the perfect test all-rounder[s]

[ret]

I was wondering how the perfect test all-rounder should be so I decided to check some of the usual suspects. To make things easy for myself, I focused on two things:
1. Runs per test [rounded off]
2. Wkts per test [rounded off]

Amongst the usual suspects, Sobers has the most runs per tests [86], while Hadlee the most wkts [5] so I thought that someone with 70 runs and 4 wkts per test would be super cool but ofc realistically someone with 50 runs and 3 wkts per test would be perfect

The criteria to make it to the list was 35 runs and 2 wkts per test and below are some of the usual suspects, in no particular order


G Sobers 86 & 2.5
I Khan 43 & 4.1
I Botham 51 & 3.75
R Hadlee 36 & 5.0
K Dev 40 & 3.3
B McMillan 52 & 1.9
K Miller 54 & 3.0
V Mankad 48 & 3.6
S Pollock 35 & 3.8
C Cairns 53 & 3.5

As I said, someone with 50 runs and 3 wkts per test would be perfect as he has contributed almost equally with both the bat and the ball. Sobers, Botham, McMillan, Millar, Cairns and Mankad have almost 50 runs per test or more. Everyone except McMillan and Sobers have 3 wkts or more per test

those who made it to the next round and thus perfect test all-rounders on stats are

Ian Botham 51 & 3.75
Keith Millar 54 & 3
Vinoo Mankad 48 & 3.6
Chris Cairns 53 & 3.5

now if we are to pick the best one amongst these perfect ones then let's rank them according to runs and wkts per test

Runs
1. Millar
2. Cairns
3. Botham
4. Mankad

Wkts
1. Botham
2. Mankad
3. Cairns
4. Millar

One man amongst them has done over 100 tests .... Ian Botham is the man


other awards,
best batting all-rounder ----> Sobers
best bowling all-rounder ----> Hadlee

PS Cairns added

 

[ret]

let's see how some of those currently playing cricket are doing

I Pathan 38 & 3.4
A Flintoff 50 & 2.9
J Oram 55 & 2

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Why per test and not per innings?

 

[ret]

Why per test and not per innings?

a good question .... tbf, i prefer per test

one of the advantages of taking per test over per inning is that the playing conditions get accounted better

let's say one player is playing on a flat track where scores are in the region of 450, while the other on a bowler friendly track where the scores are in the region of 250

so an all-rounder making a 50 on a flat track would probably have contributed somewhat to an all-rounder making 50 in 2 innings on a bowler friendly track

say in a game where in the first innings team A scores 500/7 declare, other team scores 530 all out and then the first team scores 150/2 match drawn

while in the other game, its A - 250, B - 315, A - 280 and B - 160

if you take per inning here than batsman on a flat track has 50 per innings, while batsman on the seamer friendly track as 25 per inning

similarly someone picking up 3 wkts in a game in a flat track would be good [esp if he got to bowl in just one inning where the other team made 530], while the other guy may pick up 4 wkts in a game on a bowler friendly track

so the difference would look like
flat track
per test ----> 50 runs and 3 wkts
per inning ----> 50 runs and 3 wkts

bowler friendly track
per test ----> 50 runs and 4 wkts
per inning ----> 25 runs and 2 wkts

from the example above, you can see that scoring 50 runs and picking up 3 [or more] wkts in a test have benefitted the teams of both the players, if taken per inning the guy playing on the flat track would have looked better with 50 runs and 3 wkts [bowling in just one inning] per inning vs 25 runs and 2 wkts of the other guy


let's take another example

flat track
team A- 450, B - 380
A - 300/7 dec, B- 315/ 6 match drawn

now here if the all-rounder made say 0 in the first inning and a quick 50 in the 2nd inning to give team A a chance to force a win and then he picked 3 wkts in the 2nd innings to try to force a win in a game that eventually ended in a draw then it will be a good perfo
I innings - 0 runs and 0 wkts
II innings - 50 runs and 3 wkts
per test ----> 50 runs and 3 wkts
per inning ----> 25 and 1.5

on the other hand the other all-rounder playing on a friendly track would have
per test ----> 50 runs and 4 wkts
per inning ----> 25 runs and 2

so as you can see taking per tests gives better account of the playing conditions and benefits both the batsman and the bowler, imo

