Cricket Web Logo
Cricket Coach 2014 - Order Now
Cricket Web Logo
Australia Bangladesh Bermuda Canada England India Ireland Kenya Netherlands New Zealand Pakistan Scotland South Africa Sri Lanka West Indies Zimbabwe
 

The Most All-Round All-Rounder


Dave Wilson | 5:20am gmt 16 Jul 2010
THE MOST ALL-ROUND ALL-ROUNDER

JACKS OF ALL TRADES, MASTERS OF NONE?

I have often heard players described as batting all-rounders (think Sobers) or bowling all-rounders (think Hadlee), and I wondered which players could be considered the most "all-round" all-rounders. I've been thinking about how I could investigate this, and eventually came to the conclusion that this could be done by comparing the all-rounder's performance on each side of the ball to the level of a top-order batsman and a front-line bowler, such that a player who measured up against both would merit selection based on either discipline. For a true all-rounder test, I decided to chuck in fielding as well. I also decided to use a per-innings basis rather than a per-match basis, as that should give us a more accurate measure.

I made a list of players and looked at their runs/innings, wickets/innings and dismissals/innings, then adjusted them with respect to era - for example, runs/innings for top-order batsmen increased from a 19th-century low of 22.96 to a high of 37.43 during the 1940s. Similarly, the average wickets/innings for front-line bowlers during the same periods were 2.11 and 1.65 respectively. Fielder dismissals have actually hardly changed at all over time, staying around one catch every three games, although wicketkeeper dismissals have increased substantially, from roughly one per innings in the 19th century to approximately 1.75 since 1990.

I decided to assess the all-rounders effectiveness in each discipline as a ratio of their performance to his era average, such that if a player could maintain a career average for each of the three disciplines equal to the era average for a top-order batsmen, a front-line bowler and average fielder, he would have a ratio of 1.000 for each discipline; in other words, a level of 1.000 means he was or is worthy of a place based on his performances in that discipline alone.

Perhaps an example would help - below are the figures for Andrew Flintoff:-

PlayerMtchInns (Bat)RunsRuns/InnsInns (Bwl)WktsWkts/InnsInns (Fld)DisDis/InnsBat-IndexBwl-IndexFld-Index
A Flintoff (Eng)79130384529.581372261.65144520.3610.8460.8991.032


So Flintoff measures almost to the level of a top-order batsmen (0.846) and a front-line bowler (0.899), being slightly better with the ball than the bat, and is slightly better than average in the field (1.032). To give you an idea of what these indices mean, the top performers ever in each discipline in terms of ratio to era average are:-

BATTING2.479Don Bradman
BOWLING1.929Syd Barnes (and John Cowie, albeit in only seven Tests)
FIELDING2.926Learie Constantine


KEEPERS CAN BE ALL-ROUNDERS TOO

Let's digress for a moment and consider wicket-keepers in isolation, to see which glovemen were the most "all-round". TO get a feel for the varying levels of achievement either side of the stumps, the following table shows the keepers who have played most, based on the ratio of their total matches played to the average number of matches played during their time:-

PLAYERMATCHESRUNSDISMISSALS
TG Evans (Eng)912439219
WAS Oldfield (Aus)541427130
MV Boucher (SA)1345171503
IA Healy (Aus)1194356395
LEG Ames (Eng)44238795
APE Knott (Eng)954389269
RW Marsh (Aus)963633355
SMH Kirmani (Ind)882759198
JM Blackham (Aus)3271959
Wasim Bari (Pak)811366228


Obviously, if we only looked at sheer numbers Boucher would stand out, but these keepers come from different eras, and the numbers of Tests played, selection criteria and the numbers of runs and dismissals have varied over time, therefore we need to consider these other factors.

We can begin by deriving the batting and fielding indices as explained above. Here is a list of the top keepers based first on the index of dismissals/innings based on era, followed by the same list for runs/innings:-

PlayerMtchD/IWK-IDX
KJ Wright (Aus)102.191.375
GRA Langley (Aus)261.921.343
HB Taber (Aus)162.001.342
DT Lindsay (SA)152.001.342
FCM Alexander (WI)251.911.325
PW Sherwell (SA)131.501.316
ATW Grout (Aus)511.911.296
H Strudwick (Eng)271.521.295
CO Browne (WI)202.251.290
SJ Rhodes (Eng)112.231.273


