The very definition of a part-timer by us Indian fans interests me because of what we mean. A lot of us call players who are picked mainly for their batting as part-timers if they can bowl which does a disservice to their skill. Maxwell for example hasn’t bowled in only twenty-eight ODI innings in his entire career. That isn’t a part-timer, that’s an all-rounder right there. Head has bowled in more than fifty percent of ODIs he’s played and Phillips has bowled in close to sixty-five percent of his ODIs. They may not bowl their entire spells or even half of it in each innings but these are batting all-rounders. Head for instance is a genuinely skilled option with the ball who I’d put on par with Maxi for skill despite his lesser workload, I’ve seen him be used as a wicket taking option in tests and open the bowling in a Big Bash final. Phillips was backed in part because he can bowl.
I’d argue that the very nature of our cricket setup is why we have hyper-specialised players. There’s simply too much competition at grassroots, youth and domestic level for a player with ambitions to focus on a secondary skill. It’s why bunnies like Bumrah and Ishant turned into tailenders that can bat a bit after they were well established in the side because they could finally focus on that secondary department. Likewise Jadhav temporary run as a batting all-rounder happened after he was an established ODI player in the team.
You see this effect even now in domestic cricket. Someone like Tilak should be our own version of Maxi and yet five out of his sixteen bowling T20 bowling innings have come after his international debut. Jaiswal was used as a sixth bowler in the U-19 WC and yet he’s bowled in only forty percent of his List A innings since and has four bowling appearances in T20s, one of which was for India. There is a vicious cycle where their domestic teams don’t want to use them as the sixth bowler because they want them primarily as batters with the bowling duties being covered by others and the players themselves don’t want to focus too much on the bowling because then it may end with their primary skill development lagging behind other players which puts them at risk of losing their place if they falter there in performances. This isn’t a problem unique to India, the likes of Head and Root would have been the equal of Viv with the ball in earlier eras and it took Markram being virtually guaranteed a place in the national side despite being in poor form for him to focus strongly on his bowling to get it up to the level it is today.
This is also why such dual role cricketers that are good enough in both departments are products of traditionally weaker teams like Rishi Dhawan for Himachal Pradesh or Riyan Parag for Assam to think of two examples. They’re forced to work on their bowling/batting too because they won’t be dropped and also because their sides actually need their bowling too due to the others being worse. Exceptions to this exist too as shown by the likes of Shahbaz and Sundar for stronger sides but I’ve not seen either of them be used as serious batting options for India or their IPL sides in white ball cricket which brings us back to the core issue that I should probably talk about in the Indian thread.
This is why I prefer to think less about roles or designations and more about resources. How much batting (from the best batters through to guys who can both score effectively or hold up an end) and how much bowling (how many overs are in the side).
For the latter, I've decided to call this the OTB Rating (Overs in The Bank) cause it sounds more complex than it is.
It's not really scientific, is fairly subjective but it gives you a rough idea of the depth and options a team has. You've got frontline bowlers that I would consider 10 overs. Then it's kind of how many would you want from a player, doesn't have to be the maximum or minimum but more well that seems like a comfortable amount to have that player bowl. All rounders might be 6-8 overs, your part-timers that might 2-4 overs. Doesn't mean they can't bowl more or fewer overs... you get the idea, I'm sure.
Look at the teams yesterday:
Australia. The four front line bowlers makes 40, I'd put Maxwell and Marsh in the 6-8 (let's say 7) and Head at 3. So they've got plenty of overs in the bank, minimum 57-60. They've 37 overs off pace, 20 overs off spin. Some players could bowl more or less depending on the circumstances.
The India side yesterday had 50 OTB. Five bowlers who have to bowl 10 because I don't want anyone else in that side bowling at all. This isn't memeing around in a dead rubber, with 400 on the board, against an associate, it's the World Cup Final. If you're telling me Kohli is a sixth that's like saying David Warner or Dawid Malan are sixth bowlers (and Malan averages 32.36 in List A, not 148 like Kohli). You put Hardik in that team and the bowling attacks don't look much different.
I think in terms of Indian part timers, pretty sure Shastri talked about this recently on comms. When you get in the Indian side (or when you get in an IPL side), there's no need to bowl. They've get net bowlers, they've got bigger squads than they would have had 15 years ago, and they have coaches with slingers. So, guys just don't need to bowl unless they make that choice or are pushed to do so.
The fact that Indian players don't play overseas may also be a factor. Liam Livingstone makes himself a far more appealing signing to franchises around the world when he can bat, field and bowl 4 overs of two types of spin. That in turn makes him a valuable England player and probably was the reason he got called up to the test side despite having played a lot less first class cricket than when he was starting out. Glenn Phillips can bat, bowl, field and keep wicket.
That's why the impact player rule seems counterintuitive to what Team India needs. They need these triple threat players and back ups in case one gets injured but they aren't going to find them in the IPL or SMAT anymore whilst they can just bring in a specialist to fill the role of a part timer. Of course, I still think the BCCI could well force through the rule internationally because they would stand benefit the most. Say Jhah gonna Say Jhah.
Essay over.
