Cameron Green

[Shane Sheridan]

No Paddles

 

[PhatBoy]

Not the best XI players but an actual playing XI of the all rounders (some of whole don’t appear in The Passenger ’s list:

Goddard - as The Passenger pointed out he was legit opening batsman
Watson - did a serviceable job as an opener
Kallis - perfect 3/4 batsman
Sobers - picks himself
Khan - averaged 50+ batting over the last 7-8 years of his career
Stokes - can play the most explosive innings out of all the batting all rounders though Botham makes a good case
Tim Zoehrer - has a first class five-for and I couldn’t think of a single all rounder from the definitive list who could wicketkeep
Faulkner - right arm leg spin - Sobers and Shakib provide left arm orthodox, Sobers the left arm chinamen
Shakib - probably the best specialist spinner of the main crop
Pollock - The McGrath role with the new ball
Hadlee - early Hadlee provides the tearaway right armer, later Hadlee provides the thinker
Wasim Akram - the left arm pace counterpoint

 

[Pippen94]

Doesn't work. There's just as many no rounders on the list as there are all rounders.

Test matches | All-round records | 1000 runs and 100 wickets | ESPNcricinfo

Find records of 1000 runs and 100 wickets in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.

stats.espncricinfo.com

Email espn

 

[Pippen94]

The great genuine all rounder 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 3+ wkts per test
Aubrey Faulkner

The great batting all rounders 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -35 bowling average, 1.5+ wkts per test
Jacques Kallis, Gary Sobers, Tony Greig

The great bowling all rounders 20+ tests, 35+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 3+ wkts per test
Imran Khan, Keith Miller

The good genuine all rounders 20+ tests, 35+ batting average, -35 bowling average, 1+ wkts per test
Ben Stokes, Frank Woolley, Ted Dexter, Shakib Al Hasan, Shane Watson, Asif Iqbal, Mushtaq Mohammad, Warwick Armstrong, Brian McMillan, Charlie McCartney, Jacob Oram, Bob Cowper, Colin de Grandhomme, Charles Kellaway, Jack Gregory, Stanley Jackson

The good batting all rounders 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -40 bowling average, 1+ wkts per test
Wally Hammond, Frank Worrell, Basil D'Oliviera, Andrew Symonds

The good bowling all rounders 20+ tests, 30+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 2.5+ wkts per test
Kapil Dev, Shaun Pollock, Ian Botham, Chris Cairns, Wilfred Rhodes, Ravindra Jadeja, Jason Holder, Monty Noble, Trevor Goddard

Faulkner scored much fewer runs & had far fewer wickets than any of those other players. Scratching the barrel to include him

 

[Pippen94]

All-rounder Peter Siddle

Faulkner's name on that list?!

 

[PhatBoy]

Faulkner scored much fewer runs & had far fewer wickets than any of those other players. Scratching the barrel to include him

‘Scratching the barrel’ is probably not a term I would associate with nominating someone who averaged a five wicket haul or century every 3 tests, playing in an utterly abysmal team, as an all rounder.

 

[PhatBoy]

Stop the presses: Aubrey Faulkner didn’t keep test cricket going through World War One and it’s aftermath so can’t have played enough to be considered good at batting and bowling and doubtless after fluking his way to four centuries and four five-fers in 24 tests (he played a 25th 12 years after his 24th in response to an SOS from a touring SA team in England) it’s obvious that over a longer career he would have just been another ‘bits and pieces’ player

 

[DaRick]

it is if jimmy anderson can make the list.

Apparently averaging 9 with the bat makes you an allrounder now.

Glenn McGrath would be proud - towards the end of his Test career, he actually averaged 10!

 

[Pippen94]

‘Scratching the barrel’ is probably not a term I would associate with nominating someone who averaged a five wicket haul or century every 3 tests, playing in an utterly abysmal team, as an all rounder.

1700 runs & 80 wickets is not greatest all rounder of all time material. Too small sample size.
Of course classed Jack Gregory with Colin de Grandhomme & left off players like tate & Hadlee - so not a knowledgeable poster

 

[The Passenger]

Faulkner scored much fewer runs & had far fewer wickets than any of those other players. Scratching the barrel to include him

Most cricketers from that era get lumped in that boat, especially when you throw in WWI. I don't think you can hold it against them.

 

[Pippen94]

Apparently averaging 9 with the bat makes you an allrounder now.

Glenn McGrath would be proud - towards the end of his Test career, he actually averaged 10!

1000 runs & 100 wickets was the yardstick for all rounders (& still is really looking at stats sites). In recent decades players have had longer careers so a lot of bowlers have reached that milestone. 2000 runs might be better cut off.