PlayerMtchR/IBT-IDX
A Flower (Zim)5544.041.323
AC Gilchrist (Aus)9640.661.158
DT Lindsay (SA)1538.461.144
CL Walcott (WI)1537.001.093
KC Sangakkara (SL)4838.481.087
MS Dhoni (Ind)4336.791.039
LEG Ames (Eng)4435.631.033
BJ Haddin (Aus)2734.330.970
Imtiaz Ahmed (Pak)3830.000.963
MJ Prior (Eng)3133.920.958


In the history of Test cricket, only seven players have managed to maintain an average good enough to qualify them as better than average as a top-order batsman while playing as a wicketkeeper, those being the top seven listed in the second table above. Additionally, only two players have ever maintained an average sufficient to qualify as a top-order batsman AND also achieved a level of wicket-keeping excellence higher than the average number of dismissals; those two players are Australia's Adam Gilchrist (1.251 WK AND 1.151 BAT) and, possibly less obviously to most, South Africa's Denis Lindsay (1.342 and 1.144). Lindsay was the wicket-keeper with that great 1960s South African side which was ousted from Test cricket, so there is no telling just how great he could have become.

As we're interested in the "degree" of all-roundedness, to highlight this aspect we can re-rank the players based on how close they were to achieving a level of 1 in both disciplines - so anything over 1 counts as 1, while anything below counts against them, meaning that a player who achieves top-level performace in all disciplines would score zero, while players who don't make the grade in one or bothdisciplines will have negative differentials. For example, Imtiaz Ahmed achieved a high degree of all-round excellence, having a career rating slightly below that of a top-order batsman (ratio of 0.963) and also slightly below average levels for dismissals (0.972) - he therefore scores -0.065, which is the amount by which he missed out on scoring 1.000 in batting and keeping. Here are the players ranked by the differential from "level 1s":-

PlayerWK-IndexBT-IndexDiff
AC Gilchrist (SA)1.2511.1580.000
DT Lindsay (SA)1.3421.1440.000
LEG Ames (Eng)0.9771.033-0.023
BJ Haddin (Aus)1.2140.970-0.030
MS Dhoni (Ind)0.9551.039-0.045
Imtiaz Ahmed (Pak)0.9720.963-0.065
BB McCullum (NZ)1.0630.924-0.076
KC Sangakkara (SL)0.9201.087-0.080
AJ Stewart (Eng)0.9780.937-0.085
HP Tillakaratne (SL)1.0290.910-0.090


The above list shows those who most closely achieved excellence in both disciplines, but that doesn't necessarily measure "flatness" or all-roundedness. To assess who was the most level all-round keeper, we can look at the standard deviation of the ratios - if they are equal the standard deviation would be zero, the less flat they become the higher the standard deviation becomes. Here are the keepers ranked by ascending standard deviation:-

PlayerWK-IndexBT-IndexStd Dev
Imtiaz Ahmed (Pak)0.9720.9630.006
WW Wade (SA)0.7220.7360.010
AJ Stewart (Eng)0.9780.9370.029
MJ Prior (Eng)0.9050.9580.038
LEG Ames (Eng)0.9771.0330.039
TR Ambrose (Eng)0.8480.7890.042
JM Parks (Eng)0.9400.8720.048
RS Kaluwitharana (SL)0.8020.7330.049
T Taibu (Zim)0.8530.7820.051
Moin Khan (Pak)0.7130.7870.052


Of course, a keeper can be all-round in terms of equal ability, but with the ability level not being especially high - Billy Wade may have played more had it not been for the First World War, but it's fair to say he didn't reach the levels of players such as Imtiaz or Alec Stewart. Gilchrist and Lindsay's standard deviations were 0.066 and 0.140 respectively.

ALL-ROUNDERS WHO ALSO BOWL

Let's look at non-wicketkeeping all-rounders now - I'll begin by listing the leaders in each discipline, to give us a feel for how well the all-rounders are measuring up in each discipline:-

PlayerMtchR/IBT-IDX
DG Bradman (Aus)5287.452.479
ED Weekes (WI)4855.001.745
JB Hobbs (Eng)6153.041.667
CL Walcott (WI)4451.321.640
RG Pollock (SA)2355.021.636
KF Barrington (Eng)8251.951.604
IVA Richards (WI)12152.721.590
GA Headley (WI)2254.751.581
H Sutcliffe (Eng)5454.231.567
GS Sobers (WI)9350.201.535


PlayerMtchW/IBW-IDX
SF Barnes (Eng)273.781.929
M Murali (SL)1323.471.883
CV Grimmett (Aus)373.221.797
T RIchardson (Eng)143.671.738
WJ O'Reilly (Aus)273.001.668
AP Freeman (Eng)123.001.667
RJ Hadlee (NZ)862.871.603
CTB Turner (Aus)173.371.596
HJ Tayfield (SA)372.791.583
DW Steyn (SA)412.801.537


