What constitutes a 'genuine' allrounder?

[PhatBoy]

That video shows there's no one around the bat to say this to Gilchrist haha.

Haha true I just went back and looked, maybe it was Warne himself saying it to someone or Gilly saying it to Warne. I just remember hearing the anecdote I think from Warne saying it himself once when talking about that series.

 

[ioppolo]

One of the problems with the South African team when they first came back was lack of depth with fast bowling. You had Donald and Hayward or de Villiers or Schulz and then a bunch of Gus Fraser's backing them up.

Even in Pollock/Ntini days I remember a young Charl Langeveldt getting smacked around. Then next tour it was Steyn/Philander/Morkel backed up by....Rory Kleinveldt.

 

[glengowan]

A genuine all-rounder would be picked either as a top 6 batsman or a top 4 bowler in the team AND average more with the bat than they do with the ball.

The greats would average under 30 with the ball and over 30 with the bat.

 

[sr36]

In today's terms, an allrounder is someone expected to rock up to the batting meeting and the bowling meeting.

 

[western royboy]

When i was a wee boy, class all rounders were plentiful. Botham, Hadlee and Imran were the big 3. Akram followed soon after. Procter & Rice we unfortunately didn’t get to see much of, but wiser men than me say they were in the same class.

 

[Trojan90]

Dan Vettori, specifically from 2005.

Bat 3049 @ 38.59
Bowl 174 wkts @ 33.61

Overall
Bat 30.00
Bowl 34.36

 

[ioppolo]

Dan Vettori, specifically from 2005.

Bat 3049 @ 38.59
Bowl 174 wkts @ 33.61

Overall
Bat 30.00
Bowl 34.36

Around the turn of the decade (2009-2011 or so) he basically carried NZ entirely by himself. Scored a double hundred from nowhere I think.

 

[Trojan90]

Around the turn of the decade (2009-2011 or so) he basically carried NZ entirely by himself. Scored a double hundred from nowhere I think.

Between 2005 - 2009
Bat 2297 @ 45.03
Bowl 125 @ 31.42

 

[cricketnut14]

Dan Vettori, specifically from 2005.



Overall
Bat 30.00
Bowl 34.36

a better bat then mitch marsh !

 

[sr36]

When i was a wee boy, class all rounders were plentiful. Botham, Hadlee and Imran were the big 3. Akram followed soon after. Procter & Rice we unfortunately didn’t get to see much of, but wiser men than me say they were in the same class.

Kapil Dev too.

We're harsher on bowling allrounders than we used to be - I don't think Akram and Hadlee would be called allrounders anymore.

 

[western royboy]

Kapil Dev too.

We're harsher on bowling allrounders than we used to be - I don't think Akram and Hadlee would be called allrounders anymore.

Yep…hiw could i miss Kapil Dev.

The batting of most bowlers particularly the ones that could bat declines over time. I think Wasim Akram has a test 250 and Hadlee effectively played a big chunk of his career on pitches better suited to bowling but was certainly a bit better than average

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I may be harsh, but I genuinely feel an allrounder needs to bat top 6 (no lower than 7) and be a front-line bowler in the top 4. Too many bowlers who bat at 8 or 9 are given all-round status and don't warrant it. I've often been annoyed by Hadlee being rated an all-rounder when he was a useful tail end batsman at best. Mitchell Johnson much the same.

I guess I hold this opinion because I grew up watching Garfield Sobers and to this day remains my favourite cricketer, as well as being the best all-round cricketer I ever saw. Apologies to Jaques Kallis who was remarkable.

Someone who bats top 6 and chips in for a few overs with the ball are not all-rounders in my book. Most wicketkeepers are all-rounders to me as they make big runs at 6 or 7 and are vital to a team's fielding performance.

 

[western royboy]

I may be harsh, but I genuinely feel an allrounder needs to bat top 6 (no lower than 7) and be a front-line bowler in the top 4. Too many bowlers who bat at 8 or 9 are given all-round status and don't warrant it. I've often been annoyed by Hadlee being rated an all-rounder when he was a useful tail end batsman at best. Mitchell Johnson much the same.

