players whose averages for batting and bowling hover around 30.
Some players though - giants of the game - could have gotten in the team purely on the basis of their skills in one discipline.
Gary Sobers would have commanded a position in any batting line up in the world even if he'd bowled complete tripe. Jacques Kallis could have been picked as a batter alone. Imran's bowling skills were such he could have played as a bowler only - ditto Kapil Dev.
These players are rare and magical and if you have them, grab on to them with both hands and don't let them go.
Far more common are the bits and pieces all rounders.
A bits and pieces player is someone who can bat a bit and bowl a bit - someone who could not get in a team based solely on their batting or bowling.
These tend to be players whose averages for batting and bowling hover around 30.
Some players though - giants of the game - could have gotten in the team purely on the basis of their skills in one discipline.
Gary Sobers would have commanded a position in any batting line up in the world even if he'd bowled complete tripe. Jacques Kallis could have been picked as a batter alone. Imran's bowling skills were such he could have played as a bowler only - ditto Kapil Dev.
These players are rare and magical and if you have them, grab on to them with both hands and don't let them go.
Far more common are the bits and pieces all rounders.
Why All Rounders Can Be Bad For a Team
In summary: it's hard to judge them.
Judging batsman is easy - are they scoring runs? (Unless they're Shaun Marsh. Sorry, cheap shot.) If they're not scoring runs are they at least taking the shine off the ball so other members of the team can score runs?
Judging wicketkeepers is easy - can they catch? Can they stump? (An aside - someone has to think of a way to statistically measure keeper stuff ups. Surely it can be done in this day and age?)
Judging bowlers is easy - are they taking wickets? Are they leaking runs like the Titanic?
But judging all rounders is harder. They might score no runs but pick up a few useful wickets.... or get slogged all over the park but score a couple of fifties. Or take no wickets and score no runs but get kept on because "on the right day they can win you the game".
So the team bumbles on, losing matches, while the all rounder gets to keep his/her position because they don't really have to be good at anything. Just good enough at one of his/her two jobs in order not to get sacked.
Judging batsman is easy - are they scoring runs? (Unless they're Shaun Marsh. Sorry, cheap shot.) If they're not scoring runs are they at least taking the shine off the ball so other members of the team can score runs?
Judging wicketkeepers is easy - can they catch? Can they stump? (An aside - someone has to think of a way to statistically measure keeper stuff ups. Surely it can be done in this day and age?)
Judging bowlers is easy - are they taking wickets? Are they leaking runs like the Titanic?
But judging all rounders is harder. They might score no runs but pick up a few useful wickets.... or get slogged all over the park but score a couple of fifties. Or take no wickets and score no runs but get kept on because "on the right day they can win you the game".
So the team bumbles on, losing matches, while the all rounder gets to keep his/her position because they don't really have to be good at anything. Just good enough at one of his/her two jobs in order not to get sacked.
What is an all rounder?
Or, rather, what do I consider an all rounder, because the term is thrown about with a fair amount of abandon - I remember once Billy Lawry referring to Brett Lee as an allrounder after Lee had hit a few fifties, but Lee was clearly a bowler who was a useful batter. There are plenty of players like this (eg Paul Reiffel, Kerry O'Keefe) - just as there are plenty of batsmen who are useful bowlers (eg. Michael Clarke, Alan Border).
I tend to use the following as a criteria:
* Is their batting average higher than their bowling average? (Not a perfect guide but useful).
* Is their test/first class batting average over 30, and bowling average under 30? (This isn't perfect either - Sobers' test bowling average was 34, but his first class one was 27.)
* Do they average at least two wickets per first class game?
I think out of all of these the most useful criteria is the 30 average cut off... not infallible but very useful. It also helps highlight players who might be an all rounder at first class level but not at test level.
For instance, Richie Benaud, has a great bowling record in first class and test matches - but his test batting average (24) is more than ten runs less than his first class average (36). I would argue Richie, great as he was, was not a test class all rounder. Ditto - and sorry to offend any Kiwi readers of this blog, should such things exist - Richard Hadlee (31 FC vs 27 tests).
Wicket-keeping all rounders are a separate issue.... some are not sure if they should even be classified as all rounders. But I would stick with the 30 average as a cut off... only adding the fact that they need to be a full time wicketkeeper. Rod Marsh and Ian Healy both averaged over 30 at first class level but under it at tests, which is why I would not consider them test class all rounders - but Gilchrist definitely.
Regardless I do feel that the label "all rounder" is far too quickly slapped on players. For years the English press have tried to spruik Stuart Broad as an all rounder. Australian cricket writers tried to do the same thing with Shaun Graf. Just because a bowler or keeper hits a century or a batsman takes five wickets does not make them an all rounder.
I tend to use the following as a criteria:
* Is their batting average higher than their bowling average? (Not a perfect guide but useful).
* Is their test/first class batting average over 30, and bowling average under 30? (This isn't perfect either - Sobers' test bowling average was 34, but his first class one was 27.)
