What constitutes a 'genuine' allrounder?

[PhatBoy]

My take is it is a red ball cricketer that has the ability to be picked alone for either his batting or bowling.
Many rate Kallis one of the best all time all rounders, but would you pick him alone for his bowling as his record is not all that earth shattering. Certainly would for his batting which was up there with histories best..

There’s literally one player in history that has a record with a bowling average under 30 and a batting average over 40, so you’re making the criteria somewhat narrow by excluding Kallis basically for the ‘sin’ of playing in a good bowling team, which was pretty much all it was. His record for a guy who never ever got to use the new ball despite swing bowling being his strength was very good and the fact was that his teammates were very strong generally so he wasn’t called upon when conditions were at their best.

Would he get a game as a bowler for Australia 95-07 and 13-26? No
Would he get a game as a bowler for SA in the Donald/Pollock/Ntini/Nel/token spinner attacks? Probably not
The SA attacks that followed with Steyn, Morkel, Philander and briefly, Rabada? No

From there it gets murky in modern teams and he probably gets a start in most of them.

 

[PhatBoy]

So what, Sobers is the only true all rounder in history?

No, Aubrey Faulkner is

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

To me, the ultimate definition of an all-rounder is someone who could justify their place in the side separately as a batsman and a bowler.

But that definition is so narrow and unrealistic that it really can't be used imo, as too few players would qualify.

I have long held that definition as way too many players get talked about as all-rounders that are ridiculous. Over the years it has driven me crazy when fans would suggest players such as Mitch Johnson or Mitch Starc are all-rounders. IMHO, they are not, they are great bowlers who can bat. Neither one would ever be selected as a batsman. It also annoys me a little when the name Hadlee is thrown into the mix when he rarely batted above 8 or 9. Would Greg Chappell have ever been selected as a bowler only? Of course not. Do we call Alan Border an all-rounder because he once took 7/46 against the West indies?

The definition of "all-rounder" is an interesting one, with the discussion seemingly always based upon pace bowlers who could bat in contemporary times. I grew up watching Sobers, and what a marvel he was, along with Kallis. Could do anything. Many of the bowling all-rounders, Imran, Dev, Botham, etc, usually batted at 6 so as to not over-tax them, but they could have easily found themselves in a top 4 spot.

What about spinners? Richie Benaud has always been referred to as an all-rounder, he took 248 wickets @ 27 with the ball, but does his batting record, average 24.46 quantify him as a top 6 batsman? And why do you need to be a bowler, what about wicketkeepers. Is Gilchrist and all-rounder? I think he is. Alex Carey's batting average is on the improve, heading towards the 40s and batting 6.

You're never going to get all people agreeing in the one definition of what an all-rounder may be.

 

[PhatBoy]

There’s a lot of binary thought that goes into this sort of stuff.

The Kallis example earlier - would he get selected for his bowling alone? Well for the peak SA and Australian teams of the last 30 years, no. But for many English teams yes, for almost all Indian teams outside of the few occasions they’ve had their very very best pace bowing combinations fit an available, yes.

For Sri Lanka he’d be alongside Malinga as the second best pace bowler they’ve ever had, so yes, obviously he would get picked for his bowling alone/

The only NZ side he wouldn’t make is the Wagner/Southee/Boult team and even then he’d be the fourth picked if it was a pacer’s pitch because he was better than Henry was at that point.

Given how reprehensible Pakistan have been with the ball since the halcyon days of the Ws and Shoaib, he’d walk into their attack too.
He’d maybe struggle to get into the current West Indies pace attack depending on how many they pick but he’d had walked into their bowling unit through the Collymore/Rose/Best/King/Dillon/Collins/Taylor/Edwards/Lawson/Rampaul/Pascal era and likely do the same for most of the Roach/Gabriel/Holder era as well.

So yeah he’d get a spot with either skill anyway, regardless of looking at his average - which was quite good.

I think you need to ask ‘can this player win me a game with either skill if called upon on a regular basis’ as part of the criteria and marry that with their record.

Many of the ‘bowlers who can bat’ or vice versa might have the occasional moment where they produce something out their arse with their lesser skill. An all rounder should be able to do it on a more regular basis than just a ‘well we can’t rely on that all the time’ occurrence

 

[Jack Mundy]

I have long held that definition as way too many players get talked about as all-rounders that are ridiculous. Over the years it has driven me crazy when fans would suggest players such as Mitch Johnson or Mitch Starc are all-rounders. IMHO, they are not, they are great bowlers who can bat. Neither one would ever be selected as a batsman. It also annoys me a little when the name Hadlee is thrown into the mix when he rarely batted above 8 or 9. Would Greg Chappell have ever been selected as a bowler only? Of course not. Do we call Alan Border an all-rounder because he once took 7/46 against the West indies?

