Ten years after Kapil Dev retired, we have still not understood that all-rounders are made and not born. None of the “all-rounders” that India has chosen lately, can do a Chris Cairns and walk in on the basis of one skill set alone. And that is probably not their fault either. You see, even without the “all-rounder” tag, we sub-continental players already have our hands full. Our enthusiasm for the game while we grow up, acts like a double edged sword. We learn our cricket in the streets where the game is typically one dimensional by direction (i.e. run scoring is on only one side of the wicket) and sixer is almost always "local". The batsmen are constrained by the surrounding buildings and the glass windows. While such a scenario could ideally breed discipline, it actually brings with it some evils that are hard to exorcise as the years go by. The bowlers too do not get anything positive out of the rubber or the taped ball.

So when we graduate to playing organized cricket, we are still stuck with these shortcomings. And it does not help that our coaching seems to be geared totally into pushing players into the ground at the shortest possible time. For example, some of the schools in Chennai are hot beds of cricket activity with full time coaching staff and groundsmen, with but it has been years since we have had a regular in the team, in fact, not since my man Srikkanth. Where do all these school boy cricketers go?

Only a fraction of those who play age group cricket while at school (which is again a small fraction of those who play cricket in the streets) continue to play after graduating from high school. And the lucky few who actually get to dirty their whites on turf do not fare any better. The bowlers toil hard in unresponsive pitches and the batsmen are lulled into complacent mediocrity by the lack of challenge posed by the pitches.

Given all this, I think it’s a fallacy that the selectors in the subcontinent (specifically India) get a large pool of quality players to choose from. So when some of them they make it to the big league and tour abroad, the absence of proper techniques and the dusty sub-continental pitches that they are used to, they tend to stick out like a sore thumb when the pitch offers some juice to the bowlers. In such a scenario, wouldn’t be better if we let players focus on their core competence rather than force them to fit in another skill set. It might be simpler to find an excellent batsman or a bowler who would contribute more by saving a few runs by being athletic on the field.

But I do see a faint light, not at the end of the tunnel, but from a ventilation chute somewhere in the middle and that should be enough for us to get out, i.e., the new ODI Super Sub rules. From what I can understand, the new rule makes it easier for captains to choose a Super Sub who would be either be a specialist batsman or a specialist bowler who would bowl 10 whole overs. Used intelligently, the Super Sub should solve the eternal 5th bowler problem in the subcontinent - the sole reason why teams in the subcontinent look for all-rounders. Another emerging positive is the fact that pitches in India have slowly started losing their dustbowl tag. The rise of several young Indian fast bowlers is ample evidence for this trend.

So do we need to remove the phrase from our lexicon? No, but it would make sense to edit this definition to say – An all-rounder is either a batsman or a bowler who will save a few runs and force a few dismissals by virtue of being an excellent fielder. And if that definition is true, we seem to have found quite a few of these all-rounders already and its time to stop call off the manhunt.

It's no surprise, with the slew of ODI cricket played on the subcontinent, that the average cricket fan began looking at the bits-and-pieces cricketer as an all-rounder. You say, the key point is, "Can you walk into the side on the basis of a a single skill alone?" Although that seems to be the fashionable definition at the moment, it leads one to ponder a number of things. Would you let a batsman averaging 30 be a test match regular? Would you let a bowler averaging 35 with the ball be a test match regular? Both of the above figures are definitely not the worse in the world, mind you, but in a side where the rest of the batsmen score 40-50 runs per knock and in a side where the rest of the bowlers give about 20-25 runs apiece before claiming a wicket, would these players walk into the side purely as a batsman or a bowler respectively? I would think not. So, either Kapil Dev and Sir Gary were not all-rounders, or, there is a need to revisit our definition. A convenient way to gloss over this is by further qualifying the all rounder as a batting or bowling all-rounder, but to my mind, that just takes you one step closer to the much maligned bit-and-pieces all rounder or more appropriately, a part time allrounder, a la Steve Waugh or Sachin Tendulkar.

Saurabh: Well, I don't see that definition being fashionable at all. Someone like Laxman would be an automatic choice for a ODI lineup if his fielding was good enough. Similarly, I'd gladly go for a specialist bowler for the same purpose. I know that the need for an allrounder arises in order to fill a perceived gap in either skills in the team. So develop core competencies to plug the holes, rather than using fillers that my give way at the slightest pressure. The better Test batsmen are themselves capable of the "slam bam thank you maam" stuff, if they are technically good. Dravid is a prime example. My idea is that India cannot produce a Chris Cairns, simply because the conditions don't let you get the best of both worlds. So it is better to concentrate on one skill and do it good. And with the Super Sub rule, I think we CAN drop the whole all rounder thing and concentrate on the basics.

Dear antI

I can see your situational definition of an all-rounder sailing into the sub-continent cricket dictionary but for a few hitches:

1) People like Kapil and Botham were also the best all round fielders of their national teams. (And I didn't forget Azza, who was the best close-in during the Kapil era and was equally magnificent in the outfield during the years preceding his groin injury.) Had these 2 emerged post-90's, they would edge out anyone on that skill alone!
So the suggested scope change will then necessitate their elevation to a new category - maybe 'super-allrounders'.

2) This view tends to take us back to those medieval ages of sub-continent cricket when at par fielding, leave alone great fielding, was considered to be more of a bonus than a criteria for winning a place in the side.

3) There may be several other criteria that may have to be weighed in as a 'separate skill' that way. Inzy would be an all-rounder for his batting and captaincy, and so would be a non-batsman skipper-keeper like Khaled Mashud without ever contributing with either bat or ball for series on end! Why, pre-1996 world cup Sanath had a special role that may demand attention under this scheme: as the fastest pair of legs in the team he would often come out as a runner whenever Arjuna hit good form and lasted longer than his legs wanted to.

I think we better let all-rounders be where they are. To re-phrase antI's words from a personal PoV, all-rounders are never so much of a necessity if the entire team fields excellently. The Australian test team of early 2000's can be a nice instance for the argument.

Allrounders are such a tantalizing prospect because with the presence of a genuine allrounder in the side, the team actually has twelve players. Someone mentioned super allrounders, I agree with that point. fist you have the bits and pieces guys, like Madan Lal, Steve Waugh (though he was a great batsman), Jayasuriya. Also, I do agree with the definition that says that an allrounder must be able to merit a place in the side due to either of his skills. This can be further qualified by saying that an allrounder must score more runs than he gives away, a trait found in the great allrounders such as Sobers, Kapil, Imran, Botham and Hadlee. In the modern day, Andrew Flintoff fits that definition. He can merit a place with either bat or ball.

And I think the point about fielding allrounders is redundant, as in this day and age, everyone in the side must be able to field at a certain level. VVS Laxman, is a fantastic catcher in the slips. his one day exclusion is due to his slowness in the outfield.

Probably forgotten in this conversation is one of the modern day greats as an allrounder - Adam Gilchrist.

How about the men who are redefining the same word, by bringing in another skill other than bowling.

Even IVA Richards was a class allrounder and so were the Waughs, people talking about fielding Mark was simply exceptional everywhere.