Utility players (or less-glorified all-rounders)

[Arjun]

They don't make the team on batting or bowling alone. They may not have any special talents with bat or ball, and are certainly not well-rounded. Not quite the genuine all-rounder. Yet many of these 'utility players' are useful for their teams. Who's the best among these less-glorified all-rounders?

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Grant Elliot

 

[Ikki]

I think Andrew Hall should get a mention.

 

[Nate]

*public poll rant*

Watson good enough to make it as a batsman IMO. But voted for him regardless.

 

[Nate]

I think Andrew Hall should get a mention.

Retired IIRC.

 

[Richard]

Watson is a class above the rest of that lot with the bat, so ignoring him as he's not really fit for said list - Dwayne Bravo easily, who I think could go on to become a pretty damn good all-rounder if iff all goes well.

 

[Richard]

*public poll rant*

PUBLIC POLLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!













(That do ya? And confound you for beating me to what I said about Watson )

 

[Richard]

I think Andrew Hall should get a mention.

Retired IIRC.

He's no less likely to play again than Scott Styris (in Tests) or Bangar TBH.

 

[Arjun]

He's no less likely to play again than Scott Styris (in Tests) or Bangar TBH.

But for the ICC's (more BCCI's) anti-ICL rules.

 

[Prince EWS]

How did Styris make the poll? He certainly made the New Zealand team on batting alone during his prime. Whether he always should have is up for some debate, but he certainly wasn't picked with bowling in mind throughout the mostpart of his Test career...

Watson's the best on the list by far, especially if you discount Styris, and whilst Watto certainly is good enough as a specialist batsman to play Test and ODI cricket, I doubt he'd have played for Australia yet if he couldn't bowl, so his position on the poll is justified I suppose.

 

[Dissector]

In tests I don't think Vettori is good enough to play just for his bowling (averages around 35 with 3 wickets per match). So he should probably be classified as a utility player and probably the best of the lot.

 

[Arjun]

In tests I don't think Vettori is good enough to play just for his bowling (averages around 35 with 3 wickets per match). So he should probably be classified as a utility player and probably the best of the lot.

Vettori is NZ's best spinner and one of their best bowlers.

 

[Prince EWS]

As for him making it as a batsman only, is there two Shane Watsons? As the one I have watched over the last few years is a good number 6 or 7 and no more.

He bats in the top 4 for Queensland, averages in the high 40s in First Class cricket and has an awesome technique. He also averages something ridiculous when he bats in the top order in ODIs. As I said, I don't think he'd have made the Australian team yet, but he's certainly up to the standard required as an international batsman AFAIC, and he'd have played for any team except Australia and possibly India by now as a batsman alone if he happened to be eligible for them and couldn't bowl - as hypothetical a situation as that is.

 

[Dissector]

Vettori is NZ's best spinner and one of their best bowlers.

IMO when distinguishing a "utility player" from a genuine all-rounder you need to apply some general standard rather than the standard of a particular team. If Vettori batted like Chris Martin he wouldn't make it in most test-quality teams and probably not even New Zealand for all games.

BTW Irfan Pathan probably counts as a utility player and one of the better ones in international cricket today.

 

[Richard]

How did Styris make the poll? He certainly made the New Zealand team on batting alone during his prime. Whether he always should have is up for some debate, but he certainly wasn't picked with bowling in mind throughout the mostpart of his Test career...

Watson's the best on the list by far, especially if you discount Styris, and whilst Watto certainly is good enough as a specialist batsman to play Test and ODI cricket, I doubt he'd have played for Australia yet if he couldn't bowl, so his position on the poll is justified I suppose.

I don't think so either, but I do believe that in future he'll be capable - if injury allows him - of holding a Test (at least) place as a batsman, and that his bowling won't be worth that much to the side.

 

[Arjun]

IMO when distinguishing a "utility player" from a genuine all-rounder you need to apply some general standard rather than the standard of a particular team. If Vettori batted like Chris Martin he wouldn't make it in most test-quality teams and probably not even New Zealand for all games.

BTW Irfan Pathan probably counts as a utility player and one of the better ones in international cricket today.

Vettori wasn't a genuine all-rounder to begin with, but given the weight of wickets taken for NZ, he's more than just a bit of a bowler. While utility players are picked purely for balance, he would make the NZ team on his bowling alone, just like Irfan once did (and may still do) for India.

Let's not forget Vettori's wicket tally, which is a lot more than that of your average utility player.

 

[andruid]

How did Styris make the poll? He certainly made the New Zealand team on batting alone during his prime. Whether he always should have is up for some debate, but he certainly wasn't picked with bowling in mind throughout the mostpart of his Test career...

Watson's the best on the list by far, especially if you discount Styris, and whilst Watto certainly is good enough as a specialist batsman to play Test and ODI cricket, I doubt he'd have played for Australia yet if he couldn't bowl, so his position on the poll is justified I suppose.

I though the same on Dwayne Bravo. He is clearly more than a bits-and-pieces player for the Windies. Has a good Test bowling figures against the rest of thie pace attack and can score runs.

I don't think so either, but I do believe that in future he'll be capable - if injury allows him - of holding a Test (at least) place as a batsman, and that his bowling won't be worth that much to the side.

 

[Prince EWS]

I though the same on Dwayne Bravo. He is clearly more than a bits-and-pieces player for the Windies. Has a good Test bowling figures against the rest of thie pace attack and can score runs.

They wouldn't pick him for his bowling alone IMO. You have a point though; I doubt they'd be dropping him for Morton if he couldn't bowl..

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

IMO of that list only Bravo would make his respective team if he woke up tomorrow and forgot how to either bat or bowl. In reality, is there any allrounder who would make his Test side both as a pure batsman and a pure bowler... I don't think so.

 

[roseboy64]

Went Watson considering most teams aren't of the Australia standard.