Experimental vs theoretical physics, or somewhere in the middle?

I recently started a research program in astrophysics, doing simulations and largely theory work. I've had this project broadly planned for about 3 years already and have some previous experience with the topic so I know what I'm getting into somewhat, but for some reason, I never saw it as "theoretical physics". I'm still finishing off some old experimental work, and my supervisor has made a few jokes about how I'm a theoretician and not an experimentalist, which is what has spurred my worry.

At the end of high school, I was convinced that I wanted to study theoretical physics and discover something new in QM, like most students when they start out. Turns out I'm not a great fan of pure mathematics and abstract algebra (and I don't think I could hack it either) but I really love calculus and applied mathematics, so I put myself more in the experimentalist camp in my own head. I'm not really very good at labs either, but I made it work by pairing up with someone who's great with the experiments but not so great with the theory. All throughout undergrad, they were the lead for the nitty-gritty experimental stuff and I lead in the theory, so our final reports ended up pretty good.

I like the kind of work that I'm doing at the moment and I think it suits my strengths well, but it feels like a bit of an odd niche to be sitting in. I have no skill or comfort with equipment, but I don't really have the aptitude for math to be what many would consider a 'real' theoretician either.

Is this going to disadvantage me in the future? Should I work on planting myself more squarely in one camp or the other, or are the distinctions pretty arbitrary? By that I mean, should I:

• get more comfortable with the equipment side of things, or

• learn more pure mathematics?

I intend to head into academia, but of course it's a tough market to crack and things might change for me by the time I've graduated.