Allrounder Statistical Rating

[oz_fan]

How about Aubrey Faulkner. Not sure if he meets the criteria as he scored just under 2000 runs and 100 wickets but it would be interesting to see where he would be rated.

 

[aussie tragic]

How about Aubrey Faulkner. Not sure if he meets the criteria as he scored just under 2000 runs and 100 wickets but it would be interesting to see where he would be rated.

Good call, he splits Imran and Beefy by coming in at # 5

 

[Perm]

I suppose it would be too difficult to do Mike Proctor, just to give us an idea of where he would rank roughly?

 

[aussie tragic]

I suppose it would be too difficult to do Mike Proctor, just to give us an idea of where he would rank roughly?

He can't be included in the ratings as he only made 226 runs and took 41 wkts, however he has a score of 108.2, which would place him behind Botham.

 

[Perm]

What about Jacob Oram and Shahid Afridi?. Both are very close to the critera.

Ravi Shashtri is another who is close to the cut off point, as is Wasim Akram. Chaminda Vaas, Heath Streak and Ray Illingworth are also close.

 

[aussie tragic]

Okay, I've added Faulkner, McMillan, Davidson, Gregory and Akram, which will of course change the averages for the criteria of the top 20.

Batting Average: 35.2 ------ 20% (weighting)
Runs per Innings 31.3 ------ 17.5%

Bowling Average: 27.7 ----- 20%
Wkts per Match: 3.4 --------- 10%
Strike Rate: 66.4 -------------- 7.5%

Best ICC Ranking: 499 ------ 25%

So here's the latest all-time top 20 All-rounders
{Entry Criteria: Batting, 1000 runs @ Ave > 22.00 and 50 wkts @ Ave < 35.00 and > 2 Wkts per match}

1. Sobers --- (123.6)
2. Kallis --- (119.3)
3. Miller --- (110.1)
4. Imran --- (110.0)
5. Faulkner --- (109.4)
6. Botham --- (108.9)
7. Hadlee --- (102.3)
8. Greig --- (101.7)
9. Cairns --- (100.6)
10. Pollock --- (99.7)

11. Davidson --- (97.5)
12. Goddard --- (96.4)
13. Gregory --- (95.7)
14. Flintoff --- (95.2)
15. Noble --- (94.2)
16. Benaud --- (91.9)
17. Dev --- (91.6)
18. McMillan --- (91.0)
19. Mankad --- (88.7)
20. Akram --- (86.1)

Numbers 21-30 also now included:

21. Kelleway --- (85.9)
22. Bailey --- (84.0)
23. Tate --- (80.8)
24. Rhodes --- (80.6)
25. Nadkarni --- (74.6)
26. Streak --- (73.6)
27. Vaas --- (73.3)
28. Vettori --- (71.7)
29. Lee --- (71.5)
30. Illingworth --- (66.9)

 

[nightprowler10]

There is an argument that Kallis doesn't qualify actually as he has < 2 wkts per match (it is 1.96 though so I left him in).

In fact, if we raised the W/M to a more reasonable 2.4, Kallis (1.96), Bailey (2.16), Razzaq (2.17)and Rhodes (2.19) would not qualify and we'd have a top-16 instead (cause I can't find anyone else remotely close)

Do it. None of those names really deserve to be in that distinguished list IMO.

EDIT: Would love to see how Akram fares by that formula.

 

[aussie tragic]

Other players rated, but not meeting minimum criteria (btw, if they qualified, only procter would get in top 20 at # 7, while Lindwall would be # 22):

Procter --- (105.6) --- < 1000 runs & < 50 wkts
Lindwall --- (84.3) --- Batting < 22.00
Oram --- (82.2) --- Bowl > 35.00
Pathan --- (81.7) --- < than 1000 runs
Afridi --- (81.5) --- < 50 wkts and < 2.0 wkts/Match

Prabhakar --- (75.3) --- Bowl > 35.00
Razzaq --- (68.7) --- Bowl > 35.00
Durani --- (67.8) --- Bowl > 35.00
White --- (62.7) --- Bowl > 35.00
Symonds --- (44.3) --- Everything

 

[aussie tragic]

Do it. None of those names really deserve to be in that distinguished list IMO.

EDIT: Would love to see how Akram fares by that formula.

