Utility players (or less-glorified all-rounders)

[Arjun]

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?

Those players have often played with four oher bowlers and just filled in with the ball, and scored some extra runs.

Irfan, on the other hand, when he was in great form, was one of only four bowlers and often had to spearhead the bowling (often bowling more overs than a spinner), and whether he's good enough to make the team as a bowler alone, is a matter of controversy.

 

[Smudge]

Marshall - has a better relationship with officialdom. And by relationship, I mean intimate nights in with scented candles, bath salts and a dressing gown that doesn't quite cover everything.

 

[Arjun]

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

GRRRRR.....

 

[Prince EWS]

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).

Oh, I believe he is. Obviously I don't believe he's a very good one, at all, but I doubt he'd have played Tests for Australia if not for bowling - he certainly wouldn't have been recalled for his most recent stint, anyway.

By my definition, with both his batting and his bowling contributing to the selection of the eleven, he's an allrounder.

 

[GIMH]

A definition I've commonly heard is that an all-rounder should have a higher batting average than bowling average

I believe, though, that that would make Tendulkar an all-rounder. And Ian Bell in ODIs.

 

[Prince EWS]

A definition I've commonly heard is that an all-rounder should have a higher batting average than bowling average

I believe, though, that that would make Tendulkar an all-rounder. And Ian Bell in ODIs.

Not to mention Bradman and Slater!

That's a horrible definition really.

 

[GIMH]

I didn't say it was my definition, just that it's one I've heard.

 

[Prince EWS]

I didn't say it was my definition, just that it's one I've heard.

Yeah I wasn't attacking you. Sorry if it came out that way.

 

[GIMH]

Nah, just thought I would get it out there before anyone did

 

[Richard]

A definition I've commonly heard is that an all-rounder should have a higher batting average than bowling average

I believe, though, that that would make Tendulkar an all-rounder. And Ian Bell in ODIs.

A with-X-wickets-and-runs (say, 50 and 500) qualification would be helpful, and with that that definition might be onto something - something little.

I still think, nonetheless, that "roughly equal in batting and bowling" is the best way, and it's the one I'll use to define what, to me, constitutes an all-rounder for as long as I watch cricket. That could be batting-average of 20 and bowling-average of 35, or batting-average of 40 and bowling-average of 25. One would obviously be a pretty poor all-rounder and the other an absolutely superlative one. But they'd both be all-rounders. These averages, obviously, would not neccessarily be career averages.

(And, needless to say, try and persuade others to do the same where possible )

 

[shortpitched713]

I assumed OP was talking ODI cricket as most of these guys are with good reason irrelevant in Test cricket. I'd have to go with Scott Styris. It was between him, Watson, Bravo. Bravo hasn't quite lived up to his potential yet, especially with the ball so I eliminated him. Watson and Styris are both gun batsmen, but Styris has done better with the ball during their careers , so I have to go with him.

 

[Arjun]

Outside of this poll- What does Joginder Sharma have for breakfast?