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.
No comments:
Post a Comment