Specialists vs All-Rounders

[Will_NA]

It depends on your concept of an all-rounder. IMO, a proper all-rounder is someone who can win the game with the bat/ball/in the field which is a dimension to his game that a pure specialist does not possess.

 

[Almost_Austwick]

I think that we agree although you term it slightly differently. The reason that a true all rounder gives you options is the fact that he's got the potential to win you a game through either batting or bowling (leaving fielding aside for now) meaning that you aren't sacrificing a place for someone who is more one dimensional.

 

[Cricketman]

I like a specialist who can bowl/bat a bit-IE Tendulkar or Pollock. They may be an allrounder in some peoples minds but there ability in one (batting or bowling) greatly surpasses the other.

 

[arnold]

Hi,

In my opinion the team should have both specialists as well as All rounders.

A teams power can be well determined by the specialists.They would have played a number of games and surely their experience is required to achieve victory to the team.

Also when the talk comes about the all rounders they too are required to bring the victory as they play well and excel in all the fields.

 

[cricketmad09]

Depends on the type of player. Flintoff v. Vaughan, you'd say the all-rounder. Dalrypmle v. Hogg, you'd say specialist.

 

[Vcassano]

There is a major difference between a pure all-rounder and someone who can do a bit of both.

Yes, I know, but in this thread people have been mentioning Collingwood, Yardy, etc. who aren't real all-rounders so I figured I must as well address them too.