Being and (all rounder) Nothingness

No-one has better symbolised the existential crisis of Oz cricket than Mitchell Marsh. Continually boosted through the media, WA and the bnlg, Marsh has been a miasma over over cricket.

His failures are legend and he is arguably the worst ever player to have been gifted so many Tests for Australia. The facts are clear. He has the worst record of a number 6 in the history of Test cricket to have played 30+ games. By itself his bowling would not get him many games in a Grade xi first team. His bowling is that of a talented part timer at best.

For the record

* In 32 Tests his 55 knocks have yielded two tons (on autobahns) and 3 50s. He averages a paltry 25.20 while he has taken 42 wickets at 38.64..

Finally with the emergence of Cam Green, Oz may never again find an argument to select him in a Test match. With some luck and good judgement he might get tapped on the shoulder and advised to just focus on white ball cricket.

Hard to argue.

skully wrote:Hard to argue.

Green coming from the Worst of Australia might help the transition.

I heard Cracka quoted that Green wouldnt be considered for Test selection until he is bowling

I think this is wrong and will lead to a repeat of the farque up they created in Mitch Marsh

Get him in at 6 as a batsman if his form warrants it

Think he is bowling this round.

His form warrants selection as a specialist 6.

Has Australia ever produced a genuine top drawer all-rounder? It's rare that you've needed one.

You dominated for years with 6 batsmen who rarely failed to post a good total, a wk (even one not called Gilchrist) who added a few runs, and 4 bowlers capable of blowing teams away, yet sticking with a top-order bat if required.

More recently, you've still had top class players with both bat and ball - but the XI has had to be filed with make-weights like MM.

It's the reason why I always said that you were spoiled during the glory years. As fans, many of you gave players like MacGill and Lee dog's abuse when they would have been certain picks anywhere else.

Growler wrote:Has Australia ever produced a genuine top drawer all-rounder? It's rare that you've needed one.

You dominated for years with 6 batsmen who rarely failed to post a good total, a wk (even one not called Gilchrist) who added a few runs, and 4 bowlers capable of blowing teams away, yet sticking with a top-order bat if required.

More recently, you've still had top class players with both bat and ball - but the XI has had to be filed with make-weights like MM.

It's the reason why I always said that you were spoiled during the glory years. As fans, many of you gave players like MacGill and Lee dog's abuse when they would have been certain picks anywhere else.

1. Yes. We have produced some quality all rounders, but not for a long time.

2. The Botham legacy of scars has seen Oz look for all rounders. It has been a ridiculous fixation, that finally led to the repeated selection of M Marsh.

3. Yes. We have been usually lucky enough to have 4 capable bowlers and six good batsmen.

4. Great emphasis has been placed on the bowlers being able to bat and  one or two batsmen who can roll their arm over and take the odd wicket.

Good posts by both Growls and h.

You are absolutely right that we were spoiled for talent in our glory days, Growls. I wish we could get there again!!!

If you have three batsman capable of rolling their arm over for half an hour, and the second worst batsman in your team is Shane Warne or Jason Gillespie or Brett Lee or Craig McDermott or Peter Siddle or Nathan Lyon or Ryan Harris or Merv Hughes or just about anybody except Glenn McGrath (whose reputation as a batting Baldrick was not always warranted, esp late in his career), you surely don't need a designated 'all-rounder'.

That's exactly right Fred. In many innings, if your "tail" was required to bat, it was rarely rolled over quickly.

As for batsmen who could turn their arm over for a half hour, it wasn't often you were in the field long enough for the skipper to need them to.

If you have seven or eight all-time greats in your side (WI 70s-80s, Aus 90s-00s) you don’t need a genuine all-rounder. Aside from that, you probably do - although not to the extent of picking someone who doesn’t contribute in any discipline (qv England, late 80s and 90s).

If you have a true all-rounder it’s like playing with 12 men, which is priceless. Though a balanced side is about more than one pivotal player (e.g. you don’t pick all your bowlers for their batting, but you don’t pick four bunnies either).

Aus's last quality allrounders were Davidson and Benaud. That was 60 years ago.

It's way beyond time that our idiot selectors gave up on their chase for their "holy grail" - the star all rounder - the guy who can be picked as a bat or bowler alone.

skully wrote:Aus's last quality allrounders were Davidson and Benaud. That was 60 years ago.

It's way beyond time that our idiot selectors gave up on their chase for their "holy grail" - the star all rounder - the guy who can be picked as a bat or bowler alone.

Keith Miller was the last imo.

It’s OK to wait for the next Miller or Botham or Sobers or Kallis, but Australia has shown that it’s pointless trying to manufacture one.

Personally I have been content with our bowlers who could bat quite well (Johnson, Starc, Cummins, Harris, Reiffel, and down a notch to Hughes, Lawson, Pattinson); and our batsmen who could bowl very useful overs (Steve and Mark Waugh, Blewett, Katich, Clarke, G Chappell, Walters).

Our last match winning all-rounder, of course, was Gilchrist.

We do have a pretty decent all rounder


Batting and fielding averages
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 8 13 5 624 213* 78.00 1382 45.15 2 2 79 1 5 0
ODIs 112 89 31 3022 112* 52.10 3917 77.15 2 27 247 24 37 0
T20Is 120 72 29 1218 60* 28.32 1155 105.45 0 4 103 23 36 0
Bowling averages
Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10
Tests 8 15 1534 564 31 6/32 9/70 18.19 2.20 49.4 1 2 0
ODIs 112 110 5110 3693 152 7/22 7/22 24.29 4.33 33.6 1 3 0
T20Is 120 116 2261 2209 114 4/12 4/12 19.37 5.86 19.8 4 0 0

Our "Kallis" has just retired from all cricket ...

Perry has retired?

not Perry

Hint

The decision was reviewed ...hitting middle of middle

'You look like Woodstock from Peanuts
And you dance like Plastic Bertrand
etc etc'