The myth of the allrounder

[youngindia]

This is the most overrated requirement in cricketing circles. Actually the countries that have dominated cricket for a decade each in the last 30 years were never known for producing allrounders. the only alrounders they found were the likes of harper,harvey ,o' donnell,greg matthews all nothing more than utility players. infact australia has not had a world class bowling allrounder for a long time.and is their record inferior to other nations? SA which has produced some world class allrounders in the same period have not reached the pinnacle of cricket except briefly. pakistan with allrounders leke razzaq has not benefited much except very occasionally. Its flawed requirement in that specialists are far more complete players and masters of the trade. most allrounders are more like jack of all trades and master of none. you can excuse allrounders like botham,kapil,kallis and imran who were world class in one department. i really wish the indian management drops this useless idea of the allroujnder and tries to rely on specialists ALONE. jadeja is not ready for atleast 2 years. irfan cannot bat at 7. he is great at no 8. the seventh batsman can be the match winner but the fifth bowler will not be. its the specialist matchwinners who will set the tone. 7 batsmen has already given us a world cup final(despite the dud dinesh mongia).it will be the key again.

[DomainK]

Just because other teams have won consistently without a great all rounder, it does not belittle the role an all rounder does/can play in a team.

[youngindia]

the big picture is it has been shown that you can attain all time great status(the pinnacle) without a single WC allrounder! implication is that all rounders are required is nonsense. as for their use, if you want to make choices like SA or pak, you are not going to go further than what they did. i am not happy with that.its the ex australian and lloyd's team which is the becnhmark. not cronje's SA or akram's pakistan.

[akshayxyz]

youngindia - There is a problem with your logic. Agreed that, allRounder is not a requirement to become great team. This does not imply that presence of an allrounder will reduce the greatness of a great team. Nor does it imply that a team can not become great if there is an allrounder in it. Requirement /Role of an allrounder is proven in well identified game situations. How a team becomes great, is a different problem, at completely different level.

[The Outsider]

you can excuse allrounders like botham,kapil,kallis and imran who were world class in one department.

Thank you Lord for the small mercies of life.

[thevortex]

Yes, well, you dont need a world class all rounder necessarily to have a good win ratio. But then it wont hurt. That is the point. The West Indies team of yore is a great example. A team full of specialists. And they conquered all!

[Lord]

ODIs hv changed a lot over the time.with batting PP n flat decks,we need a reliable 5th bowling option

[achilles]

I agree that your logic is sound. However, having a Flintoff, Watson, Johnson, Brett Lee helps.

[The Dark Horse]

^If Lee is an all rounder then we have Bhajji:giggle:

[achilles]

^If Lee is an all rounder then we have Bhajji:giggle:

Bhajji is one of the Greatest Allrounder India has produced. To unlock his batting ability, all you need to do is- Let a ball hit his helmet when he is batting. You will be treated to shots that would even put Sachin Tendulkar to shame. :haha:

[DomainK]

BTW we have Sachin to thank for Bhajji's batting abilities. He made him the batsman he is today.

[Clarke]

most allrounders are more like jack of all trades and master of none. you can excuse allrounders like botham,kapil,kallis and imran who were world class in one department.

The fact of the matter is they're (the jacks) called all rounders but they are not so in the true sense. Heard this from Tony probably, how do u basically claim to be an all rounder from a layman's perspective ? If the following conditions (at least one, generally both) are met, one is qualified to be one : i) Batting Average > Bowling Average. ii) capable of scoring a hundred and/or taking 4 wickets in an innings. The first one is a statistical aid and the second one a qualitative measure.

the seventh batsman can be the match winner but the fifth bowler will not be. its the specialist matchwinners who will set the tone.

As suggested earlier, an all rounder is atleast a specialist in batting or bowling. What ur suggesting is leaving out bits and pieces players which i often agree with.

[Lord]

Bhajji is one of the Greatest Allrounder India has produced. To unlock his batting ability, all you need to do is- Let a ball hit his helmet when he is batting. You will be treated to shots that would even put Sachin Tendulkar to shame. :haha:

wat an allround performance in this match:hail:

[achilles]

wat an allround performance in this match:hail:

You respond to sarcasm with sarcasm. Nice.

[youngindia]

youngindia - There is a problem with your logic. Agreed that, allRounder is not a requirement to become great team. This does not imply that presence of an allrounder will reduce the greatness of a great team.

My main gripe against allrounders(most of them barring the great ones) is it has made selection committees around the world make stupid,if not outright dumb moves that can hurt the team. for instance , look at the quality of players india has selected over the years- bedade,jp yadav,bangar,joginder sharma.even robin was at best average. so mediocre to average players get chances on the guise of an allroudner. jadeja being thrust into the team before he is remotely ready to win the match with the bat is another example. dhoni is dreaming he will contribute someday. that day is certainly not going to come by the time of the world cup.

Nor does it imply that a team can not become great if there is an allrounder in it.

only if the allrounder is a world class specialist in one field atleast. otherwise you are hurting the team by selecting a lesser player. specialists either in bowling or batting have stronger foundation, more range of skills than a less than wc allrounder. this significant difference in quality will matter.

How a team becomes great, is a different problem, at completely different level.

in international sport,becoming no1 is the ultimate goal. if anything is an obstruction, it has to be removed.

[akshayxyz]

Yes I agree with you, an allrounder (mediocre in all departments) does not deserve a place against a specialist who may or may not be good in other department. You should have mentioned Jadeja before, it would have been easy decision for me :).

[youngindia]

Yes, well, you dont need a world class all rounder necessarily to have a good win ratio. But then it wont hurt. That is the point. !

only they are world class in one field if you are just decent in one field and a bit part in another field , you are hogging the place of a world class specialist. that certainly hurts. the lesser player should not hog the place of a better player who can win more matches. that's the point. lesser players often get chances becuse they can play 2 roles.

[akshayxyz]

As for building great teams - 3-4 world class players make a good team. But to become great, you have to groom the worst performers in your team. It depends on how good your lowest 3-4 'specialists' are.

[Fair Game]

People used to call gilchrist an all rounder when he first started because his batting was so good.

[youngindia]

As for building great teams - 3-4 world class players make a good team.

nope. it would be more like 7-9 and the aussie-wi examples would prove that.

But to become great, you have to groom the worst performers in your team.

there are no real weak players in great teams. the standard is so high average players don't get picked(unless inthe guise of an allrounder). what is the use of picking weak to average player? their best is weak to average.