The definition of "all-rounder" is an interesting one, with the discussion seemingly always based upon pace bowlers who could bat in contemporary times. I grew up watching Sobers, and what a marvel he was, along with Kallis. Could do anything. Many of the bowling all-rounders, Imran, Dev, Botham, etc, usually batted at 6 so as to not over-tax them, but they could have easily found themselves in a top 4 spot.

What about spinners? Richie Benaud has always been referred to as an all-rounder, he took 248 wickets @ 27 with the ball, but does his batting record, average 24.46 quantify him as a top 6 batsman? And why do you need to be a bowler, what about wicketkeepers. Is Gilchrist and all-rounder? I think he is. Alex Carey's batting average is on the improve, heading towards the 40s and batting 6.

You're never going to get all people agreeing in the one definition of what an all-rounder may be.

Everybody who bats or bowls or fields is an allrounder. Just different degrees of statistical success.

 

[Jack Mundy]

There’s a lot of binary thought that goes into this sort of stuff.

The Kallis example earlier - would he get selected for his bowling alone? Well for the peak SA and Australian teams of the last 30 years, no. But for many English teams yes, for almost all Indian teams outside of the few occasions they’ve had their very very best pace bowing combinations fit an available, yes.

For Sri Lanka he’d be alongside Malinga as the second best pace bowler they’ve ever had, so yes, obviously he would get picked for his bowling alone/

The only NZ side he wouldn’t make is the Wagner/Southee/Boult team and even then he’d be the fourth picked if it was a pacer’s pitch because he was better than Henry was at that point.

Given how reprehensible Pakistan have been with the ball since the halcyon days of the Ws and Shoaib, he’d walk into their attack too.
He’d maybe struggle to get into the current West Indies pace attack depending on how many they pick but he’d had walked into their bowling unit through the Collymore/Rose/Best/King/Dillon/Collins/Taylor/Edwards/Lawson/Rampaul/Pascal era and likely do the same for most of the Roach/Gabriel/Holder era as well.

So yeah he’d get a spot with either skill anyway, regardless of looking at his average - which was quite good.

I think you need to ask ‘can this player win me a game with either skill if called upon on a regular basis’ as part of the criteria and marry that with their record.

Many of the ‘bowlers who can bat’ or vice versa might have the occasional moment where they produce something out their arse with their lesser skill. An all rounder should be able to do it on a more regular basis than just a ‘well we can’t rely on that all the time’ occurrence

Neser and even Boland can't break into test side if cartel are fit.

 

[PhatBoy]

Neser and even Boland can't break into test side if cartel are fit.

That’s because the current main group is statistically the most prolific that has played together in 150 years of test cricket.

Not being able to get into the first choice bowling attack for one of the 12 active test nations when they have, statistically, their best ever attack available, isn’t the same as ‘not being selectable as a bowler.’

 

[sr36]

I have long held that definition as way too many players get talked about as all-rounders that are ridiculous. Over the years it has driven me crazy when fans would suggest players such as Mitch Johnson or Mitch Starc are all-rounders. IMHO, they are not, they are great bowlers who can bat. Neither one would ever be selected as a batsman. It also annoys me a little when the name Hadlee is thrown into the mix when he rarely batted above 8 or 9. Would Greg Chappell have ever been selected as a bowler only? Of course not. Do we call Alan Border an all-rounder because he once took 7/46 against the West indies?

The definition of "all-rounder" is an interesting one, with the discussion seemingly always based upon pace bowlers who could bat in contemporary times. I grew up watching Sobers, and what a marvel he was, along with Kallis. Could do anything. Many of the bowling all-rounders, Imran, Dev, Botham, etc, usually batted at 6 so as to not over-tax them, but they could have easily found themselves in a top 4 spot.

What about spinners? Richie Benaud has always been referred to as an all-rounder, he took 248 wickets @ 27 with the ball, but does his batting record, average 24.46 quantify him as a top 6 batsman? And why do you need to be a bowler, what about wicketkeepers. Is Gilchrist and all-rounder? I think he is. Alex Carey's batting average is on the improve, heading towards the 40s and batting 6.

You're never going to get all people agreeing in the one definition of what an all-rounder may be.

Being pickable for either skill is the scenario that selectors dream of with their allrounders. Whereas the far more common scenario is the allrounder being selected for their allround skills, but wouldn't get selected for either skill alone.

 

[Lunchtime]

Not that he ever was classified as a "genuine all rounder" but Darren Lehmann's stats with the bat and ball combined in all format's I think is quite impressive.

Darren Lehmann: Bat & Ball - All Formats (First-Class, List A & T20)

Bat - 39298 runs @ 53.17

Ball - 313 wickets @ 30.55

 

[cricketnut14]

Not that he ever was classified as a "genuine all rounder" but Darren Lehmann's stats with the bat and ball combined in all format's I think is quite impressive.

Darren Lehmann: Bat & Ball - All Formats (First-Class, List A & T20)

Bat - 39298 runs @ 53.17

Ball - 313 wickets @ 30.55

that's not too shabby.

though he did only average 4 overs a game over his 668 games and under half a wicket per match.