What constitutes a 'genuine' allrounder?

[Redline]

Lots of names being thrown around but there are not many that meet my criteria.

To be a genuine allrounder you need you need to have expectations around your batting not just seen as valuable tailend runs. Probably batting top 6 maybe 7 in a strong team. People need to notice when you don't make runs.

From a bowling perspective again there needs to be an expectation that you take wickets. Not just bowling overs to give the main bowlers a break.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

30 30 is a good gague

 

[Gethelred]

It's very hard IMO to properly measure an all rounder statistically. You have a bloke like Flintoff - who, at his best with either bat or ball, was an absolute force - who averaged 31 with the bat and 32 with the ball; for context, Pete Siddle averaged 30.67 with the ball, and there wouldn't be all that many people saying that Siddle was a better bowler than Flintoff was. Shane Watson is - by the 'your batting average minus your bowling average, positive number' - a true allrounder at test level; 35.2 with the bat, 33.68 with the ball.

The crux of the problem in my opinion is this: I have all the time in the world for a part timer with the ball - Joe Root, Travis Head, Aaron Finch, Virender Sehwag - or a pinch hitter like James Faulkner, Chris Cairns, Brett Lee, Pat Cummins, Ravi Ashwin, but I do not like having a set all rounder in the team whose stats with their primary skill aren't enough justification for them to be in the team alone. It's all very well for the Kallis', the Jadeja's and the Millers of the world, but if you're not taking wickets at less than 28 - 31 for an offie, as they have to tour Australia and we are where offies go to die - or making runs at upwards of 40, you're simply not as good as a primary option in your primary skill.

As such, true all rounders are exceedingly rare in my eyes. Keith Miller, Jadeja, Kallis, Sobers are the only ones I can think of.