Australia vs India First Test - Adelaide Oval - Dec 9 - Dec 13

[Lebbo73]

Oh they will disappear for a while but don't worry they will be back sometime this summer.

I was only negative about the declaration. We should of got another 30 runs. It was only the fact that the Indian batsmen committed batting suicide that we won. Plus Lyon taking lucky wickets!

 

[Kram]

I was only negative about the declaration. We should of got another 30 runs. It was only the fact that the Indian batsmen committed batting suicide that we won. Plus Lyon taking lucky wickets!

Around 400 for a lead would have been nice but that extra time to get it yesterday probably would've allowed India to get to a draw.

 

[Caesar]

I don't know what happened to Henriques. He was good in India when the whole team was shit and got dropped.

Yeah, he got a bit of a rough deal then. He wasn't great in India, but he was better than most of the side. Probably a casualty of the selectors wanting to stick with Watson as the allrounder. If Henriques wasn't required as a fifth bowler, at the time there were batsmen with a better claim on the top six.

My opinion at the end of the India tour was that they should have dumped Watson and stuck with Henriques. Maybe a bit of short-term pain while he grew into a fully-fledged Test batsman, but he had a ton of potential.

Now Marsh has matured a bit, unless something goes seriously wrong with him it's hard to see Henriques getting much of a look-in. So much of Test selection is about timing, unfortunately - just look at Andrew McDonald.

 

[Lebbo73]

Congratulations Australia, would have loved India to sneak a win (or draw it at least) but the better team won on the final day.



Operation keep Watto away from captaincy is in full swing.

Please no! If Watto ever becomes captain I reckon half of this country will stop watching cricket. The man oozes negativity on the field!

 

[Gough]

Yeah, he got a bit of a rough deal then. He wasn't great in India, but he was better than most of the side. Probably a casualty of the selectors wanting to stick with Watson as the allrounder. If Henriques wasn't required as a fifth bowler, at the time there were batsmen with a better claim on the top six.

My opinion at the end of the India tour was that they should have dumped Watson and stuck with Henriques. Maybe a bit of short-term pain while he grew into a fully-fledged Test batsman, but he had a ton of potential.

Now Marsh has matured a bit, unless something goes seriously wrong with him it's hard to see Henriques getting much of a look-in. So much of Test selection is about timing, unfortunately - just look at Andrew McDonald.

Problem with Henriques is that he's as John Arlott once said of Bob Cunis, neither one thing nor the other, both his batting and bowling are just below Test standard. Bolter for the WC squad perhaps.

 

[Kram]

Yep, the pseudo all-rounder has no place in Test cricket.

 

[sherb]

Problem with Henriques is that he's as John Arlott once said of Bob Cunis, neither one thing or the other, both his batting and bowling are just below Test standard. Bolter for the WC squad perhaps.

One of the all-time great commentary lines.

 

[Caesar]

Problem with Henriques is that he's as John Arlott once said of Bob Cunis, neither one thing or the other, both his batting and bowling are just below Test standard. Bolter for the WC squad perhaps.

That's what people said about Steve Smith, though.

A few years ago I'd have agreed, but in more recent times I am not so sure. Injury put paid to Henriques' summer this year, but over the previous two Shield seasons he averaged over 60 with the bat. His bowling is not venomous enough to earn him a place in the Test side, but it's nice and economical which is what you really want from your fourth seamer.

I'd like to see him bat further up the order for NSW. He has pretty solid technique, and once he gets back on the park I'm looking forward to seeing him accumulate a few more innings of substance. Think he has probably missed the boat for Test selection though.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

If India have any sense at all, they will retain Kohli as captain instead of the defensive Dhoni

Totally agree. Kohli is a breath of fresh air for Test cricket. It reminds me of the time the ACB sacked Bill Lawry and appointed Ian Chappell as captain, even though Sir Donald wasn't all that pleased about it at the time. It was the greatest thing ever to happen to Test cricket in Australia.

 

[Caesar]

Dhoni's already been named as captain for the second Test, I believe.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Yep, the pseudo all-rounder has no place in Test cricket.

