Are all-rounders a strength or a liability?

[BunnyRabbit]

Okay so the meaning of an all rounder is a player who can bat and bowl well both(field well in modern cricket too). So basically it means you get 2 players in place of one which sorta makes having virtual 12 players in a team.

I started listening to another definition of being an all rounder coined by some "experts" as a player who can win you the game with either the bat or the ball.

Coming to the point, being an all rounder has been exploited recently especially in case of Pakistani players. Players like Hafeez and Afridi had consistently referring themselves as all rounders. According to them, if they don't perform with the bat, they can "compensate" it with bowling well. It kinda enrages me to hear them exploiting the meaning of being such allrounders. As performing in one facet of the game while faring poorly in the other and leading to covering a spot for themselves for their so called dual ability of both batting and bowling.

In my opinion, having this mentality reduces the virtual number of players in the team from expected 12 to 10.

On the other hand, there are some true all rounders like Ben Stokes, Chris Woakes, Shakib, Ashwin(in tests), Corey Anderson(before injury), Matthews(in LOIs) who perform with in both aspects of the game and it helps the team's cause.

What do you guys think? Do you agree with the points that I made? Is the lazy mentality of our all rounders hurting us or helping us?

 

[Ph_11]

Okay so the meaning of an all rounder is a player who can bat and bowl well both(field well in modern cricket too). So basically it means you get 2 players in place of one which sorta makes having virtual 12 players in a team.

I started listening to another definition of being an all rounder coined by some "experts" as a player who can win you the game with either the bat or the ball.

Coming to the point, being an all rounder has been exploited recently especially in case of Pakistani players. Players like Hafeez and Afridi had consistently referring themselves as all rounders. According to them, if they don't perform with the bat, they can "compensate" it with bowling well. It kinda enrages me to hear them exploiting the meaning of being such allrounders. As performing in one facet of the game while faring poorly in the other and leading to covering a spot for themselves for their so called dual ability of both batting and bowling.

In my opinion, having this mentality reduces the virtual number of players in the team from expected 12 to 10.

On the other hand, there are some true all rounders like Ben Stokes, Chris Woakes, Shakib, Ashwin(in tests), Corey Anderson(before injury), Matthews(in LOIs) who perform with in both aspects of the game and it helps the team's cause.

What do you guys think? Do you agree with the points that I made? Is the lazy mentality of our all rounders hurting us or helping us?

All rounder in context of India means someone who can neither bowl nor bat. Beside KD and Jaddu India has not produced any allrounder. I think allrounder concept is a myth. If I am a selector I would only go for specialist. No allrounders, never ever.

 

[Chrish]

Quality all-rounder brings invaluable balance to the side..

 

[Chrish]

General rule of thumb when selecting a test team is 4 specialist bowlers + 1 all-rounder.

Need minimum of 5 bowling options as one bowler can break down anytime due to injury.

 

[Hamza_]

I don't like the concept of all-rounder. Too many bits and pieces players who take up spot of a deserving specialist.

 

[Chrish]

Guys like Vinoo Mankad and Mushtaq Mohammad get underrated over here. Very pure all-rounders and definite candidates for all-time XI of their team

 

[Justcrazy]

Pure all rounders are rare in history .

 

[Syed1]

Most alrounders have been folks who have been genuinely good batsmen or genuinely good bowlers, and their other suite was average or slightly above average. You won't find a cricketer who can bowl like Wasim and bat like Lara/Pointing.


Unfortunately for us we get alrounders who can neither bat nor bowl. The last 'good' alrounder we had was Razzaq. We keep producing 'alrounders' like Tanvir or Anwar Ali. A year or two down the line Imad Wasim will also join that list.

 

[Ph_11]

India got Jaddu by chance. Cricket is a tough sport. You can only specialize in one aspect. I heard abt Vinoo Mankad but I am not buying the hype. At that level you cannot be good at both. In my galli cricket everyone was a allrounder. We have a better chance of finding yeti than a allrounder.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Most alrounders have been folks who have been genuinely good batsmen or genuinely good bowlers, and their other suite was average or slightly above average. You won't find a cricketer who can bowl like Wasim and bat like Lara/Pointing.


