Are wicket keepers allrounders

[Richard]

if wicket keepers are considered alrounders.. then what do u call Dilshan.. who not only can bat...keep wickets and also bowle.. he is considered one of the best fielders in the SL side.. what is a good word to describe him?

A fantastic all-round cricketer. But I'd always notably differentiate between "all-round cricketer" and "all-rounder".

 

[Anil]

Hmm, although most of those who've been decent\good batsmen and bowlers have also tended to be good fielders (in fact I can't really think of any couterwise) I have never counted fielding as an essential part of being an all-rounder. If someone could average 35 with the bat and 27 with the ball in Test cricket I'd call them a damn good all-rounder regardless of whether their fielding was woeful.

and how many of those woeful fielders have you seen in international cricket(tests) who average that? those numbers mean quality and effort and that translates into fielding as well...

Also, wicketkeeping is an adjunct of fielding. Keeping wicket is a very specialised aspect of fielding, as fielding at slip is a slightly less specialised aspect.

sure...that means batting and fielding, that is still two disciplines...

 

[Richard]

and how many of those woeful fielders have you seen in international cricket(tests) who average that? those numbers mean quality and effort and that translates into fielding as well...

Indeed it does, and that's why I say I can't think of any decent-quality batsman-and-bowler who was a poor fielder. The point is, though, that fielding is "something said by the way". These days especially, it's simply expected that an international cricketer can be at worst a competent fielder.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, but they are still performing a dual-role. Whether or not they're the best available for either role aside, they still do both specialist roles. Wicket-keeping within itself isn't a specialist job anymore - batting middle/lower order and keeping is one player role as wicket keeping with no batting expectations doesn't exist in Test cricket. If Dhoni batted #4 for example I could see justification for him being called an allrounder, but he doesn't.

He does bat at 3,4 or 5 in ODIs, tbh..

 

[Anil]

Indeed it does, and that's why I say I can't think of any decent-quality batsman-and-bowler who was a poor fielder. The point is, though, that fielding is "something said by the way". These days especially, it's simply expected that an international cricketer can be at worst a competent fielder.

so many international cricketers who are simply atrocious in the field prove otherwise...

and as you said 'keepers are specialized fielders...and fielding is clearly one of their 2 disciplines, you can't have it both ways and say that it is irrelevant for batting/bowling allrounders and relevant for 'keepers...

 

[Richard]

so many international cricketers who are simply atrocious in the field prove otherwise...

Like who, these days? You hardly ever see anyone who's genuinely atrocious any more, and haven't for a good few years. That's why the likes of Monty Panesar who try as they might simply cannot become anything more than poor are frowned upon so much.

and as you said 'keepers are specialized fielders...and fielding is clearly one of their 2 disciplines, you can't have it both ways and say that it is irrelevant for batting/bowling allrounders and relevant for 'keepers...

I've always said that a wicketkeeper-batsman is different from an all-rounder. As I say, fielding (which wicketkeeping is a specialised adjunct of) doesn't to me qualify as being part of an all-rounder's game - that's batting and bowling.

 

[Anil]

Like who, these days? You hardly ever see anyone who's genuinely atrocious any more, and haven't for a good few years. That's why the likes of Monty Panesar who try as they might simply cannot become anything more than poor are frowned upon so much.

why only these days? in any case, the entire pakistan team? quite a few indian players are sub-par as well...and cricket didn't just sprout in the last 10 years...i was referring to allrounders throughout the history of cricket, there was a time before the advent and/or the popularization of limited overs cricket when fielding wasn't considered as important and bad fielders abounded in teams, but i don't think any genuine world-class allrounder was one...

I've always said that a wicketkeeper-batsman is different from an all-rounder. As I say, fielding (which wicketkeeping is a specialised adjunct of) doesn't to me qualify as being part of an all-rounder's game - that's batting and bowling.

well i don't agree with your derivational logic but i certainly agree with your conclusion...

 

[Richard]

why only these days? in any case, the entire pakistan team? quite a few indian players are sub-par as well...

I guess Pakistan's team, yes, and they're somewhat of a vagrant case. Which Indian players are you referring to?

and cricket didn't just sprout in the last 10 years...i was referring to allrounders throughout the history of cricket, there was a time before the advent and/or the popularization of limited overs cricket when fielding wasn't considered as important and bad fielders abounded in teams, but i don't think any genuine world-class allrounder was one...

Oh, absolutely, but the advent of wicketkeeper-batsmen has changed as well - wicketkeepers didn't generally used to be expected to bat, but they have been since about 1970. The game changes.

I think that the fact that most\all decent all-rounders (ie, batsman-bowler) were also good fielders used to be down to, as you say, quality and effort spilling over into the more basic discipline of fielding. But these days there are virtually no genuinely poor fielders, outside Pakistan. It's expected that specialist bowlers and specialist batsmen work at their fielding, same way all-rounders do\did.