Akram scores 86.1 and I've added him at # 20 (I've lowered the batting average entry criteria to 22.00 so that he can be on the list )

 

[aussie tragic]

Alan Davidson would be another cricket that people rate as an "all rounder" despite his statistics not really backing this claim up.

I can't believe I forgot Davo He has a highest ICC rating of 473 and he now slots in at # 11. In addition, Lee also qualifies in at # 29

 

[aussie tragic]

Well now that the top-30 allrounders have been rated here, http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=996144&postcount=26

I'll now rate the top-10 "Genuine Allrounders"

[Criteria: Batting Average > 30.00; Bowling Average < 32.50 for spinners; < 30.00 for pace bowlers]

1. Miller --- (110.1)
2. Imran --- (110.0)
3. Faulkner --- (109.4)
4. Botham --- (108.9)
5. Cairns --- (100.6)
6. Pollock --- (99.7)
7. Goddard --- (96.4)
8. Noble --- (94.2)
9. Dev --- (91.6)
10. Mankad --- (88.7)

 

[nightprowler10]

So Imran was just a statistical replica of Miller? No wonder I love both.

 

[marc71178]

Those bowling criteria are extremely harsh on spin bowling all rounders.

 

[aussie tragic]

Those bowling criteria are extremely harsh on spin bowling all rounders.

Well Faulkner (5), Benaud (16) and Mankad (19) seem about right to me, so how much higher would you have them?

To me, a statistical rating of a player shows their effectiveness overall, and I don't see how it matters if they are a spinner, medium pacer or express bowler. Besides, a spinner will generally have more overs and therefore take more wkts in a game so it should even out.

btw, using the same approach for bowlers, I have Muralitharan at # 3 (behind Barnes and Marshall), Laker at # 12 (above Imran and Lillee) and Warne at # 18, so IMO, this sort of verifies that its okay to treat all bowlers the same when it comes to statistical comparisons

 

[silentstriker]

But lots of spinners can be quality and have averages around 30. A spinner averaging 30 is a better bowler than a pacer averaging 30, IMO. Definitely need to increase it to 35 for spin bowling, if not all bowling.

 

[aussie tragic]

But lots of spinners can be quality and have averages around 30. A spinner averaging 30 is a better bowler than a pacer averaging 30, IMO. Definitely need to increase it to 35 for spin bowling, if not all bowling.

Umm, the entry criteria for all bowling is already at 35.00 and quite frankly those with averages over 35.00 appear pretty ordinary in this company. You may be getting confused with my second list which was to identify the top-10 "Genuine" allrounders, which is when I lowered the bowling average to 30.00 for entrance.

In this case, the only player impacted is Mankad (as no other spinners average > 30 with the bat), who would then slot in at # 10 over Rhodes, which is probably right anyway... so, Top-10 Genuines allrounders minimum criteria now changed to 32.50 for spinners as per SS suggestion.

 

[marc71178]

So the best all rounder of all time isn't actually a "genuine" all rounder then?

 

[aussie tragic]

So the best all rounder of all time isn't actually a "genuine" all rounder then?

We have to set the "genuine" Allrounder mark somewhere, for example Davidson, Benaud and Akram could not be called Genuine allrounders IMO when they only average < 25 with the bat, so in the same way we have to set what bowling criteria constitutes a genuine allrounder.

The following is one way I could do this:

Bowling Allrounder: Batt Ave > 20, Bowling Ave < 30

Batting Allrounder: Batt Ave > 35, Bowling Ave < 35

Genuine Allrounder: Batt Ave > 35, Bowling Ave < 30 (i.e. would fit in both Batting & Bowling allrounder categories)

Let me know if I've set the limits correctly and then I'll sort them into the three categories

 

[Lillian Thomson]

We have to set the "genuine" Allrounder mark somewhereand then I'll sort them into the three categories

It should be set at the level achieved by Garry Sobers, that's the only true benchmark for all rounders.

 

[silentstriker]

It should be set at the level achieved by Garry Sobers, that's the only true benchmark for all rounders.

I hate to say it, because its hard benchmark something like that by one person, but in this case, I can't argue. Should we make the criteria flexible just so one man can qualify? The answer should be no, but in this case it might be warranted.