Unfortunately for us we get alrounders who can neither bat nor bowl. The last 'good' alrounder we had was Razzaq. We keep producing 'alrounders' like Tanvir or Anwar Ali. A year or two down the line Imad Wasim will also join that list.

But how come guys like Hafeez get away with the fact that if they fail in one discipline they can compensate it with the other. Doesn't it weaken the team in the way that it decreases depth of batting if you are having a hit or miss all rounder in your top 4?

 

[Syed1]

But how come guys like Hafeez get away with the fact that if they fail in one discipline they can compensate it with the other. Doesn't it weaken the team in the way that it decreases depth of batting if you are having a hit or miss all rounder in your top 4?

Don't abuse alrounders by calling Hafeez one. He is neither a good batsman nor a threatening bowler. His record against top 5-6 teams is atrocious. He shot up the rankings by performing against minnows.

 

[Executioner]

A world class allrounder is a rare breed. But an allrounder can bring massive balance.

Because of Shakib Bangladesh barely had to bowl filler overs using part timers and at times go with 8 batsman in the side at times.

Won't call Jadeja a genuine allrounder. Ashwin in tests played the role of a genuine allrounder for India but his skills were limited with the bat TBH.

Stokes has potential. Russell Bravo Morris are some allrounders for the shortest format.

Usually even if a player is genuine in one aspect and more than handy in the other they can still be a big asset.

 

[PakLFC]

They are a massive advantage. It means the team can play six batsmen followed by an all rounder, keeper then three bowlers. Playing a genuine all rounder opens the whole team up adding balance. Must be a genuine all rounder like Imran, Kapil, Beefy and Richard Hadlee. I don't call the likes of Wasim Akram genuine all rounders.

 

[Sami92]

Those who neither can bat nor ball and call themselves all-rounder are a liability.

Those who can both bat and ball are valuable asset to the team and bring balance to the side.

 

[redmaverik84]

All rounders in today's cricket is over rated and the tag is used for anyone who bats No.7 and bowls military medium. The last true international All rounders were Kallis and Razzaq ( Shakib now) All rounders are those who deliver BOTH with bat and bowl and not EITHER bat or bowl as some consider. None of the new guys can claim to be that. Hell, I cant think of any real seaming all rounders these days.

 

[redmaverik84]

Edit: Ben Stokes has the talent, he is established with the bat but hasn't yet developed with the ball. Has pace but nothing else. Also the amount of cricket played these days hampers development of all rounders as they develop rather late due to the dual skill. So we see most seam bowling all rounders sticking to one skill as they go on in their career and spin bowling all rounders increasing their count as I guess its less taxing on the body.

 

[Pollack]

Interesting to hear people calling Jadeja an all rounder. He is a bowler.

 

[mkyawar]

No point of playing all-rounders in Tests unless they are the calibre of S Pollock or J Kallis

Allrounders like phelakwayo/pandya and chris morris are not meant for test cricket. I have no idea what this andie phelakwayo was doing in this test. In tests you need someone who is either a great batsman or bowler. Someone like Kallis who can make the team as a batsman alone or as a pollock/flintoff who can be in the team for the bowling alone.

 

[bujhee kom]

True allrounders are worth their weight in gold. Bits and pieces players masquerading as AR's are not worth spit in Tests. In ODIs, the lesser AR (b/p players) have some role as biffers/guys who can bowl 5-6 overs for balance, but such players are useless in Tests.

In Tests, you have to be solid in 1 area. If you are quality in both - you are a gem.

 

[Syed1]

Most alrounders have been folks who have been genuinely good batsmen or genuinely good bowlers, and their other suite was average or slightly above average. You won't find a cricketer who can bowl like Wasim and bat like Lara/Pointing.


Unfortunately for us we get alrounders who can neither bat nor bowl. The last 'good' alrounder we had was Razzaq. We keep producing 'alrounders' like Tanvir or Anwar Ali. A year or two down the line Imad Wasim will also join that list.

Spitting straight truth a year ago lmao

 

[babajee]

Spitting straight truth a year ago lmao

Faheem is special