The "utility" Player

Top Contributors
B

Boris

Active Member
The utility player is something the Australian ODI squad has had for years. They are "jack of all trades, master of none."

At the moment that utility player is Steven Smith. He's the sort of player that might not look like he's doing very much, but like the channel 9 commentary team harp on about, they always do something good each match.

For those that argue he isn't this "utility" player that I've seemingly just made up, ask yourself what he's in the side for.

Is he there as a bowler? No. Is he there as a batsman? No. Is he there as a pure all rounder? No (That spot is already filled by Watson and D.Hussey anyway, and both do it much better than he does). And surely he isn't picked just for his fielding, or else there's quite a few better choices.

He's there for those occasions when he picks up three wickets, scores 10 runs of 3 balls, takes that catch or makes that run out. He's the perfect sort of batsman to have finishing with M.Hussey or the like in the last few overs.

I'm a very much a fan of this sort of player. You could have Ferguson in the side and I'm sure he'd score more runs, but he bats up the order and what happens if you need an extra bowler? You could also pick Hastings and he'd bowl better, but what happens if you collapse and need a batsman down the order, or somebody to simply pick off the boundaries?

Having talked Smith up, however, I'm not sure he is the right one.

After James Hopes' brilliant season in all three forms of the game (including Sheffield Shield Player of the Season) I'm pushing his case forward, but I know what sort of trouble that opens up.

Another player is McDonald, but he's fallen off the map in One Day land. He's had a great First Class season, but you'll rarely see a utility player there (hence why I don't agree with Smith being in the Test team), and if there is that spot can be better utilised with another batsman or bowler. Plus Watson has the all rounder spot stitched up for a few years now.

I haven't been able to watch every team play, and as these sorts of players rarely have good records, can anybody name some from other states they think fit these categories?
 
If he wasn't a leggie, I doubt he would be anywhere near any of the squads. And Punter doesn't like bowling him that much is obvious,. Why have a player in the 11 that the skipper is reluctant to use?

In all honesty, I think Johnson is as much value in terms of slogging at the end and run-outs, only wisely, he is not picked for those reasons. And nor should Smith be.
 
Steve Waugh was a 'utility player' during the 1987 World Cup. I watched the Finals at the Eden Gardens. What struck me, when I watched him play the finals, was his exemplary attitude towards the game. It was electrifying. This 'utility player' stood head and shoulders above the others.
In fact, when one reminisces about that Australian 1987 World Cup team, then every one seemed a 'utility player' on the Indian sub-continent. The sub-continent does that to teams.
 
Have to disagree here, never really been a fan of the 'pseudo all-rounder', especially for the larger nations that generally have a fair amount of depth. A player imo should have to be good enough to make the Australian side in one disciple first (or at least pretty close to it) and the other skill to be a bonus.
 
Kram81 said:
Have to disagree here, never really been a fan of the 'pseudo all-rounder', especially for the larger nations that generally have a fair amount of depth. A player imo should have to be good enough to make the Australian side in one disciple first (or at least pretty close to it) and the other skill to be a bonus.
Click to expand...
I very much agree in the case of Tests. I think it's a waste of space and you could really have a much more talented player there. But in the shorter forms you need some flexibility.

Hopes for example has an average of 44 opening in ODIs. He gives you the chance to rest a player while on tour, and then can come in at any position in the batting order and bat just the same.

The same goes for bowling. He can open the bowling, or not bowl at all. How often does a number 7 batsman get a decent bat in ODIs? And also how often does that same player get to bowl 10 overs? It's sort of a no man's land, so why not fill it with somebody who can do just about anything? That's even more the case in T20s.
 
I guess in the shorter formats having 1 player like that the flexibility is pretty handy if they are reasonably good like say a Shahid Afridi.

Although the last thing you want in a team is a couple of Ronnie Iranis or Sajid Mahmood lol.
 
Mahmudullah from Bangladesh probably fits the mould of "utility player". Bats at eight and bowls a handful of overs a game yet contributes in some way whether that be through a wicket, some quick runs or having to hold the Bangladesh tail together (which usually occurs most games).
 
I am ok with Smith being in the one day team, I agree with you Boris. That said, James Hopes would be a far better option at this stage.

As someone else said, he is there to develop his leggies. I think that Ponting should be bowling him for his full quota each game. I would have dropped Krejza, played the three quicks and Watson and Smith. It makes the team much more flexible if Smith is viewed as THE spinner. And he is a better bowler than Krejza.

The team would have looked like this for the WC:

Watson
Haddin
Ponting
Clarke
White
M. Hussey
....... (Hopes/ McDonald/ Hastings/ D. Hussey)
Smith
Johnson
Lee
Tait

In that number seven spot you can do a number of things, play someone like Hopes or McDonald if it's a seamer's wicket or D. Hussey if it's going to be a slow turner.

It is better balanced with the three quicks, Watson, another all-rounder and Smith (as well as the underbowled Clarke if needed)
 
I think Smith is a great option in the ODI team, Hopes is a clever player aswell - I relly dont see why both couldn't play in a ODI side. Bowling options are always very valuable, but these guys are good enought to bat 6,7,8.

Smith is a handy 2nd spinner - Playing with Doherty who will provide solid results. Hopes, Smith and Watson to support 3 mainline bowlers.
 
I reckon that Smith is a handy ODI player, but will never develop into the quality leggie that Aus needs until he is bowled a lot more by his capt, and as someone else said, it makes for a better team if he goes into the game as the spinner. Alround winner I reckon. He'll start to bowl better, yet can still play that "utility" role (albeit more as a utility batsman).
As of yet, neither Smith nor Doherty have done too much to impress, but Aus needs to pick one of them in my opinion and try to stick with them. We dont need both in the side, especially if Smith (who'd be my pick) can become a better bowler.
 
I question is position in the team, you have the 2nd best all rounder in the world in Shane Watson (behind Kallis) so you don't need Smith as he isn't good enough to be there for his batting or bowling at this stage. Hopes deserves to be in the ODI side and Australia should take only one spinner into the Test team ie Doherty or Harritz. Let Steve Smith learn how to become a really good leggie at domestic level, he shouldn't be 'practicing' in the international game or you bowl him his 10 straight overs in ODIs and 4 straight in T20's.

Otherwise. he is a waist of space in the ODI's and T20's. He is NOT an all rounder!! I'm sorry, he's not! Hopes and Mccdonald are better all rounders than him. And Australia doesn't even need another all rounder when you have Watson and David Hussey.
 
His batting technique is so ropey it looks like he's meant to be learning to bowl AND bat at test level. I used to think that they might as well just let him go and use him till he learns but I meant as a spin bowler. You can't have him at 6 as they appear to want. He's not good enough.

He's ok - and by ok, I mean passable but not good - in ODI's but shouldn't be in the test team.
 
Is Harritz going to get another run in the test team? I hope so, I'd be playing him over Smith and Doherty or any other spinner, but I don't know.
 
I'm very glad that they've decided that our 'utility' player is not worth taking to Sri Lanka though I would have thought he was a shoe-in for the sub-continent. I suspect they've finally realised that we need six players who are at least nominally batsmen first with our problems with collapses.
 
you'd be better off sticking the second best all rounder instead. Imaging having Shane Watson and Dan Christian in the same team, in full flight - the batting would go to 8, and there's be 6 front line bowlers (5 if Watto's back is a concern)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top