Australia vs India First Test - Adelaide Oval - Dec 9 - Dec 13

[Millky95]

Allrounders I think, anyway, should be classified in a few ways:
True allrounder: Could be picked in the side either for batting or bowling. Averages of 35+ with the bat and 35 or less with the ball. Bowls every innings. Can bat anywhere from 3-7. Example Kallis
Batting allrounder: Pick in the side for their batting. Can tie up an end if need be. Averages 35+ with the bat and probably more than 35 with the ball. Bowls when needed. Bats usually anywhere between 3-7. Example Symonds
Bowling allrounder: Picked in the side for their bowling. Can bat relatively well. Averages hopefully around 30 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball. Bowls every innings. Bats between 6-9. Example Vettori
Then we get into part timers who are picked solely on their batting and will occasionally bowl once every 2-3 tests to break a partnership or if a bowler goes down. Example Smith

 

[Stewart2Austin Reborn]

Nathan Hauritz

 

[eth-dog]

We've never really understood what a Test all-rounder means. We have labelled players such as Greg Chappell or Mitchell Johnson as all-rounders which is just not correct. Greg Chappell could never have forged a Test career on his bowling alone, just as Johnson could never play Tests as a specialist batsman. In the early 60s we had Davidson and Benaud who came close, but the last genuine all-rounder we've had was Keith Miller. Strangely enough, if you look at their performances, the closest we've had to an all-rounder since then was Greg Matthews.

The biggest problem facing Australian Test cricket is the plethora of cricketers who are one day all-rounders who are neither good enough batsmen nor bowlers to play Test cricket. Somehow we need to nuture specialists like we used to, but these players struggle to get selected for 20/20 and 50 over matches.

Steve Waugh?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Steve Waugh?

I thought about Steve Waugh, but I cannot think his bowling alone would have justified Test selection.

 

[Caesar]

Steve Waugh is an interesting one. People forget how good a bowler he was when he first arrived on the Test scene.

That said, if he was ever a genuine allrounder it would have been for a very, very short period. His bowling average inflated almost as quickly as his batting average once he found his feet as a Test batsman.

 

[fiction]

Inclusion of Dhoni and Ashwin/Jadeja in place of Saha and Karn will strengthen the lower middle order. However, chances of India coming this close to winning are pretty low I'd say.

 

[Millky95]

Inclusion of Dhoni and Ashwin/Jadeja in place of Saha and Karn will strengthen the lower middle order. However, chances of India coming this close to winning are pretty low I'd say.

Adelaide was their best chance to win. Maybe in Sydney if it gets really spin friendly

 

[Plugger35]

At his peak he probably could have been picked as a top six bat for NZ. It was really only his own preference as captain to concentrate on his bowling that kept him at 7/8.

Chris Cairns was more of a genuine test all rounder than Vettori, had a batting average of 33 and was a frontline pace bowler averaging under 30.

He probably would've got a game as either a batsman or bowler for NZ at his peak.

 

[The Passenger]

Think he has probably missed the boat for Test selection though.

For this summer or his career? If he is good enough, he will get another chance. He's only 27. Feels like he has been around a lot longer.

But I don't think his batting is good enough for test cricket as a long term prospect. He did good in that first test, but that was it.

 

[Bradesmaen]

How many true all rounders are there in world cricket, than?

Andy Symonds could bowl medium pace and spin, though neither was good enough to make him a stand alone bowler.

Flintoff and Kallis were both strong, but having both retired no quality all-rounder who is still in the game comes to mind.

Shakib Al-hasan? He joined the rare 100 and 10 wicket club the other week, albeit against Zimbabwe.. but he has scored a fair few runs now.

 

[Caesar]

For this summer or his career? If he is good enough, he will get another chance. He's only 27. Feels like he has been around a lot longer.

But I don't think his batting is good enough for test cricket as a long term prospect. He did good in that first test, but that was it.

As an allrounder, I think his chance to be a long-term member of the side is gone. The baton has been passed from Watson to Marsh and skipped over him. It is a shame it took so long for him to get his act together, but sometimes that happens with talented players.

It is possible he could be selected in the side as a batsman. He carries a stigma as a poor bat from his early years in the Shield, leading to a poor career average, but he has excellent technique and has bloomed a fair bit in recent years. But there is more competition for specialist batting spots, and it would require him to change the role he fills for NSW in order to become a real contender for that. Not sure that will happen.

I see a lot of parallels between him and Cameron White.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

How many true all rounders are there in world cricket, than?

Personally, I don't think there have been more than half a dozen in the history of the game.
Sobers, Miller, Kallis are the ones that come to mind immediately. Kapil, Imran and Botham had periods where they probably made it but Botham was more of a Watsonesque "no-rounder" for much of his career. Kapil and Imran definitely bowlers who could bat quite well, but rarely reached the point of being genuine top six in a competitive team if they had not also been bowlers.

There have been a lot of bowling all-rounders (the Benaud or Hadlee type) who were more than handy late order batsmen, a few batting all-rounders who could do more than just pinch-hit with the ball ; but not many who would be first choice in either skill (i.e. top six batsman on batting alone, and top four bowlers on bowling alone).

 

[The Passenger]

To me, a genuine Test all rounder needs to average in the 40s with the bat and mid-late 20s with the ball, and these players are very hard to find.

Hard to find? There are exactly three in the history of test cricket excluding those who have fit that criteria. Faulkner, MacCartney and Walters. Doug Walters certainly wouldn't have forged a career on his bowling alone.

Funnily enough one bloke who is very close is in the opposition touring squad but not picked - Ravi Ashwin.

