I have never said that I don't want to be known as an all-rounder. I want to be one, and a good one at that. But reaching there takes time. In hindsight, when I used to be asked the question time and again whether I considered myself an all-rounder, I felt more like it was a burden being put on me, some unnecessary pressure, which I didn't need at that time. All I said was to give me some time. Bowling has always been my first love but I also know what my batting abilities are. In a team of eleven players, if a player has the knack of contributing with, both, the bat and the ball, it is obviously a plus point. That is what the team management tries to look at, to make that extra option possible.

If your team has an all-rounder, it is a good thing and the captain has the choice here of playing an extra batsman or an extra bowler depending on the circumstances. In fact, I want to put across one question to the media: If they want to call me an all-rounder, then why are they not happy when I perform with the bat? Sometimes you fail with the ball but compensate with the bat and vice-versa. But isn't it what an all-rounder does? Then why is it that it always my bowling and never my batting that I am credited for? I think it's just a negative way of looking at things.

... contd.