 

[fredfertang]

Interesting figures - the forgotten Tony Greig comes out at 62 and 2.4

 

[Dissector]

I would combine this with a more conventional measure looking at averages; specifically the difference between batting and bowling average. So someone who average 35 and 25 with bat and ball scores higher than someone who averages 30 and 28. Among bowling all-rounders Imran and Miller would probably score the best on this measure. Botham wouldn't score particularly well at all since his batting average was just a few runs above his bowling average.

 

[Days of Grace]

In my allrounder ratings, I have the 'perfect' allrounder as someone who scores 20 runs per wicket. It sounds about right.

 

[Aamir Alauddin]

I was wondering how the perfect test all-rounder should be so I decided to check some of the usual suspects. To make things easy for myself, I focused on two things:
1. Runs per test [rounded off]
2. Wkts per test [rounded off]

Amongst the usual suspects, Sobers has the most runs per tests [86], while Hadlee the most wkts [5] so I thought that someone with 70 runs and 4 wkts per test would be super cool but ofc realistically someone with 50 runs and 3 wkts per test would be perfect

The criteria to make it to the list was 35 runs and 2 wkts per test and below are some of the usual suspects, in no particular order


G Sobers 86 & 2.5
I Khan 43 & 4.1
I Botham 51 & 3.75
R Hadlee 36 & 5.0
K Dev 40 & 3.3
B McMillan 52 & 1.9
K Miller 54 & 3.0
V Mankad 48 & 3.6
S Pollock 35 & 3.8
C Cairns 53 & 3.5

As I said, someone with 50 runs and 3 wkts per test would be perfect as he has contributed almost equally with both the bat and the ball. Sobers, Botham, McMillan, Millar, Cairns and Mankad have almost 50 runs per test or more. Everyone except McMillan and Sobers have 3 wkts or more per test

those who made it to the next round and thus perfect test all-rounders on stats are

Ian Botham 51 & 3.75
Keith Millar 54 & 3
Vinoo Mankad 48 & 3.6
Chris Cairns 53 & 3.5

now if we are to pick the best one amongst these perfect ones then let's rank them according to runs and wkts per test

Runs
1. Millar
2. Cairns
3. Botham
4. Mankad

Wkts
1. Botham
2. Mankad
3. Cairns
4. Millar

One man amongst them has done over 100 tests .... Ian Botham is the man


other awards,
best batting all-rounder ----> Sobers
best bowling all-rounder ----> Hadlee

PS Cairns added

Dear first of all you must be well aware of the definition of an all rounder. Allrounder is a player who contributes with the bat and the ball equally. Any player who contributes with the bat more than the ball is call a batting all rounder and vice versa. A perfect all rounder would be that who contributes equally with the ball and the bast. I would consider him the best who has batting average of 50 with 5 wickets per test. but none of them falls in that category. Botham would be called a batting all wounder.

Now come towards 40 runs plus 4 wickets per test. Just Imran Khan falls in that category with 43 runs and 4.1 wickets per test. His closest contestent is Mankad, Hadlee, Pollock and Cairns. Rest are either batting or bowling all rounders.

Imran fits well to be called a perfect all rounder having equal contribution with the ball and the bat. Mind it we are talking about the perfect all rounder. Moreover among Imran, Mankad, Hadlee, Pollock and Carins, its only Imran Khan who has played as top order Batsman as well as opening bowler. Imran is a perfect all rounder for me.

 

[ret]

Dear first of all you must be well aware of the definition of an all rounder. Allrounder is a player who contributes with the bat and the ball equally. Any player who contributes with the bat more than the ball is call a batting all rounder and vice versa. A perfect all rounder would be that who contributes equally with the ball and the bast. I would consider him the best who has batting average of 50 with 5 wickets per test. but none of them falls in that category. Botham would be called a batting all wounder.

