Specialist v Multitaskers - who is more valuable?

[Craig]

I have thinking about this for a while, who do you think is more valuable to a team (Test or ODI), somebody who is a specialist bowler (for example a spinner or a fast bowler) and is quite good, but isn't as good with the bat or in the field or somebody who isn't so good but can bat a bit and is good in the field? Even for wicket keepers?

I guess this would be more the case in ODIs then Tests?

 

[archie mac]

Yes, bits and pieces players are more handy in ODI cricket.

I would always go for the specialist. That is why the genuine AR is worth is weight in gold

 

[Craig]

Even with a wicket keeper when a really good 'keeper but mediorce batsmen <> good 'keeper but > batsman?

 

[andyc]

Even with a wicket keeper when a really good 'keeper but mediorce batsmen <> good 'keeper but > batsman?

Inzy award, right there.

 

[Craig]

Ok let me rephase:

Do you pick a top class 'keeper who isn't so good with the bat over some body who is a superior batsman, but not as superior with the gloves?

 

[archie mac]

Ok let me rephase:

Do you pick a top class 'keeper who isn't so good with the bat over some body who is a superior batsman, but not as superior with the gloves?

Don't try and get of the Inzi

Personally for Test Matches, I think they should pick the best Keeper, regardless of his batting skills

 

[Run like Inzy]

I would go for specialists in most cases, especially looking at England. Remember the likes of Rikki Clarke, Ian Blackwell, Mark Ealham, Mark Alleyne etc. All played Ok in county cricket but when it came to ODIs they all failed, which eventually led to the whole English team being based around a few specialists: Stewart (could/was played as a batsmen alone) and Gough
If a multitasker was to be chosen he would have to have a defined role as either primarily a batsman or bowler, e.g. Jacques Kallis - can bowl a bit, but his main responsibilty is a batsman

 

[silentstriker]

No one has been more valuble to their team than Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Gary Sobers, etc...

So mulitaskers. Unless you are talking about people who can bat (or bowl) a little bit, and not genuine all rounders. In that case, specialists.

 

[Goughy]

Specialists are the bread and butter of a Test team. A team must select their best players to fill the primary batting and bowling roles.

Once you have picked your 5 best batsmen and your 3 best bowlers you can start looking at the balance of the team.

This is where mulitaskers can really help. Using the obvious example of Panesar. If he is one of the 3 best bowlers available then he should play regardless of whether he can bat or field. If he isnt then a player that can help balance the team better may be more useful.

I think that a team should always pick its best specialists (those charged with the responsibility of doing the most damage) and then players brought in for the final couple of positions to balance the side depending on what is needed.

To clarify my position of a definition. I think it is very different to a bits-and-pieces player. A bits-and-pieces is capable of everything but at an average/poor level. A multitasker is a player with one specialist skill that dominates and a secondary skill that can help the team. For example Sanaths bowling or Lees batting. For example you are picking a team and you have chosen McGrath, Shoiab and Murali as your 3 best bowlers and you are thinking about either Harmison or Brett Lee. Now you may think Harmison is a better bowler but including the the multitasking Lee may help the balance of the team.

Again the thing about multitaskers is that they are not core players and are selected as a supposed marginal loss in one area is more than made up in another.

My opinion about keepers. I would always pick the best batsmen as long as the difference in batting ability is considerable. If it is close pick the gloveman. Eg I was in favour of Stewart playing ahead of Russel and believed that Crawley should have been groomed as the England keepr after Stewart retired.

 

[Jono]

I can't think of too many all-time-great bits and pieces players.

 

[Sanz]

Specialists. !!! 5 batsmen 1 WicketKeeper 5 bowlers.

 

[Goughy]

I don't know too much about the depth of Aussie cricket. Would Gilchrist have been the best pure gloveman in Australia throughout his career?

 

[Jono]

Once Ian Healy retired you'd say most likely. He would have been right up there, that's for sure.

 

[tooextracool]

I would go for specialists in most cases, especially looking at England. Remember the likes of Rikki Clarke, Ian Blackwell, Mark Ealham, Mark Alleyne etc. All played Ok in county cricket but when it came to ODIs they all failed, which eventually led to the whole English team being based around a few specialists: Stewart (could/was played as a batsmen alone) and Gough

Mark Ealham was hardly a failure. He wasnt brilliant but an ER of 4.08 over a lot of the other tripe that was going around at the time.

 

[tooextracool]

I can't think of too many all-time-great bits and pieces players.

quite contrary logic there dont you think? if a bits and pieces player was an all time great, you'd call him an all rounder. Bits and pieces is exactly what it says, a player who can do bits of all disciplines without being substantially good at any of them.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Mark Ealham was hardly a failure. He wasnt brilliant but an ER of 4.08 over a lot of the other tripe that was going around at the time.

Agreed. Handy batsman and more than simply average with the ball.

I don't think either is better than the other. There are situations and spots where either shines through and bears more importance than the other. Generally I would trust a specialist to take more wickets or score more runs than an allrounder though, regardless of the quality of the allrounder. This is simply because the specialist is picked for a sole purpose and should be able to carry through with that purpose in an outstanding fashion.

Tis why the likes of Mohammad Sami (in Test cricket) continue to baffle me.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

quite contrary logic there dont you think? if a bits and pieces player was an all time great, you'd call him an all rounder. Bits and pieces is exactly what it says, a player who can do bits of all disciplines without being substantially good at any of them.

Quality post, dare I say.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My opinion about keepers. I would always pick the best batsmen as long as the difference in batting ability is considerable. If it is close pick the gloveman. Eg I was in favour of Stewart playing ahead of Russel and believed that Crawley should have been groomed as the England keepr after Stewart retired.

So you'd honestly pick a brilliant batsman/rubbish 'keeper ahead of a useful batsman/excellent 'keeper?



Honestly?

 

[marc71178]

For example you are picking a team and you have chosen McGrath, Shoiab and Murali as your 3 best bowlers and you are thinking about either Harmison or Brett Lee. Now you may think Harmison is a better bowler but including the the multitasking Lee may help the balance of the team.

Of course that could be easily avoided by picking Warne ahead of Murali...

My opinion about keepers. I would always pick the best batsmen as long as the difference in batting ability is considerable. If it is close pick the gloveman. Eg I was in favour of Stewart playing ahead of Russel and believed that Crawley should have been groomed as the England keepr after Stewart retired.

Yes, drop the far superior keeper for someone who when keeping averaged about the same with the bat but was worse behind the sticks - good call (!)

Then replace both with a player who wasn't even a part-time keeper.

I guess that when Flintoff returns you want Read to drop out and give Trescothick the gloves then?

 

[marc71178]

I can't think of too many all-time-great bits and pieces players.

AA
RC
DM