What is the definition of an allrounder ?

[OldSchool]

For mine it has to be a player that could hold his position in anyone of two cricket disciplines.
Obviously Gilhrist could play as the keeper or just as a batsman but I cant think of anyone else in Australia that comes close.
We tend to class batsman who bowl and bowler who bats as allrounders at the ODI level but they really they should not be regarded as genuine allrounders.

Anyone have a better definition ?

 

[guess_who]

Well to win the allrounders award in the ING cup a player must take more then 10 Wicketes and score more then 250 Runs so there you go.

 

[DaveW]

I've never liked wicket-keepers being referred to as all-rounders. It just makes the whole "all-rounder" term vague and confusing. All-rounder should refer to players who bat and bowler.

I don't think there really is a good definition of what an "all-rounder" is. Is it a player who gets selected for a combination of his batting and bowling, or a player who could get selected exclusively for his batting and exclusively for his bowling? Both these definitions are problematic. e.g. Shaun Pollock makes the South African side on his bowling alone, he certainly wouldn't make it as a batsman, so he doesn't fit either category, but you couldn't say he's not an all-rounder.

How about four different categories?

Batting all-rounder: Batsmen who can bowl (e.g. Kallis, Jayasuriya, Lehmann at a stretch)

Bowling all-rounder: Bowlers who can bat (e.g. Pollock, Blignaut, Bichel at a stretch)

Bit-part all-rounder: Players selected for a combination of their abilities (e.g. Chris Harris, Klusener, and basically any all-rounder picked in the Aus ODI side in the last 5 years - Harvey, Symonds, Watson etc)

Genuine all-rounder: Players good enough to make it on either discipline alone (Hard to think of current examples... Garry Sobers, Keith Miller, Imran Khan)

 

[Fraka]

Allrounders

"Both" would have to be there surely

 

[Fraka]

Ian Botham that is

 

[TheWackedYak]

Jacques Kallis against anyone other than top-flight opponents?

 

[OldSchool]

Originally posted by TheWackedYak
Jacques Kallis against anyone other than top-flight opponents?

Kallis is very close to a genuine allrounder but Chris Cairns is the only one that could truly hold his position with the Kiwi's as either a specialist bowler or batsman

 

[Cupido13]

Jacques Kallis' Test bowling figures are actually better than Makhaya Ntini, who is considered their strike bowler, so, I would say that his bowling would be good enough to hold his spot on it's own.

 

[guess_who]

No doubt Kallis is the best all rounder going around by a country mile, Pollock would be up there as well. No one even compares as an allrounder to Kallis.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

Jaques Kallis is the best.

Some people class Dravid as one because of his wicketkeeping. i wouldn't think that you should be classed as an all-rounder for a keeper.

or then i would hae Dravid down instead of Kallis.

 

[Cupido13]

Originally posted by guess_who
No doubt Kallis is the best all rounder going around by a country mile, Pollock would be up there as well. No one even compares as an allrounder to Kallis.

Pollock's batting is not all that great. He is ok, but would probably not even hold down a spot in a first class side with that batting, no way a test side.

 

[llosis]

Originally posted by DaveW
I've never liked wicket-keepers being referred to as all-rounders. It just makes the whole "all-rounder" term vague and confusing. All-rounder should refer to players who bat and bowler.

I don't think there really is a good definition of what an "all-rounder" is. Is it a player who gets selected for a combination of his batting and bowling, or a player who could get selected exclusively for his batting and exclusively for his bowling? Both these definitions are problematic. e.g. Shaun Pollock makes the South African side on his bowling alone, he certainly wouldn't make it as a batsman, so he doesn't fit either category, but you couldn't say he's not an all-rounder.

How about four different categories?

Batting all-rounder: Batsmen who can bowl (e.g. Kallis, Jayasuriya, Lehmann at a stretch)

Bowling all-rounder: Bowlers who can bat (e.g. Pollock, Blignaut, Bichel at a stretch)

Bit-part all-rounder: Players selected for a combination of their abilities (e.g. Chris Harris, Klusener, and basically any all-rounder picked in the Aus ODI side in the last 5 years - Harvey, Symonds, Watson etc)

Genuine all-rounder: Players good enough to make it on either discipline alone (Hard to think of current examples... Garry Sobers, Keith Miller, Imran Khan)

Good post Dave.

From a statistical point of view an all rounder could be some one who has a lower bowling average than batting average. This is not a failsafe method by any means because if someone averages 24 with the ball and 26 with the bat it may mean they're a great bowler with some good knocks or a poor bat who's picked up a couple of wickets on the two occassions he's bowled (eg career figures 2 for 48).

But for the players with a bit of a career behind them it does give an indication if you use the categories provided by Dave above.

Eg Batting all-rounder - bat ave 40+, Bowling under 35
Bowling all-rounder - bat ave 30+, bowling under 30
part-timer - harder to quantify, bat 35+ bowl under 40/50
genuine allrounder - bat ave 40+, bowling under 30

 

[llosis]

From a 1st class level pov someone who was an underrated Australian all-rounder was Tom Moody.

He was a top flight bat and first change seamer in his day, similar to what Jacques Kallis is for SA today. Capable of leading the batting and taking match winning hauls with the ball.

Big Tom's probably been the best Australian allrounder we've had in the last decade IMO.

 

[OldSchool]

Originally posted by llosis
From a 1st class level pov someone who was an underrated Australian all-rounder was Tom Moody.

He was a top flight bat and first change seamer in his day, similar to what Jacques Kallis is for SA today. Capable of leading the batting and taking match winning hauls with the ball.

Big Tom's probably been the best Australian allrounder we've had in the last decade IMO.

If Big Tom had have applied himself with his bowling early on in his career he could have been a very good allrounder

 

[dan warna]

Kallis is up there with the greatest all rounders of all time, batting average of 50, puts him in the top batting ranks of players and a bowling average fo 30 makes him more than a competitive bowler.

i think he bowls at 31, which is as good as lee, botham, kapil dev, craig mcdermot, lawsom etc.

he bats at 50 which puts him in the same league as s.waugh, alan border, etc.

Kallis is the only player in the Saffer side that demands a place in the australian side on EITHER his bowling OR his batting!

man he could walk into any test side of any era. Our greatest all rounders include Keith Miller who batted at 37 and bowled 23, the legendary big ship ww armstrong who batted 39 and bowled 33,

Kallis is, statistically superior to them!

 

[dan warna]

Of course, in England, an all rounder is someone who recognises a bat, and a ball.

in India its some one who accepts bribes and pays them

in pakistan its some who can dodge a ball as practice for dodging grenades

in bangladesh its some who has heard of cricket and convinces somebody at the ICC they deserve an all expenses paid holiday somewhere

in Canada its someone who used to be an Australian

And we just don't talk about NZ all rounders.

 

[Tank]

In 3-5 years time, I reckon Cameron White will be in the 'genuine' allrounder class with Shane Watson not too far behind him if he continues to improve in his bowling,

 

[OldSchool]

Originally posted by Tank
In 3-5 years time, I reckon Cameron White will be in the 'genuine' allrounder class with Shane Watson not too far behind him if he continues to improve in his bowling,

I would hope White is in the team and playing as a spinner within the next 12 to 18 months and I agree he will eventually become an allrounder.
Watson's back injuries might stop him from becoming an allrounder