PlayerMtchD/IFLD-IDX
LN Constantine (WI)180.972.926
JM Gregory (Aus)240.842.548
SP Fleming (NZ)1110.862.455
WG Grace (Eng)220.932.444
B Mitchell (SA)420.792.436
CL Walcott (WI)440.782.303

AW Greig (Eng)
580.812.259
WR Hammond (Eng)850.712.190
DG Phadkar (Ind)310.682.185


(Note: Walcott's fielding ratio is a combination based on games either as designated keeper or otherwise)

Nice to see the Grand Old Man in an all-time list.

So let's look at all-round "flatness" as we did for keepers, but now of course there are three disciplines. Here are the top players listed by ascending standard deviation, based on batting, bowling and fielding as a ratio to top-order batting, front-line bowling and average fielding:-

PlayerBat-IndexBwl-IndexFld-IndexStd-Dev
Trevor Bailey (Eng)0.8160.7860.8750.045
George Giffen (Aus)1.0171.1351.1480.072
Keith Miller (Aus)1.0361.0321.1670.077
Monty Noble (Aus)1.0260.8600.9070.085
Andrew Flintoff (Eng)0.8460.8991.0320.096
Kapil Dev (Ind)0.8671.0480.8070.125
Billy Bates (Eng)1.0991.0300.8170.147
Ravi Shastri (Ind)0.9520.6520.7350.155
Aubrey Faulkner (SA)1.2451.0021.3020.159
Daniel Vettori (NZ)0.7501.0720.8730.163


Trevor Bailey has the flattest performance of all, that is, he was equally as good with bat, ball and in the field. However, as good as he was, he didn't quite measure up as a top-order batsman and front-line bowler. To highlight this aspect, we can re-rank the players based on how close they were to achieving a level of 1 in all three disciplines, as we did for keepers. For example, Ian Botham achieved better than average levels for bowling (1.259) and fielding (1.934), but didn't quite measure up as a top-order batsman (0.977) - he therefore scores -0.023, which is the amount by which he missed out on scoring 1.000 in batting. Here are the players ranked by the differential from level 1s:-

PlayerBat-IndexBwl-IndexFld-IndexDiff
Aubrey Faulkner (SA)1.2451.0021.3020.000
George Giffen (Aus)1.0171.1351.1480.000
Keith Miller (Aus)1.0361.0321.1670.000
Ian Botham (Eng)0.9771.2591.934-0.023

Jack Gregory (Aus)
0.9701.1242.548-0.030
Vinoo Mankad (Ind)0.9381.3141.478-0.062
Trevor Goddard (SA)0.9900.9111.798-0.099
Tony Greig (Eng)1.1410.8762.259-0.124
Garry Sobers (WI)1.5350.8611.886-0.139
Billy Barnes (Eng)0.9570.8631.250-0.180


That is a simply mouth-watering list of all-round luminaries! In the whole history of test cricket, by this measure only four players have managed to maintain performances throughout their careers good enough to rank as both as a top-order batsman and also as a front-line bowler, independently for each discipline:- George Giffen, Billy Bates, Aubrey Faulkner and Keith Miller; only Bates of the four was a below-average fielder.

THE ALL-TIME, ALL-ROUND ALL-ROUNDER

So all things considered, and despite the fact that Keith Miller is my personal favourite, based on his superior batting and fielding I would probably have to single out Aubrey Faulkner as the all-time, all-round all-rounder.

Bookmark and Share

Comments
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they have been approved.

Name: (required)
Email: (will not be published) (required)
Verification Image: (required)
verification image, type it in the box
Your Comments: (required)
Recent Comments
Blocky
I think your cricrate All Rounder rankings puts far too high of a benefit on runs and not enough on
BoyBrumby
Public service broadcasting at its finest. More the fulfilling CW's educational remit. Seriously,
bagapath
Top work as always, mate
kyear2
Great article as usual Fred.
Rajesh Gupta
Kieron Pollard is a fantastic all-rounder player
Rajesh Gupta
off course lot of talent filled in Kieron pollard,he is a specialist player of T20 format.recently C
John
I still don't know how Deadly did it, but give him a rain affected pitch and he was truly unplayable
Goughy
[I][/I][QUOTE=fredfertang;3301540]Remarkable contrast between Barnes and everyone else - such a sham