I guess I hold this opinion because I grew up watching Garfield Sobers and to this day remains my favourite cricketer, as well as being the best all-round cricketer I ever saw. Apologies to Jaques Kallis who was remarkable.

Someone who bats top 6 and chips in for a few overs with the ball are not all-rounders in my book. Most wicketkeepers are all-rounders to me as they make big runs at 6 or 7 and are vital to a team's fielding performance.

Sobers and Kallis are freaks and surely outliers

 

[Black Diamond]

An allrounder should, if focused on one discipline, be able to bat top 7 or bowl in the 4.

On stats alone, the 80s allrounders don’t qualify as batsmen. But each having worked on it exclusively could do quite well.

Same for Kallis and Sobers as bowlers. Yes, Sobers as a bowler is overrated.

 

[yabsy]

Around the turn of the decade (2009-2011 or so) he basically carried NZ entirely by himself. Scored a double hundred from nowhere I think.

You're not wrong...At times during that period he was all of the captain, coach & selector lol

On Redmi Note 8 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[PhatBoy]

An allrounder should, if focused on one discipline, be able to bat top 7 or bowl in the 4.

On stats alone, the 80s allrounders don’t qualify as batsmen. But each having worked on it exclusively could do quite well.

Same for Kallis and Sobers as bowlers. Yes, Sobers as a bowler is overrated.

Sobers bowled 3 different styles. Probably not the word I would use.
He averaged 20 overs an innings so was used a lot as a spinner presumably, bowling two different methods. I think bowling pace and then coming back on to bowl wrist and finger spin his record is decent and all those factors considered, overrated isn’t really a word I would use for his bowling

 

[Black Diamond]

Sobers bowled 3 different styles. Probably not the word I would use.
He averaged 20 overs an innings so was used a lot as a spinner presumably, bowling two different methods. I think bowling pace and then coming back on to bowl wrist and finger spin his record is decent and all those factors considered, overrated isn’t really a word I would use for his bowling

Strike rate of 90. Not that good. I know he had tricks and that he could be destructive. But he is the opposite of the the 80s allrounders.

 

[PhatBoy]

Strike rate of 90. Not that good. I know he had tricks and that he could be destructive. But he is the opposite of the the 80s allrounders.

Playing at roughly the same time Richie Benaud’s was nearly 80 and he’s considered, outside of Warne, one of the greatest leg spinners of all time. And he was a specialist at it.

Remember this was an era when batsmen weren’t running down the wicket trying to clobber bowlers out of the attack left right and centre.

 

[Black Diamond]

Playing at roughly the same time Richie Benaud’s was nearly 80 and he’s considered, outside of Warne, one of the greatest leg spinners of all time. And he was a specialist at it.

Remember this was an era when batsmen weren’t running down the wicket trying to clobber bowlers out of the attack left right and centre.

Benaud was striking at 77.

Garfield at 91.

Benaud only ever bowled spin. Garfield bowled both and his career SR was 91.

So was Garfield a genuinely good fast bowler whose spin record drags his whole career down? Did he bowl at 91 all the time?

I’m just a sceptic here.

But I go back to my original point that if Garfield had focussed on bowling exclusively he would likely have been very good.

 

[PhatBoy]

Benaud was striking at 77.

Garfield at 91.

Benaud only ever bowled spin. Garfield bowled both and his career SR was 91.

So was Garfield a genuinely good fast bowler whose spin record drags his whole career down? Did he bowl at 91 all the time?

I’m just a sceptic here.

But I go back to my original point that if Garfield had focussed on bowling exclusively he would likely have been very good.

I’m 41, how would I know? Every witness who ever speaks about him says he’s the greatest all round cricketer they ever saw, at least, and they all say he opened the bowling on occasion - Hall and Griffith were the preferred combination but Griffith didn’t play a lot of tests, bowled two styles and bowled a lot of overs so was a regular and versatile contributor.


I would consider something around 27 or lower a ‘very good’ mark for a specialist bowler generally as an average.

During the 20-years of Sobers’ career from 1954-1974 there were only 13 bowlers across those two decades who managed 100 wickets or more at that mark.

