What constitutes a 'genuine' allrounder?

[cricketnut14]

not sure this one's been done before, but while things are a little quite - thought i'd start the ball rolling.


There are plenty of 'white ball' allrounders but what constitutes a 'genuine' allrounder?

• is it someone who earns a spot in the XI in one specific skillset? (bats in the top 6, or one of the 4 bowlers)
• is it someone who does a 'bit of both' and doesn't hold a spot in the XI on either skillset alone?
• is it the old age rule - batting average minus bowling average (must be positive)?
• how do we label them - 'genuine' 'batting allrounder' 'bowling allrounder' 'white ball allrounder' etc
• players that have been picked as a bowler in a test side and on other occasions as a batter (and vice versa) - do they automatically qualify?
• does 30+/30- qualify or 35+/35-, 40+/30- or 25+/35- (test averages) do we all draw the line somewhere?
• do they have to take an average of 2 wickets per tests and/or bowl a specific amount of overs per test match?

 

[cricketnut14]

i'll start with one.

freddie flintoff batting ave 32, bowling ave 33.

where do we sit with him ?

 

[PhatBoy]

I don’t consider the ‘must hold your spot with both skills’ to be a classification because if that’s the case then I think realistically throughout history only really Aubrey Faulkner, (40 and 26) probably Sobers even though his bowling average is a little high but his versatility offsets that a bit, and Kallis as his bowling was pretty obviously good enough to be first change level at the very least if he didn’t spend his whole career in a side absolutely stacked with elite fast bowlers, and maybe Miller who’s batting average was a little below 40 but by all reports was a dasher so if he batted higher and with a bit more responsibility would probably have managed 40+.



There’s others of course who in weak sides could hold their spot with either skill. Shakib obviously could do it.
Holder probably could at some stages as a batsman, certainly as a bowler.

So that classification I think can be dismissed or it just narrows the field too much.


I think if you have one asset that is above or below the accepted ‘test class’ threshold - so below 30 for a bowler or above 40 for a batsman, and your other skill is in the 30s, that’s a pretty black and white claim to me.

Where it gets murky is a situation like the one you’ve mentioned with Flintoff, or Stokes who is similar.

Cairns is another who was JUSSSST on the threshold - I think his bowling average was a smidgen under 30.

It’s probably worth factoring in things like their ability to break open a game which undoubtedly a player like stokes in particular can do. That is worth knocking a few points off a bowling average and adding a few runs to a batting average

 

[Rabish Binney]

Tough one to critique

Do you look at averages or impact? Individual stats (batting / bowling) or as a package?

Botham is a prime example (even though I hate the Poms, he was my favourite cricketer growing up. And although retired years ago, probably still is).

Averaged 'only' 33 with the bat. But scored 14 test hundreds which puts him in front of a lot of pure batsman by number of centuries scored. In comparison, greats such as Doug Walters, Chris Gayle, Everton Weekes, Clyde Walcott, Salim Malik all scored 15 centuries. Ian Chappell 'only' scored 14 & Bob Simpson 'only' 10

So you could say that even though his average was only in the 30's he could hold his place as a batsman alone by the number of centuries he scored. And some of those were at crucial stages for the Poms (I wont go back to Headingly 1981 as I'm still undergoing therapy for that)

Similarly to his bowling, averaged 28 but took almost 400 wickets (383). So again, based on that he could probably hold his place as a pure bowler.

And of course he was a gun in the slips.

So reckon you need to look beyond just the averages to gauge how good they were

 

[Jim Prideaux]

My personal view is as follows;

Good enough, arguably at least, to be picked for one specific role.

Good enough in the secondary role to replace an injured (during the match) in their primary role.

More specifically, batting above 30 and bowling below 35 for the most part, although leeway allowed if one of those averages is significantly better.

A bowling allrounder should be able to slot into the top 5/6 without weakening the batting in any real sense, a batting allrounder should be able to hold up an end and take some wickets for 10-15 overs in an innings when required regularly.

An allrounder should be able to take 5 in an innings, and score a ton (obviously not in every match, or the same match either).

 

[Jim Prideaux]

i'll start with one.

freddie flintoff batting ave 32, bowling ave 33.

where do we sit with him ?

All rounder, Flintoff’s problem wasn’t skill it was consistency/fitness/ professionalism at times.

At his best, 2004-2006 he bowled at just under 26 and batted at nearly 40.

With those numbers with what England had available at the time you could nearly pick him as a specialist for either role. Certainly bowling, arguably batting.

 

[Power Raid]

bowling all rounder sub 27 with the ball and north of 22 with the bat
example Hadlee - https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/richard-hadlee-37224

all rounder sub 30 with the ball and north of 35 with the bat
example Khan - https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/imran-khan-40560

batting all rounder sub 35 with the ball and north of 40 with the bat
example - https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/garry-sobers-52946

the numbers would change a little for spin rather than pace but I would describe Benaud as a bowling all rounder

Richie Benaud Profile - Cricket Player Australia | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Richie Benaud cricket player from Australia profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[MarcMaverick]

Jacques Kallis.

 

[PhatBoy]

Jacques Kallis.

This

I genuinely loved watching the guy bowl. It was such a pity it was almost invariably a ‘well **** we are in shock that Donald and Pollock and Ntini and Steyn and Morkel and Philander didn’t work… better let Jake have a go’ situation with him because in literally any team of his era not called SA or Australia he would have been bowling enough to take closer to 400 wickets you would have to assume, even if it did maybe reduce his batting output. He was such a mentally strong cricketer I don’t think it would have fazed him much anyway.