 

[PhatBoy]

1700 runs & 80 wickets is not greatest all rounder of all time material. Too small sample size.
Of course classed Jack Gregory with Colin de Grandhomme & left off players like tate & Hadlee - so not a knowledgeable poster

That’s why we have averages. Do it often enough to show it wasn’t a fluke, that should be enough. Especially when coupled with his first class record. 400-odd wickets at 17 suggests he could bowl a bit.

 

[Pippen94]

Stop the presses: Aubrey Faulkner didn’t keep test cricket going through World War One and it’s aftermath so can’t have played enough to be considered good at batting and bowling and doubtless after fluking his way to four centuries and four five-fers in 24 tests (he played a 25th 12 years after his 24th in response to an SOS from a touring SA team in England) it’s obvious that over a longer career he would have just been another ‘bits and pieces’ player

Why don't we count only Botham's first 24 tests then?!
Given nobody sustained those numbers it's unlikely he would've

 

[Forward Press]

There's a reason we use averages and not just raw aggregate numbers.

If so, Donald Bradman was only the 54th best batsman of all time as he only scored less than 7000 runs and Tendulkar more than doubled him.

1000 runs and 100 wickets are nice round numbers for Cricinfo to pick but I would not use them as the sole determinant of all-rounder status. The poster earlier with averages of batting and bowling numbers and minimum Tests played did a great job of balancing it.

 

[PhatBoy]

Why don't we count only Botham's first 24 tests then?!
Given nobody sustained those numbers it's unlikely he would've

Because he played more. Faulkner’s post-40 cameo IS counted. Man you really do get bees in your bonnets about particular players and teams don’t you

 

[PhatBoy]

Why don't we count only Botham's first 24 tests then?!
Given nobody sustained those numbers it's unlikely he would've

Why? On what basis? He sustained similar numbers at first class level for over 100 matches. Why don’t we just make every nominal list a bunch of aggregate based achievers and be done with it.

 

[The Passenger]

Aubrey Faulkner seventh on CricInfo's all rounder ratings list. Sounds about right.

Shakib Al Hasan up in second surprises and Kallis down at 8th likewise. But overall look like a pretty solid analysis.

Vinoo Mankad the only one who didn't appear on the last pages lists.

Why Garry Sobers is the top allrounder in Tests and Shakib Al Hasan in ODIs

Rating the leading allrounders of the two formats

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Classifying Maurice Tate as an all rounder would be tantamount to classifying Sanath Jayasuriya or Carl Hooper as test all rounders

 

[Pippen94]

Because he played more. Faulkner’s post-40 cameo IS counted. Man you really do get bees in your bonnets about particular players and teams don’t you

Ppl having no idea about cricket history & records & how to view then through context of time does piss me off

 

[Pippen94]

There's a reason we use averages and not just raw aggregate numbers.

If so, Donald Bradman was only the 54th best batsman of all time as he only scored less than 7000 runs and Tendulkar more than doubled him.

1000 runs and 100 wickets are nice round numbers for Cricinfo to pick but I would not use them as the sole determinant of all-rounder status. The poster earlier with averages of batting and bowling numbers and minimum Tests played did a great job of balancing it.

Adam Voges says hi

 

[PhatBoy]

Ppl having no idea about cricket history & records & how to view then through context of time does piss me off

That’s exactly what you’re doing - not viewing something through context.

 

[cricketnut14]

If I was to rank my top XI all rounders I would go Sobers, Miller, Imran Khan, Kallis, Faulkner, Greig, Botham, Kapil Dev, Pollock, Stokes, Shakib Al Hasan. Goddard (12th man).

i think that's fair.

the top 4 are standouts sobers & kallis with similar stats and imran & miller with similar stats and then probably comes botham on the volume of games, wickets and 100's he peeled off.

shakib & tong greig are the closest to 40+/30- with a decent sample size.

interesting to note imran in the back half of his career averaged something cray like 50+/20- (i'm sure someone will have the exact stat).

 

[Pippen94]

Aubrey Faulkner seventh on CricInfo's all rounder ratings list. Sounds about right.

Shakib Al Hasan up in second surprises and Kallis down at 8th likewise. But overall look like a pretty solid analysis.

Vinoo Mankad the only one who didn't appear on the last pages lists.

Why Garry Sobers is the top allrounder in Tests and Shakib Al Hasan in ODIs

Rating the leading allrounders of the two formats

www.espncricinfo.com

Classifying Maurice Tate as an all rounder would be tantamount to classifying Sanath Jayasuriya or Carl Hooper as test all rounders

Tate, Hadlee would be bowling equivalent of Wally Hammond. Sanath & Hooper were all rounders. What standard is up for debate

 

[PhatBoy]

Tate, Hadlee would be bowling equivalent of Wally Hammond. Sanath & Hooper were all rounders. What standard is up for debate

Hooper was a batsman who could bowl.

Tate was a bowler who could bat.

 

[Pippen94]

Hooper was a batsman who could bowl.

Tate was a bowler who could bat.

Bingo. If you can bat & bowl..