By Marooned
December 30 2004

Marooned explores the role of the modern day all rounder in test cricket, as compared with the role of the bits and pieces players. With the test series underway in Australia an important discussion that is centre stage amongst followers is the usefulness, in test cricket, of players who both bowl and bat to an extent - such as Abdur Razzak, Shoaib Malik, Shahid Afridi and Azhar Mahmood - usually classified as one day all-rounders. In order to really understand the debate it is imperative to keep two aspects in mind: the importance of the balance of a test side, and the difference between a test all-rounder and a ‘bits and pieces’ test player.


My definition of a 'bits and pieces' player is one who is not good enough to be in the team as a batsman or as a bowler but he is kept in the team because he can supposedly do a bit of batting and a bit of bowling. The problem with this line of thinking is that if you play such a player at number six in the lineup (instead of a batter) it weakens your batting (Razzak in first test against Australia). If you play him instead of a bowler you weaken your bowling an example being Razzak in the second test in Australia. A player who is not really a proper batsman can be expected to do a reasonable job if the conditions are good for batting and the opposition bowling not too strong, however, when the going gets tough it is unlikely that such a player will be able to cope well. Also, usually when the fourth wicket falls, 50 or 60 overs have been used up and against an older ball and easier batting conditions a proper batsman walking in gives the batting side an opportunity to take the game away from the opposition as Australia have done so many times or help the time out of a tricky situation. Playing someone like Razzak from whom it is unreasonable to expect a huge score (a 30 or 40 is more likely) takes away that possibility. Ricky Ponting, Damien Martyn and now Michael Clarke are the players Australia have used at the crucial number six over the past few years and have changed the course of many matches. It is an ideal spot to help a young talented batsman settle into the team. In case a bits and pieces player plays in place of a frontline bowler the team’s bowling strength is weakened and 4 quality bowlers are needed to keep up the pressure and win test matches as history proves. Either way it just doesn't serve the purpose and one will be better off with specialists. The balance of the team is very important and my view is that bits and pieces players harm the balance more than they help it.



The distinction between a 'test all-rounder' and a 'bits and pieces’ player is the very difference between a player such as Jacques Kallis of South Africa and Abdur Razzak of Pakistan. Kallis can play in any test side simply as a batsman regardless of whether he bowls. He can be classed as a test allrounder similar to Imran Khan. He is already a 'specialist' batsman whether he bowls or not and n no sense is he a bits and pieces player. Kallis started his career as a no4 batter, a 'specialist' in that position unlike Razzak who was never considered good enough to be considered for a test spot for his batting alone.

An important question is whether a bits and pieces player can be turned into a test all-rounder. The answer is that a player must have enough potential in order to be given the opportunity. Razzak the bowler, in my opinion, will never be good enough to trouble too many test batsmen. His bowling lacks that potency, the bounce and control of a Mcgrath, the pace of a Sami or Shoaib or the swing and control of Pollock. As a batter he lacks the shots especially horizontal bat shots, weak against short stuff, lacks footwork against the pacers, and is a very poor player of spin bowling. I cannot see the potential in neither his batting nor bowling to consider giving him an extended run in test cricket. He remains a good one day option. Also, one must remember that he has played over 30 tests and has been around for over 5 years. How long can you wait for the potential to be realized? Azhar Mahmood (horrible against spin, bowling lacks potency for test cricket) and Shahid Afridi (weak technique, temperament in batting) are other examples who I feel will not make it in test cricket and will remain bits and pieces test players. Lance Kluesner is another example of someone who never really came off as a test player, Andrew Hall looks like yet another along with Chris Harris and the long list of English players that were tried in the 1990s. The odd good test or series is possible but not on a consistent basis in different conditions.

An important case in present day cricket is Andrew Flintoff of England. His strength as a batsman was that he was strong off either foot and had the makings of a capable test batsman. A good driver he can also hook and pull fast bowlers really well. As a bowler he gets good bounce and can bowl late 80s touching 90 miles at times and looks potent. Thus, there was a lot of potential visible and they stuck with him. However, if he fails in the current series against South Africa with the bat he will be under some pressure once more since he is taking up the place of a batsman at number six and he has to deliver as well as one. I think he has enough talent to come off. Also, one must keep in mind that England play Geraint Jones as the keeper now who is a very handy batsman and he strengthens the batting and thus helps the balance of the team,

We have to ask ourselves the same question with regards to Shoaib Malik. His off-spin bowling will remain useful as it is but not match-winning. The question is whether he is good enough to be a test batsman at number six. Time will tell, if not we will be better off with a specialist in that position in the long run. He has done well in one day cricket at number three and has had to play the new ball and is a good player of spin bowling. There is still a question mark on how he copes with short-pitched bowling in test cricket though his temperament can only help.

The formula of success in test matches is six batsmen and four bowlers. This is the formula followed by the best over long periods of time, examples are the current Australian team and the West Indies team of the 1980s. If you have a frontline batsman such as Kallis who also bowls that gives you an added advantage. Similarly a frontline bowler such as Shaun Pollock is a bonus with the bat. If you do not have such a player or all-rounder, as in Australia's case, you play your best 6 batsmen and top 4 bowlers and expect them to do the job. It gives the best balance possible for test cricket. Australia hardly ever played Ian Harvey, Brad Hogg, Shane Lee or even Andrew Symonds who can be termed bits and pieces players simply because they were not considered good enough to be turned into test all-rounders even though they have a batting keeper in Adam Gilchrist and thus could afford more than others to drop a batter in favor of someone who does a bit of both.

Shane Watson, on the other hand, may be a different prospect as he looks like a good batsman, has made lots of runs and may be elevated to the test team since he has the quality to play as a front-line batsman and his bowling could help him become a 'test all-rounder'.



In Pakistan’s case it may be best to use specialist players for test cricket since we do not have a Shaun Pollock or Jacques Kallis in our ranks till such time that we find someone who can hold his own as an all-rounder at least somewhat like the great Imran Khan. Abdur Razzak, Azhar Mahmood and Shahid Afridi are really bits and pieces test match players and will not be the answer to our test woes. We should be looking for a young wicket-keeper also who can bat well and that will help improve the balance of our side. Other than that it ought to be our six best batsmen and four best bowlers.