* Do they average at least two wickets per first class game?
I think out of all of these the most useful criteria is the 30 average cut off... not infallible but very useful. It also helps highlight players who might be an all rounder at first class level but not at test level.
For instance, Richie Benaud, has a great bowling record in first class and test matches - but his test batting average (24) is more than ten runs less than his first class average (36). I would argue Richie, great as he was, was not a test class all rounder. Ditto - and sorry to offend any Kiwi readers of this blog, should such things exist - Richard Hadlee (31 FC vs 27 tests).
Wicket-keeping all rounders are a separate issue.... some are not sure if they should even be classified as all rounders. But I would stick with the 30 average as a cut off... only adding the fact that they need to be a full time wicketkeeper. Rod Marsh and Ian Healy both averaged over 30 at first class level but under it at tests, which is why I would not consider them test class all rounders - but Gilchrist definitely.
Regardless I do feel that the label "all rounder" is far too quickly slapped on players. For years the English press have tried to spruik Stuart Broad as an all rounder. Australian cricket writers tried to do the same thing with Shaun Graf. Just because a bowler or keeper hits a century or a batsman takes five wickets does not make them an all rounder.
All rounder watch: a background
Just a few notes on my obsession with all rounders - or, rather, my obsession with other people's obsession with all rounders.
I've been a cricket fan all my life - very occasionally a player, but mostly just a fan. I love watching and reading about the game. It's one of the great loves of my life.
I grew up on Australian cricket of the 1980s. It was a time rich in great players, off field drama, and erratic Australian performances: the mighty West Indies who visited here far too often, South African rebel tours, Kim Hughes vs Lillee/Marsh/the Chappells, the gutsy batting and mediocre captaincy of Alan Border, the rise and fall of Wayne Philips, the false dawn of Shaun Graf.
It was also a period of four of the greatest all rounders to ever grace the game: Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev. These players would consistently deliver unbelievable performances, often against Australia, causing many writers/commentators/former players to whinge why we didn't have an all rounder. Various options were mooted and tried - Simon O'Donnell, Wayne Phillips, Peter Sleep - but none stuck.
By the late 1980s Australia were sticking firmly to the 6/1/4 model (six batsmen, 1 specialist keeper, four bowlers). Using this formula, by the early 90s we were the second best team in the world; by 1995 we were number one, and stayed that way for over a decade.
In 2005, along with many cricket fans I was gripped by the thrilling Ashes battle that English summer, star of which was England's all rounder Andrew Flintoff. He not only helped England to one of the most exciting series victories in recent memory (and let's face it, the Ashes series had been duds for a long time), he transformed the English side into something strange and exotic. For the first time in my life, I started really studying closely the adventures of a country's test team other than my own.
And it was then I started to realise how destructive all rounders can be to a side. And how dangerous an obsession with them can be.
Hence, this blog.
I've been a cricket fan all my life - very occasionally a player, but mostly just a fan. I love watching and reading about the game. It's one of the great loves of my life.
I grew up on Australian cricket of the 1980s. It was a time rich in great players, off field drama, and erratic Australian performances: the mighty West Indies who visited here far too often, South African rebel tours, Kim Hughes vs Lillee/Marsh/the Chappells, the gutsy batting and mediocre captaincy of Alan Border, the rise and fall of Wayne Philips, the false dawn of Shaun Graf.
It was also a period of four of the greatest all rounders to ever grace the game: Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev. These players would consistently deliver unbelievable performances, often against Australia, causing many writers/commentators/former players to whinge why we didn't have an all rounder. Various options were mooted and tried - Simon O'Donnell, Wayne Phillips, Peter Sleep - but none stuck.
By the late 1980s Australia were sticking firmly to the 6/1/4 model (six batsmen, 1 specialist keeper, four bowlers). Using this formula, by the early 90s we were the second best team in the world; by 1995 we were number one, and stayed that way for over a decade.
In 2005, along with many cricket fans I was gripped by the thrilling Ashes battle that English summer, star of which was England's all rounder Andrew Flintoff. He not only helped England to one of the most exciting series victories in recent memory (and let's face it, the Ashes series had been duds for a long time), he transformed the English side into something strange and exotic. For the first time in my life, I started really studying closely the adventures of a country's test team other than my own.
And it was then I started to realise how destructive all rounders can be to a side. And how dangerous an obsession with them can be.
Hence, this blog.
Welcome to all-rounder watch
Hello! This is a blog dedicated to looking at world cricket's obsession with all rounders. I doubt anyone of any import will read it and assume it will have zilch impact but it will be good for me letting off some steam.
It's a polemic - I'll admit that up front.
But I do genuinely feel that the topic of all rounders is no way near discussed enough by the cricket media. This is an attempt to redress that balance.
It's a polemic - I'll admit that up front.
But I do genuinely feel that the topic of all rounders is no way near discussed enough by the cricket media. This is an attempt to redress that balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)