There have been many different types of allrounders over the years - batsmen who bowl, 'keepers who bat, spinners who bat & quicks who bat. While we can still see 'keeper allrounders, I believe the other types are a dying breed - at least in comparison to the exploits of yester year.
My theory is that the reasons for this are not just the proliferation of ODI cricket these days, but moreso to do with the higher levels of specialisation, professionalism and training in the game over the past decade or so. This makes it virutually impossible for any 'new 'allrounder' to break thru into anything other than the ODI at international level. As the batting / bowling strength & depth has improved it has become more difficult for a good 'allrounder' to get picked ahead of the 'specialist' in either discipline.
Should they gain selection thesedays the 'batting bowlers' are often batting in the tail where they do not have the support in order to build partnerships or an innings, and subsequently have little opportunity to improve their skills, scores, averages etc.
This would be even more true for the 'bowling batters'. With team selections usually including at least one spinner, there is even less opportunity for a batsman to be anything other than another part time spin option. There are few of the former wobbly old slow / medium accurate line & length bowlers who did a little in the air or off the seam - a la Astle, Coney, S Waugh etc.
Incidentaly IMO the decline of the 'batting bowlers' & 'bowling batsmen' to my mind mirrors their decline in Aussie cricket - as it is Australia that is primarily responsible for raising the bar so far as professionalism & specialisation goes!!!!
There will still be the odd individual who rises from the ranks, but I feel they will primarily come from those nations who do not have the same degree of specialisation or depth of resources in these areas to 'exclude' allrounders.
So far as the current crop are concerned - I think we need to forget about comparisons with anything other than their current peers, as I feel this is about as good as it's going to get for some time!!!
My criteria for 'allrounder' is that they play both forms of the game and perform both roles (as opposed to irregularly like Ganguly or Astle recently), have at least scored a ton in one and a half century in the other, and have taken at least a 5 wicket bag preferrably in both forms of the game.
To this extent I would rate Kallis as the best and a 'bowling batsman' - more of a Sobers than a Roberts, Botham, Hadlee, Imran or Kapil Dev. The only other contender of this type I can think of is Razzaq. The remainder seem to be primarily 'batting bowlers'. Klusener has gone thru a form crisis and is on the down side of his career, as is Wasim & possibly Cairns if he can not keep free from injury.
On recent history I would probably rate them as Kallis, Cairns, Pollock & Razzaq, then a group including Wasim, Klusener, White, Mahmood, then the 'pretenders' who have yet to meet the criteria, including the likes of Warne, Flintoff, Agarkar & Lee. I like Lee as he reminds me of the likes of Hadlee, Imran, Wasim & Dev, but I doubt he'll get the opportunity to make good scores. No doubt there are other 'contender's / 'pretender's of all categories but I do not know of them well enough.
Incidentally if you wanted to broaden the scope of 'allrounder', then I would rate Gilchrist as the current number 1. This would also open the door for the likes of Stewart & Sangakarra as 'batting 'keepers'.
I regret the apparent demise of the allrounder in the modern 5 day game - they always used to be good for some action re bat or ball. However, has anyone else thought that the aggressive style of the Aussie test team with bat & ball mirrors what we used to look forward to from the 'allrounder's?????
(My appologies for the length of this post)
I've been saying the same for years about the batting and bowling ones..............
