White, Watto, Symonds /question of all-rounder/ specialists

Surely the biggest joke in the White selection over Clark for the last test is that it didn't alleviate the over rates problem which may have even be a factor in the end.

Obviously Clark only took two wickets at 80 in the series, though he was economical so we included Krejza in an attempt to take 20 wickets and he was there to support White. The two spinners were meant to, along with Johnson and Lee make up the contingent of specialist bowlers. Watson as a #4 batsman was there for support.

Did White get so few overs because he's as carp as most think or that Punter had no faith in him? The biggest irony here is that with an attack with an extra slow bowler we seemed to get into even deeper over rate trouble - enough to have possibly cost us the match.

If he was always going to bowl fewer overs than Watson, would not it have been just as wise to bat him at #6, or in fact even play Marsh, bat Watson at #8 and then use a combination of Clarke, Hussey and Katich for slower bowling options?

If White batted at #6 because he effectively bowled few overs, then the question has to be asked as to whether he's the best #6 option.

While Watson's bowling was promising at times, and he got a few starts while only really converting once with the bat, has he really consolidated his place ahead of Symonds. And does Symonds really deserve to go back in at #6 as a batting all-rounder until he makes runs at Shield level?

If Symonds does go back to #6 in the order, should Watson drop to #8 and play as a bowling all-rounder, or should another specialist bowler be picked ahead of him?

In short, are we obsessed with cultivating an all-rounder at the expense of a more competent specialists?

Has this phenomenon been in place since the Flintoff heroics in the 2005 Ashes series?

Either we play Symonds @ 6, or play Watson @ 6. No point choosing both