It was actually almost the reverse with Pollock and the bat.

I’ve mentioned in this forum before that I read somewhere once that someone tried to look through all the batsmen that played during Lara’s era to find someone that looked a little bit like him in style and had some of the same strokeplay and the one they actually came up with was Shaun Pollock with the way he had the real high backlift and the back foot going across towards gully and lightning fast hands through the ball.

But again like Kallis he played in a side that in theory (not always in practice when they came up against Australia during Pollock’s era) was generally stacked with good batsmen so he was never needed to bat any higher or with more responsibility.

Pollock would have had an extra test century to his name but can blame the Indian f**kwits for the carry on after the ball tampering incident during the 2001 tour where they refused Mike Denness’ charges and the third test was stripped of test status.

On the all rounder subject, Kallis himself was robbed of another century from that match as well, and a couple of wickets.

 

[cricketnut14]

i'll start with one.

freddie flintoff batting ave 32, bowling ave 33.

dan vettori also sits around here batting : 30, bowling: 34

 

[cricketnut14]

the numbers would change a little for spin rather than pace but I would describe Benaud as a bowling all rounder

Richie Benaud Profile - Cricket Player Australia | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Richie Benaud cricket player from Australia profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

interesting to note in the test arena benaud was 24/27 and overall FC 37/25.

did he under achieve at test level for those who saw him ?

interestingly reiffel was 27/27.

 

[PhatBoy]

interesting to note in the test arena benaud was 24/27 and overall FC 37/25.

did he under achieve at test level for those who saw him ?

interestingly reiffel was 27/27.

Reiffel was a bit like Vettori in that his batting improved so steadily you almost didn’t notice it had happened before he suddenly was a genuine number 7 standard batsman if he wanted to be; he averaged over 50 one calendar year

He hit five of his six half centuries in 96-97 and a year later at 32, he was retired. You would assume if he ever really put a genuine focus on it he could have developed his batting to a level where he could have hit a test century. Although he played well over 100 first class matches and never turned any of his 18 50s into triple figures so maybe that suggests otherwise.


Vettori was one of the great success stories of a player who just developed and developed as he went. You would have to assume that he’s a player that someone like Santner, spectacles and all, is modelling himself on at least a little bit.

 

[cricketnut14]

Reiffel was a bit like Vettori in that his batting improved so steadily you almost didn’t notice it had happened before he suddenly was a genuine number 7 standard batsman if he wanted to be; he averaged over 50 one calendar year

He hit five of his six half centuries in 96-97 and a year later at 32, he was retired. You would assume if he ever really put a genuine focus on it he could have developed his batting to a level where he could have hit a test century. Although he played well over 100 first class matches and never turned any of his 18 50s into triple figures so maybe that suggests otherwise.

yeah totally agree - while reiffel was playing i never really noticed his batting as such - maybe because he never made a ton.

starc reminds me a bit like that as well - with a batting ave of 20-21.

 

[PhatBoy]

yeah totally agree - while reiffel was playing i never really noticed his batting as such - maybe because he never made a ton.

starc reminds me a bit like that as well - with a batting ave of 20-21.

Starc has style and looks like he could be a lot better than he is, to me he looks like he sort of plateaued and never really reached the level he was capable of. He has genuine ability

 

[Westend]

What constitutes a genuine allrounder

well according to what I have read on these threads

As an Allrounder you have to score 100 every time you bat and take 5 wickets every time you bowl otherwise you are .....

 

[cricketnut14]

What constitutes a genuine allrounder

well according to what I have read on these threads

As an Allrounder you have to score 100 every time you bat and take 5 wickets every time you bowl otherwise you are .....

i was waiting for someone to say ' if they have a bat and ball against their name on the team list that's put up on our tv screens moments before a test match begins

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Kallis the ultimate all rounder, that he is arguably the best batsman since Bradman just shows how good he was.

 

[craffles]

Why aren’t Keeper Bats considered all rounders?

 

[cricketnut14]

Why aren’t Keeper Bats considered all rounders?

good question - i think gilchrist changed the game there - all keepers are required to bat - and many even bat in the top 6 for their country.

few before gilchrist, could handle the bat (knott, marsh, dujon

most teams now even have multiple keepers in their test XI.

not many batters these days that don't bowl a bit or keep.

 

[cricketnut14]

argument with me and some mates - come here for your take on it

are the below, batting all-rounders, bowling all-rounders, genuine allrounders or none of the above:

greg matthews - test 41/48 FC 39/32
peter sleep - test 24/45 FC 35/39
simon o'donnell test 29/84 FC 39/37
trevor chappell test 16/NA FC 30/25
shaun young test 4/NA FC 38/36
andrew mcdonald test 21/33 FC 40/29
james faulkner test 23/16 FC 31/25

 

[PhatBoy]

Faulkner could have been a very good all rounder I reckon

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Faulkner could have been a very good all rounder I reckon

Similar to late career Pistol in his style.

 

[sydney_gws]

i'll start with one.

freddie flintoff batting ave 32, bowling ave 33.

where do we sit with him ?

Most players have a stretch covering about 70% of their career when they are significantly better. Excluding first 20 and last 5 tests, I think Freddie is a 37,27 man. Very Good.
Botham ended up about 35,28 but was for first 60 tests about 38,24 or so I think. You could get exact from cricinfo.

 

[Headless]

Jacques Kallis.

Yep - start with Kallis and Perry, and go from there.