The definition of an all rounder is very different to what most people interpret it as. Traditionally, there are only two aspects to the game- Batting and Bowling. An allrounder is axiomatically defined as someone who is considerably decent in 2 aspects of the game. However, Fielding is the most understated and underrated aspect of the game. You may only need 5 bowlers or 7 batsmen but you can't do without 11 fielders. Every member of a team is conveniently interpreted as a decent fielder. In that sense all 11 players are allrounders as each of them is more than decent in the field. Fielding is undoubtedly the most essential part of the game. A brilliant fielding side can act both as an economical bowler and a prolific batsman just by saving runs whose worth is only realised in the second innings. Take the top 4 ranked ODI teams for example, each of them have mostly quality fielders whose contributions are always overlooked but are a huge reason for their success. Therefore, since one cricketer is already supposed to be "more than decent" in two aspects of the game, then an allrounder is supposed to be a superhuman!
The role of a "bits and pieces" allrounder also is not particularly clear to both the selectors and the captain let alone the player himself. There is always one thing in which he is better than in the other, and that should primarily be his role. If someone is barely competent with both bat and ball, not only is it hard enough to determine his strong suit, but also to make a decision whether to trust him with it. All the reputed and great allrounders of their era had a definitive strong point which determined their role in the team. Jacques Kallis was a batting allrounder, Richard Hadlee and Andrew Flintoff- bowling. The main point of being an allrounder is not to be "decent" in both aspects but to be proficient and effective in one and competent enough to contribute in the other. Of course, the above mentioned names are exceptions and contradictions simply because of their dominance in both aspects.
This is the main reason why there is a dearth of allrounders all over the cricket world. There cant be a perfect allrounder right now, the closest examples probably are Ben Stokes and Dwayne Bravo. An allrounder is more a blessing than a certainty, hence the closest examples to allrounders can be given this responsibility. A batsman who can 'bowl a bit' qualifies as a partial allrounder as well as bowlers who can 'bat a bit'. This is very important thing for teams to take into account. Instead of relying on 1 good bowler to complete the fifth bowler's quota 2 of such can be depended on. In fact, selecting a batsman who can bowl or a bowler who can bat can also depend on the team composition. For a team low in their bowling resources someone like Axar Patel or Darren Sammy can be selected. Of course, the best part is some of these players can be good enough in their major roles and their proficiency with the other can be a welcome addition to a team. Maybe two similar such players can be selected which would fill up the allrounders spots and ensure that the certain expected role is carried out.
Another risk worth taking is to try and shape these kind of players to players close to bieng allrounders. This can be done by making them practice their weaker link more and more. England did that very successfully with Moeen Ali to shape him into a perfect all rounder for tests. India, Australia and South Africa also did it successfully with Suresh Raina, Glenn Maxwell and JP Duminy respectively for ODIs and T20Is. All these teams are in very influential positions in their respective formats. However there is an element that can backfire in that ploy. The certain players may become better in the weaker link but less effective in their stronger link making them a "bits and pieces allrounder."
Whatever the cost,all teams have to put in a meticulous effort in grooming an allrounder for at least 1 is crucial in each format. An allrounder is like a benefactor for the team and its not at all easy to be one. The paucity of them can be completely understandable but if not naturally gifted, they have to be groomed and created. Having allrounders in the playing acts like a huge blessing for the team. Although different formats demand different types of allrounders all formats demand them. What has to be absolutely ensured is that they know their role in the team and the captain's expectations. An all rounder is the quintessential key to success!
The perfect team comprises of 5 batsmen, 4 bowlers and 2 allrounders, who mainly slot in at No.6 and No.7 in limited over formats or at No.6 and No.8 in tests. So, what should be the teams' approach to these dubious spots? Is a bits and pieces all rounder required? DEFINITELY NOT! Such a player won't be handy enough to finish the innings well or get 10 decent overs in. A bits and pieces all rounder is mediocre with both bat and ball, thus not being a handy addition to the team. The most recent example of this is Stuart Binny who isn't good enough to be trusted with the bat or ball which oddly enough his captain (Virat Kohli) even agreed to by calling him a half bowler. If the captain himself wasn't convinced about the role of Binny in the side then spare a thought for Binny himself! More of such examples are Nathan McCullum, Farhaan Behardien, Ryan McClaren and Mohammad Rizwan. These players may be more than decent with both bat and ball but effective in none of the fields. What is even more threatening is that they occupy the most crucial spot in a team, the spot that makes or breaks a game.
The role of a "bits and pieces" allrounder also is not particularly clear to both the selectors and the captain let alone the player himself. There is always one thing in which he is better than in the other, and that should primarily be his role. If someone is barely competent with both bat and ball, not only is it hard enough to determine his strong suit, but also to make a decision whether to trust him with it. All the reputed and great allrounders of their era had a definitive strong point which determined their role in the team. Jacques Kallis was a batting allrounder, Richard Hadlee and Andrew Flintoff- bowling. The main point of being an allrounder is not to be "decent" in both aspects but to be proficient and effective in one and competent enough to contribute in the other. Of course, the above mentioned names are exceptions and contradictions simply because of their dominance in both aspects.
This is the main reason why there is a dearth of allrounders all over the cricket world. There cant be a perfect allrounder right now, the closest examples probably are Ben Stokes and Dwayne Bravo. An allrounder is more a blessing than a certainty, hence the closest examples to allrounders can be given this responsibility. A batsman who can 'bowl a bit' qualifies as a partial allrounder as well as bowlers who can 'bat a bit'. This is very important thing for teams to take into account. Instead of relying on 1 good bowler to complete the fifth bowler's quota 2 of such can be depended on. In fact, selecting a batsman who can bowl or a bowler who can bat can also depend on the team composition. For a team low in their bowling resources someone like Axar Patel or Darren Sammy can be selected. Of course, the best part is some of these players can be good enough in their major roles and their proficiency with the other can be a welcome addition to a team. Maybe two similar such players can be selected which would fill up the allrounders spots and ensure that the certain expected role is carried out.
Another risk worth taking is to try and shape these kind of players to players close to bieng allrounders. This can be done by making them practice their weaker link more and more. England did that very successfully with Moeen Ali to shape him into a perfect all rounder for tests. India, Australia and South Africa also did it successfully with Suresh Raina, Glenn Maxwell and JP Duminy respectively for ODIs and T20Is. All these teams are in very influential positions in their respective formats. However there is an element that can backfire in that ploy. The certain players may become better in the weaker link but less effective in their stronger link making them a "bits and pieces allrounder."
Whatever the cost,all teams have to put in a meticulous effort in grooming an allrounder for at least 1 is crucial in each format. An allrounder is like a benefactor for the team and its not at all easy to be one. The paucity of them can be completely understandable but if not naturally gifted, they have to be groomed and created. Having allrounders in the playing acts like a huge blessing for the team. Although different formats demand different types of allrounders all formats demand them. What has to be absolutely ensured is that they know their role in the team and the captain's expectations. An all rounder is the quintessential key to success!
