Utility players (or less-glorified all-rounders)

[bond21]

my sarcasm detector is going crazy.

ROFLMAO

 

[Prince EWS]

taddel tail.

or however u spell it lol

It's not like he had to report it anyway - I replied to it and I'm a mod! Have a nice holiday; we won't miss you.

 

[NZTailender]

Haha **** me; finally.

 

[Laurrz]

Hopesy or Styris..

 

[Perm]

Haha **** me; finally.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Flem274*]

Haha **** me

With pleasure

 

[Smudge]

7-dayer, Prince?

 

[Prince EWS]

7-dayer, Prince?

Yeah. I'm really looking forward to the next week.

 

[Richard]

You misunderstand; I think a genuine all-rounder should be able to hold his place in a good test side with either his batting alone or (more commonly) his bowling alone. Practically every major all-rounder I can think of satisfies this condition. For example the four 80's all-rounders could walk into almost any test side on their bowling alone. Batting all-rounders like Sobers and Kallis were/are easily good enough to be picked for their batting alone.

By contrast a utility player is someone who is useful in both categories but not good enough in either to be picked for that alone in a good test side. That's where I would put Vettori.

If you're good enough to play as a bowler but not a batsman, you're not really an all-rounder, though, are you? You're a bowler who bats a bit, or at least a bowling-all-rounder. There were times, though, when Imran, Botham and Kapil (the latter for pretty much all his career) were equally good with both disciplines. Hadlee, on the other hand, was always a much better bowler than batsman. Sobers, likewise, was almost always a much better batsman than bowler.

 

[Richard]

Haha **** me; finally.

Indeed, the sentiments of half the forum me-can't-help-but-feel.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you're good enough to play as a bowler but not a batsman, you're not really an all-rounder, though, are you?

IMO, you're an allrounder if both your batting and your bowling have an influence on the selection of the team. It doesn't have to be your own selection, however - Kallis for example would make the South African team on batting alone quite comfortably, but for parts of his career, his bowling definitely would have been a factor in which other players they selected. If Kallis couldn't bowl, we may well have seen Boucher at 6 and Pollock 7 a lot more often. Flintoff couldn't make the England team as a batsman, but the fact that he can bat not only got him in the team when his bowling alone would not get him there, but allowed England to play five bowlers even when it could.

 

[Richard]

IMO, you're an allrounder if both your batting and your bowling have an influence on the selection of the team.

Yeah, I know, I've had this discussion with Fuller before, as well as yourself, where he insisted Andrew Symonds was an all-rounder (presume you'd not go that far, obviously).

I don't really agree - I don't feel someone like Kallis (or Symonds in ODIs) can really be described as an all-rounder because one suit is so obviously stronger than the other. For me, there has to be at least something close to equality between disciplines (bat and ball) there.

 

[jeevan]

Is Irfan Pathan too good for this list or not good enough?

 

[Richard]

Not good enough, I imagine - Arjun never been a fan of his bowling, eh?

BTW something that occurred to me earlier today - is Jeevan your actual name?

 

[roseboy64]

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I don't get you Leslie, you fawn over anyone from ND yet you hate Vettori, one of NDs greats? You're a strange one.

Bond21's NZ alter ego if you ask me.

 

[Richard]

That's an extremely unkind thing to say. sideshowtim's NZ alter-ego would be better.

 

[Flem274*]

TBF if he were either of their alter egos then I would be seriously considering a "Marshall (J) vs Bradman" thread.

 

[_Ed_]

Marshall quicker between the wickets. That'd seal it.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Marshall quicker between the wickets. That'd seal it.

Uses more hair product - greater contribution to the Gross National Product.