How did this argument start, someone said the two greatest teams of all time didn't have all rounders and did it principally with specialist batsmen and bowlers.
This then spawned the proposition that if they had the opportunity that either team would have welcomed Pollock or Imran. To which I theorized that the chiefs would have welcomed Barry Sanders, but at the end of the day they managed to win the Superbowl with a 5th round rookie running back.
The argument then shifted to if India had a choice between McGrath or Imran or Pollock in the '80's which would they choose, and I had the audacity to suggest that McGrath was a better bowler than Imran and to take the comparison further, better in India, based on the one measurement that we use for every other comparison on the forum, their stats in that country. This rehashed an argument with regards to Imran's away stats not being applicable and doesn't prove anything without context.
I watch cricket, I especially watch high level competitive cricket, I've also grown up watching two of the greatest teams of all time exert their dominance on the competition. I've also seen some of the greatest players who's ever played the game.
I've heard the argument from the bat deep crowd, everyone has to bat, not everyone has to bowl. But my counter argument has been if you have to rely on your no 10 to consistently save the team, you have bigger problems and never in the history of the game has bowling all rounders been linked to or seen as critical to winning teams.
But as I watch the game, not every team is an all rampaging force and weaker teams and those in more evenly matched contests, every run may count. But if your top order keeps getting blown away, no tail will be able to consistently withstand said same attack. And then there's the question what sacrifice or compromise of bowling quality would be required to get those few extra runs at the end of the innings. And that's also the discounting of rear guard action mounted by non "all rounders" that was equally valuable. I propose even a weaker team would try to bowl out the opposition for less than try to strengthen the tail for hopeful hypothetical runs based on a secondary skill. But in everything balance.
I also see the value of 5th bowlers, not as match winners, but snagging the odd wicket or holding up an end when the primary guys are resting or awaiting the new ball. The fact that Root was required to bowl so many overs (taking some critical scalps along the way) in the recent ashes proves the value of having a viable 5th option, which quite frankly he isn't. They aren't match winners, but assist with the rotation and on occasion delivers a wicket.
I also have watched enough cricket to know that slip catching is just as important or more so than the other two. I posted a video on one of the threads of McGrath and some of the amazing catching support he had and how those contributed to some of those victories. Similarly the West Indies had an equally superb cordon that contributed to our dominant period as well.
As I said earlier, secondary skills should be used as a tie breaker rather than a determining factor in selection. Pick the best batsmen and bowlers and if there's a tight selection, then it's acceptable if not negligible not to select the one that brings a secondary skill(s) to the table.
And I also understand that one's perspective on this argument can be regional in nature.
If you grew up in the West Indies, Australia, England during either of the two periods of dominance, you don't place such importance in batting deep because quite frankly it wasn't a critical factor to success or loosing. May also rate slip fielding higher as they were the willing accomplices of the bowlers and their impact was palpable.
If you grew up in the SC or NZ and Imran, Hadlee, Dev were the back bones of the resistance and spin is a staple of the attacks, especially in India and SL, where for Miagra Murali brought relevance and even home dominance for the country, you would see things differently. And that's fine too.
So while perspective is reality, so is reality. The great teams were able to do so without al rounders, it doesn't mean they don't have value, but does mean that they may not be as critically important as going with the specialist if they aren't better. But that's just my perspective.
