Specialist Bowler or All‑Round Utility: What is your pick?

[Ab Fan]

If given a choice, what would you pick?

1. A 22 averaging all round bowler that averages 6-8 as a batsman

2. A 25-26 averaging all round bowler with similar sample size that also averages around 19-22 as a batsman.

Discuss!

Examples -
Donald/Steyn vs Pollock
Lillee vs Starc
And many more

 

[Major]

A very interesting topic.

If i was living in the 2000-2012 era, for me the easiest pick would had been the special bowler.

However, T20 cricket has changed cricket, and concept of all round utility players are more important. One good example is the IPL of 2008. In that era, a player like Yousuf Pathan would never walk into a cricket team, nor would a player like Ravindra Jadeja. Yeh Pathan would play a crucial role in helping Rajistan Royals win that season. Years later, Jadeja would become the highest priced player in the IPL auction.

Cricket has changed soo much, its more about having resources and being able to use them.

I have criticized Afridi alot during this career, but in todays t20 market, he would be ideal player.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

There is not that big a gap in bowling between the two and the batting is the obvious cherry on top.

If you were only able to pick one 9/10 you go for the all rounder in this case.

The dilemma for selectors and captains is when the all rounder averages around the 30 range with the ball and they have a weak batting line up. Do they sacrifice a bowler for depth by bringing in the bowling all rounder?

 

[Cricket Warrior]

In this modern day cricket all round capabilities is the mandatory thing... if bad day comes on batting so atleast u have the option to cover with the ball.

 

[Kianig89]

For a purist, a lethal bowler takes the lead