Specialists vs All-Rounders

[nightprowler10]

I could have sworn there was a thread around here somewhere about this, so if someone finds it, I'll be happy to delete this one.

Anyway, this has been on my mind for a bit tbh. What sort of a player do people think is more beneficial to a team in cricket overall? A specialist, or an all-rounder (included wicket keeper-batsmen).

Discuss!

 

[Griffo]

I prefer specalists because they do one thing well not ok at both

but if a Keith Miller comes by i will pick him

 

[angryangy]

It's important for a team to have at least two bowlers.

 

[Griffo]

It's important for a team to have at least two bowlers.

that is the weirdest thing i have ever read try 4

 

[Sureshot]

All rounders can be but with the mass ammount of cricket being played their workload is more than most. Look at Flintoff and Watson. Two talented guys, okay they both have had injuries but if the cricketing calendar was sensible we'd be able to see the best of their ability. The quality of cricket is poorer due to the quantity of cricket forced to be played by the ICC.

 

[Griffo]

very good point sureshot but kallis doesnt seem to suffer.

 

[manee]

Personally, I think that all all rounders should be able to get into the team for their stronger suit and that anything else should be considered a bonus and certainly not affect whether they are picked or not. I do not agree with Flintoff being batted six and bowled to no end, he himself said that he cannot do both well in a match, it just doesn't happen. It is two completely frames of mind and you cannot be expected to keep both at full efficiency or risk detrimenting them both (see: Irfan Pathan). Flintoff should bowl and maybe bat 7 or even lower, as a bowler would be expected to do. At seven, he is not expected to score runs but if he does, all the better.

A person should only be in the team for more than one suit if one is super extraordinary fielding (Jonty Rhodes) which can account for some not great batting. The person who is supposedly the best all rounder in the world is Jacques Kallis, someone who averages 55 with the bat and whose forgetful bowling is efficient, clearly he is a batsman who can bowls.

I feel that all rounders can be the most inconsistant players around, because of the opportunities they get. They could score a duck at six OR take no wickets in a 20 over stint, or both in one match!

Stick with one, the other two are bonuses.

 

[Gunner786]

but if a Keith Miller comes by i will pick him

have you ever seen him in action?

or are you going by articles you have read?

 

[Griffo]

stats

 

[angryangy]

The person who is supposedly the best all rounder in the world is Jacques Kallis, someone who averages 55 with the bat and whose forgetful bowling is efficient, clearly he is a batsman who can bowls.

Kallis cops a bit of stick over his all-rounder status, but at his worst it's not like his bowling is really any worse than Harmison.

In limited overs, all-rounders are essential, you can't simply play with a 5 man tail and expect results. Even so, five bowlers is the minimum, so still more bowlers usually factor in somewhere. An ODI team needs at least one all-rounder. Calling them the batsmen-who-bowls or bowler-who-bats is just fidgeting with semantics. If he can do a good job of both, then he's an all-rounder. It's not like you call Michael Vaughan an un-batsman at ODIs because he doesn't make hundreds.

 

[manee]

In limited overs, all-rounders are essential, you can't simply play with a 5 man tail and expect results. Even so, five bowlers is the minimum, so still more bowlers usually factor in somewhere. An ODI team needs at least one all-rounder. Calling them the batsmen-who-bowls or bowler-who-bats is just fidgeting with semantics. If he can do a good job of both, then he's an all-rounder. It's not like you call Michael Vaughan an un-batsman at ODIs because he doesn't make hundreds.

You may call it semantic but it is a frame of mind as to whether you are expected to perform with the bat and ball or one or the other. I only feel that all rounders are people like Collingwood and Yardy who can only get into the team with both (or all three of) their traits (less so Collingwood now, but when he came into the team that was the case).

I don't understand that last statement about Vaughan.

 

[RoboRocks]

I don't understand that last statement about Vaughan.

Either do I.:what

Yardy is couldn't get in the side a bowler seeing as he can't turn a ball and then becomes a dibbly dobberly.

Collingwood is useful with he variation and his consistant line and length and also is a magnificent fielder which will all combine into a complete alrounder with his batting.

 

[Vcassano]

Specialists are what make a team good, but an All rounder can make a team great. If the all-rounder is not so good, ie can bowl a bit and bat a bit, it is better to have a specialist in there. But if he can perform at a high level with both bat and ball you can create the best balance in the team - 4 bowlers, 5 batsmen, 1 wicketkeeper and an all-rounder.

 

[Will_NA]

There is a major difference between a pure all-rounder and someone who can do a bit of both.

 

[Almost_Austwick]

Specialists are what make a team good, but an All rounder can make a team great. If the all-rounder is not so good, ie can bowl a bit and bat a bit, it is better to have a specialist in there. But if he can perform at a high level with both bat and ball you can create the best balance in the team - 4 bowlers, 5 batsmen, 1 wicketkeeper and an all-rounder.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The main thing that a good all rounder gives you are options. No matter what you go with you'll always have at least 4 bowlers and 5 batsmen (unless of course you pack the side with one or the other). This means you can strengthen the batting or bowling when needed and still have reasonable balance.