Very few players could make a team with either discipline. Keith Miller batted five, but only averaged 36 but I think he still would've got picked as batsmen regardless. Imran Khan falls into this exact same boat at Pakistan, although batting slightly lower floating between 6 and 8. They certainly wouldn't be remembered as a legends of the game on their batting alone.

There is an argument that a lot of these blokes (Miller, Sobers, Kallis, Khan etc,.) if only concentrating on one discipline could have been made it as a batsmen or a bowler, but that's more just hypothesis than anything.

Off the top of my head there are probably only five guys in the history of test cricket he would've made a career as either a batsmen or a bowler - Faulkner, MacCartney, Miller, Sobers, Khan. Kallis is close but I don't think his bowling is quite good enough alone, and in the period he played he would've had a lot of stiff competition from the South African quicks. Every other all rounder has been a batting all rounder, or a bowling all rounder.

I am not considering guys who were part of developing cricket nations.

EDIT: I forgot Ian Botham first half of his career. It really fell away badly in the back half though.

 

[chargers 09]

Sobers was a freak of nature, no doubt. He ended with an average a tick under 58 (excluding the Rest of the World Tests in 1970 and 1971-72) but his bowling average was 34.

Kallis ended up averaging 55 and a half and just under 33 with the ball.

Imran Khan averaged 37.69 with the bat, and 22.81 with the ball.

Kapil Dev averaged 31.05 with the bat and 29.64 with the ball.

Those are the sort of guys who are the benchmark, along with Miller.

I've seen some stats about Khan, how before his injury or after (I can't quite remember) averaged 50 with the bat and 17 with the ball or something ridiculous. Vettori had a purple patch like that for 3 years I'm pretty sure averaging very high with the bat.
This is why I have a problem with career averages, not the best way to compare player statistics IMO.

 

[The Passenger]

Over his last 50 tests, Imran Khan averaged 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball. Pretty insane. A lot of not outs batting though. Between a quarter and a third of his innings were red ink.

Took him a little while to find his feet as a batsmen.

 

[sherb]

Imran Khan averaged 37.69 with the bat over his entire test career.

There are others at least worth a mention.

One would be AW Greig.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/13463.html

From the early days of Test cricket you have people such as Wilfred Rhodes and George Giffen.

And then of course you'd have to think Procter would have been one of the great test all-rounders had he not played just a miserable 7 test matches.

 

[sherb]

Over his last 50 tests, Imran Khan averaged 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball. Pretty insane. A lot of not outs batting though. Between a quarter and a third of his innings were red ink.

Took him a little while to find his feet as a batsmen.

It was only a fifth over his entire career.

He would have still averaged around 30 if dismissed in all his test innings.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/player/40560.html

 

[The Passenger]

It was only a fifth over his entire career.

Sorry, meant 1/4-1/3 during his last 50 tests when his averaging went through roof.

1/5th is still a lot, but that is going to happen if you're a good batsmen, batting mainly at number 7.

Either way doesn't matter. Absolute superstar whichever way you look at it.

 

[sherb]

Sorry, meant 1/4-1/3 during his last 50 tests when his averaging went through roof.

1/5th is still a lot, but that is going to happen if you're a good batsmen, batting mainly at number 7.

Either way doesn't matter. Absolute superstar whichever way you look at it.

Oh, I see. Apologies.

I remember Imran going through us in 76/77, I think in Sydney. Took six in each innings.

 

[fiction]

Adelaide was their best chance to win. Maybe in Sydney if it gets really spin friendly

They'd need some exceptional performances to even draw the series. Kohli is the one who can make a difference, but he needs support from other end. All I care about is we get to see more competitive cricket because India does have a tendency to collapse after a loss.

 

[t_94]

Personally, I don't think there have been more than half a dozen in the history of the game.
Sobers, Miller, Kallis are the ones that come to mind immediately. Kapil, Imran and Botham had periods where they probably made it but Botham was more of a Watsonesque "no-rounder" for much of his career. Kapil and Imran definitely bowlers who could bat quite well, but rarely reached the point of being genuine top six in a competitive team if they had not also been bowlers.

There have been a lot of bowling all-rounders (the Benaud or Hadlee type) who were more than handy late order batsmen, a few batting all-rounders who could do more than just pinch-hit with the ball ; but not many who would be first choice in either skill (i.e. top six batsman on batting alone, and top four bowlers on bowling alone).

Botham took 383 test wickets @ 28

 

[Millky95]

They'd need some exceptional performances to even draw the series. Kohli is the one who can make a difference, but he needs support from other end. All I care about is we get to see more competitive cricket because India does have a tendency to collapse after a loss.

Donhi can just hang around and help Kohli in situations like we had yesterday. Simply his experience can help them a lot

 

[Mancey]

Another rubbish Adelaide wicket.

The most pointless test match every summer.

Good call bro

 

[frankrizzo]

Donhi can just hang around and help Kohli in situations like we had yesterday. Simply his experience can help them a lot

He has an awful record here in aus, average of 18 with just one 50 in 7 tests, he has struggled in SA as well.

He is a great bat when there isn't much bounce.

 

[Gough]

And then of course you'd have to think Procter would have been one of the great test all-rounders had he not played just a miserable 7 test matches.

Yet another reason to hate Apartheid, it deprived us of potentially one of the greatest teams of all time. Add to that 69/70 side, Rice, van Byl, Kevin McKenzie, Denys Hobson, Jimmy Cook, and le Roux as well as giving Barry Richards the chance to play at the peak of his career, it could have been one of the great teams of the the seventies. Guys like Greig, Lamb, Smith, and Wessels would have probably have stayed in the country too, it's a great cricket sliding doors story.