Guys like Bishen Bedi in that era had strike rates around 90, Hugh Tayfield, Fred Titmus, Lance Gibbs, Trevor Goddard. Some excellent specialist bowlers.

 

[cricketnut14]

Playing at roughly the same time Richie Benaud’s was nearly 80 and he’s considered, outside of Warne, one of the greatest leg spinners of all time. And he was a specialist at it.

Remember this was an era when batsmen weren’t running down the wicket trying to clobber bowlers out of the attack left right and centre.

yeah with the introduction of ODI and T20 cricket has enhanced strike rates in both batting and bowling and ensuring the most test matches now get a result.

 

[Black Diamond]

I’m 41, how would I know? Every witness who ever speaks about him says he’s the greatest all round cricketer they ever saw, at least, and they all say he opened the bowling on occasion - Hall and Griffith were the preferred combination but Griffith didn’t play a lot of tests, bowled two styles and bowled a lot of overs so was a regular and versatile contributor.


I would consider something around 27 or lower a ‘very good’ mark for a specialist bowler generally as an average.

During the 20-years of Sobers’ career from 1954-1974 there were only 13 bowlers across those two decades who managed 100 wickets or more at that mark.

Guys like Bishen Bedi in that era had strike rates around 90, Hugh Tayfield, Fred Titmus, Lance Gibbs, Trevor Goddard. Some excellent specialist bowlers.

You are not right about Bedi (80) or Tayfield (80). I realise you would not know the fast vs spin breakdown. None of us would know, and I doubt stats were kept.

Others from the era: Tony Lock at 76, Derek Underwood at 74, Tony Greig (not a great, but who also bowled both at different stages) at 70, Alan Davidson at 62.

A strike rate of 90 even back then is just not very good. He would need to bowl 2-5 more overs than these players (and Benaud) to take a wicket for example. This cannot just be put down to the way cricket was played back then.

I agree he is likely the greatest allrounder ever. I am not disputing Sobers was a very talented and at times destructive bowler. But in between there was a lot of nothing. Perhaps if it was all he did then he would have been an excellent bowler, but it wasn't all he did and he was not an outright great bowler.

 

[PhatBoy]

You are not right about Bedi (80) or Tayfield (80). I realise you would not know the fast vs spin breakdown. None of us would know, and I doubt stats were kept.

Others from the era: Tony Lock at 76, Derek Underwood at 74, Tony Greig (not a great, but who also bowled both at different stages) at 70, Alan Davidson at 62.

A strike rate of 90 even back then is just not very good. He would need to bowl 2-5 more overs than these players (and Benaud) to take a wicket for example. This cannot just be put down to the way cricket was played back then.

I agree he is likely the greatest allrounder ever. I am not disputing Sobers was a very talented and at times destructive bowler. But in between there was a lot of nothing. Perhaps if it was all he did then he would have been an excellent bowler, but it wasn't all he did and he was not an outright great bowler.

Bedi, during the time of Sobers’ career, had a strike rate around 90. Not his career strike rate.

 

[cricketnut14]

some allrounders to chat about.

below is a list of allrounders that play 30+ tests and where they could potentially bat in the batting order.
some of the number 8's are probably no more than a handy bat and a 'bowling allrounder'.

some have missed the list eg. batters that played as a fifth bowler/jagged less than 2 wickets a test.

apartheid has cancelled out a few south africans from the list and degrandhomme just misses the cut for NZ.






interesting to see who everyone would have as england's greatest allrounder - greig, stokes, botham or flintoff ?

 

[Black Diamond]

Bedi, during the time of Sobers’ career, had a strike rate around 90. Not his career strike rate.

Ok. Bedi's average was 3.5 under Sobers' over that same period. Sobers' average and/or strike rate is not as good as his contemporaries.

Sobers' cumulative bowling: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...template=results;type=bowling;view=cumulative

Not great.

Would I change my mind about Sobers' bowling? Yes.

If it could be shown that as a fast bowler his average and strike rate were both a lot lower, and those figures are down to rank spin bowling, then I would change my view on him as a fast bowler. However I would also have to disregard his spin bowling completely when assessing his greatness.