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.
Friday, February 21, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)