We've never really understood what a Test all-rounder means. We have labelled players such as Greg Chappell or Mitchell Johnson as all-rounders which is just not correct. Greg Chappell could never have forged a Test career on his bowling alone, just as Johnson could never play Tests as a specialist batsman. In the early 60s we had Davidson and Benaud who came close, but the last genuine all-rounder we've had was Keith Miller. Strangely enough, if you look at their performances, the closest we've had to an all-rounder since then was Greg Matthews.

The biggest problem facing Australian Test cricket is the plethora of cricketers who are one day all-rounders who are neither good enough batsmen nor bowlers to play Test cricket. Somehow we need to nuture specialists like we used to, but these players struggle to get selected for 20/20 and 50 over matches.

 

[Lebbo73]

That's what people said about Steve Smith, though.

A few years ago I'd have agreed, but in more recent times I am not so sure. Injury put paid to Henriques' summer this year, but over the previous two Shield seasons he averaged over 60 with the bat. His bowling is not venomous enough to earn him a place in the Test side, but it's nice and economical which is what you really want from your fourth seamer.

These days he bats further up the order for NSW. He has pretty solid technique, and once he gets back on the park I'm looking forward to seeing him accumulate a few more innings of substance. Think he has probably missed the boat for Test selection though.

Is being economical enough any more? The good alrounders take wickets as well. Watson doesn't take wickets any more. Injuries have destroyed his potency with the ball. His lack of a killer instinct has rendered his batting as toothless!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

To be fair he has actually had Shield form in the last two years. Unlike the other ten years of being talked up, its not a completely ludicrous proposition right now.
The years of the Herald-Sun talking him up as the next Shane Warne (on the basis of an under-19 world cup where he was outbowled by Doherty), and then as then next Ponting, all the while being a super-spud with bat and ball certainly make him seem like a joke. But his batting has got to the point where, unlike when he was selected, his selection would be almost warranted.

I remember when Cameron White first came onto the scene. I saw him as a talented batsman and so-so bowler. He was appointed as captain of Victoria in his early 20s. For some reason, people kept batting him at 8 and playing him as a second string spin bowler which didn't help his career to develop.

I liken him a little to Ian Chappell who for several seasons was batting middle order for SA and playing as a first string leg spinner. His leg spinning was all very nice, but it was never what was going to see him progress as a Test cricketer. Thankfully, SA captain Les Favell told him one day he was going to bat at 3 and make plenty of runs, and do very little bowling. Chappell's career blossomed.

Unfortunately for White, there was no Les Favell captaining Victoria, White was captain himself. He should have, but couldn't start batting himself in the top 4 and rarely bowling. This would have hastened his inclusion into an Australian XI. IMHO, White's talents have been wasted, but then again, he's not the only player this had happened to.

 

[Tulip]

Clarke said there's a chance he won't play again in the after match press conference. Hopefully just an off the cuff, emotion-driven statement.

For the series wasn't it

One of the all-time great commentary lines.

Loved one of the ABC commentators yesterday.

"Karn Sharma will come in at eight, but he batted more like a number 10 in the first innings"

to which Bogle responded

"Appropriately but correctly put"

 

[Caesar]

Is being economical enough any more? The good alrounders take wickets as well. Watson doesn't take wickets any more. Injuries have destroyed his potency with the ball. His lack of a killer instinct has rendered his batting as toothless!

If your fifth bowler can hold up an end for 20-25 overs at 2-3 runs an over, to me that's plenty. It gives your front-line bowlers plenty of rest while still keeping the pressure on. Under those conditions, your 4 specialists should be able to take 9 or 10 wickets between themselves easily - if not, that's a problem with your bowlers rather than your allrounder.

I've never had a problem with recent Watson not being able to take wickets. It's more of an issue that he's been bowling very few overs, making him essentially a specialist batsman with a bad average.

 

[Tulip]

We've never really understood what a Test all-rounder means. We have labelled players such as Greg Chappell or Mitchell Johnson as all-rounders which is just not correct. Greg Chappell could never have forged a Test career on his bowling alone, just as Johnson could never play Tests as a specialist batsman. In the early 60s we had Davidson and Benaud who came close, but the last genuine all-rounder we've had was Keith Miller. Strangely enough, if you look at their performances, the closest we've had to an all-rounder since then was Greg Matthews.

The biggest problem facing Australian Test cricket is the plethora of cricketers who are one day all-rounders who are neither good enough batsmen nor bowlers to play Test cricket. Somehow we need to nuture specialists like we used to, but these players struggle to get selected for 20/20 and 50 over matches.

How many true all rounders are there in world cricket, than?

Andy Symonds could bowl medium pace and spin, though neither was good enough to make him a stand alone bowler.

Flintoff and Kallis were both strong, but having both retired no quality all-rounder who is still in the game comes to mind.

 

[Caesar]

You could make a case for Vettori being a genuine allrounder, although I guess he's not really still 'in the game'.

 

[Millky95]

There has been a drop of true allrounders (like Kallis) but more batting allrounders. More teams want 4 specialist bowlers with 1-2 batsmen who can bowl a few overs to give main bowlers a spell and maybe take 2-4 wickets a game.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

How many true all rounders are there in world cricket, than?

Well, you could look to a lad like Stokes from England who averaged mid 30s batting 6 and around 30 with the ball in the 2013-14 Ashes series. However, we see a lot of his style of player start to drift towards batsman who can bowl a little as time goes on. Only time will tell.

To me, a genuine Test all rounder needs to average in the 40s with the bat and mid-late 20s with the ball, and these players are very hard to find.

 

[Doss]

Well, you could look to a lad like Stokes from England who averaged mid 30s batting 6 and around 30 with the ball in the 2013-14 Ashes series. However, we see a lot of his style of player start to drift towards batsman who can bowl a little as time goes on. Only time will tell.

To me, a genuine Test all rounder needs to average in the 40s with the bat and mid-late 20s with the ball, and these players are very hard to find.

How many all rounders achieve that?

Even Keith Miller averaged only 37 with the bat.

I reckon mid to high 30s and high 20s to 30 with the ball might be a slightly more achievable (as in, common) metric.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

You could make a case for Vettori being a genuine allrounder, although I guess he's not really still 'in the game'.

Vettori is still very much a lower order batsman though.

 

[Underarm]

Ravi Ashwin? He should be playing in these tests.
Hafeez* bowled well in the UAE and opened the batting.


But I think the need for a genuine all rounder is over stated in tests. We have Watson, marsh, and smith who can be brought on to hopefully snag a wicket and give the other 4 a rest. That's all they need to do.

We became obsessed with an all rounder because Hayden/langer/Ponting didn't bowl and so our frontline bowlers didn't have any support.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

How many all rounders achieve that?

Even Keith Miller averaged only 37 with the bat.

I reckon mid to high 30s and high 20s to 30 with the ball might be a slightly more achievable (as in, common) metric.

I was allowing for the fact some all-rounders such as Sobers averaged almost 60 with the bat, and there are possibly some who average under 25 with the ball. I think you will find Keith Miller really didn't take his cricket all that seriously and if he had Bradman like hunger for runs and wickets he would have averaged must higher.

 

[Doss]

I was allowing for the fact some all-rounders such as Sobers averaged almost 60 with the bat, and there are possibly some who average under 25 with the ball. I think you will find Keith Miller really didn't take his cricket all that seriously and if he had Bradman like hunger for runs and wickets he would have averaged must higher.

Sobers was a freak of nature, no doubt. He ended with an average a tick under 58 (excluding the Rest of the World Tests in 1970 and 1971-72) but his bowling average was 34.

Kallis ended up averaging 55 and a half and just under 33 with the ball.

Imran Khan averaged 37.69 with the bat, and 22.81 with the ball.

Kapil Dev averaged 31.05 with the bat and 29.64 with the ball.

Those are the sort of guys who are the benchmark, along with Miller.

 

[Caesar]

Vettori is still very much a lower order batsman though.

At his peak he probably could have been picked as a top six bat for NZ. It was really only his own preference as captain to concentrate on his bowling that kept him at 7/8.