Now come towards 40 runs plus 4 wickets per test. Just Imran Khan falls in that category with 43 runs and 4.1 wickets per test. His closest contestent is Mankad, Hadlee, Pollock and Cairns. Rest are either batting or bowling all rounders.

Imran fits well to be called a perfect all rounder having equal contribution with the ball and the bat. Mind it we are talking about the perfect all rounder. Moreover among Imran, Mankad, Hadlee, Pollock and Carins, its only Imran Khan who has played as top order Batsman as well as opening bowler. Imran is a perfect all rounder for me.

dude, thats funny as you are taking different variables

in short, a batting average of 50 with 5 wkts per test is a different platform than 40 runs and 4 wkts per test .... once you understand the platform, you will realize that 40 and 4 is not the same as 50 and 3

to show you an example, after 100 tests at their per test average
Imran ----> 4300 runs and 410 wkts
Botham ----> 5100 and 375 wkts

thats a difference of 800 runs for 35 wkts over 100 tests, which translates into a difference of 8 runs and 0.35 wkts per test

 

[ret]

i was also interested in knowing how effective the all-rounders were. would it be more beneficial to have someone like a Sobers in the team or a Hadlee or a more balanced one like a Botham or an Imran .... ofc, in the real world the effectiveness would be mainly related to the composition and strength of a team

in the world of figures though, how to create a platform that manages to gauge the effectiveness of an all-rounder discarding the real world factors like a team's composition, its strength, the conditions, etc? to arrive at such a platform, i guess, it is important to give equal weight-age to both the runs and the wkts

so how do we create a platform that gives equal emphasis to both runs and wkts and what should be the guiding post to create that formula. ofc other aspects besides runs and wkts are assumed to be constant

for the guiding post, i decided to use the one of 50 runs and 3 wkts per test [to make things easier of myself]. which roughly gives 1 wkt = 17 runs. Now if we are to keep runs scored per test as it is and multiply the wkts per test by 17 then add that total, would that give us an 'effective index' per test? i.e. how effective the all-rounders were in a test

i decided to try it out, so below are the numbers:


G Sobers 86 & 2.5 .... 86 + 2.5(17) .... 86 + 42.5 = 128.5
I Khan 43 & 4.1 .... 43 + 4.1(17) .... 43 + 69.7 = 112.7
I Botham 51 & 3.75 .... 51 + 3.75(17) .... 51 + 63.75 = 114.75
R Hadlee 36 & 5.0 .... 36 + 5(17) .... 36 + 85 = 121
K Dev 40 & 3.3 .... 40 + 3.3(17) .... 40 + 56.1 = 96.1
B McMillan 52 & 1.9 .... 52 + 1.9(17) .... 52 + 32.3 = 84.3
K Miller 54 & 3.0 .... 54 + 3(17) .... 54 + 51 = 105
V Mankad 48 & 3.6 .... 48 + 3.6(17) .... 48 + 61.2 = 109.2
S Pollock 35 & 3.8 .... 35 + 3.8(17) .... 35 + 64.6 = 99.6
C Cairns 53 & 3.5 .... 53 + 3.5(17) .... 53 + 59.5 = 112.5
T Greg 62 & 2.4 .... 62 + 2.4(17) .... 62 + 40.8 = 102.8

so in terms of 'effectiveness' per test

G Sobers = 128.5
R Hadlee = 121
I Botham = 114.75
I Khan = 112.7
C Cairns = 112.5
V Mankad = 109.2
K Miller = 105
T Greg = 102.8
S Pollock = 99.6
K Dev = 96.1
B McMillan = 84.3

so the 'effectiveness index' tells that picking up Sobers or Hadlee would be more effective than picking others

 

[Ikki]

I think Sobers had great all-round performances but I would not rate him as a true all-rounder in the sense that Miller or Botham are all-rounders who were much more consistent.

 

[Marius]

Jacques Kallis makes 81 runs per Test, and takes 1.9 wickets per Test match. Not enough to get him onto the list?

 

[ret]

Jacques Kallis makes 81 runs per Test, and takes 1.9 wickets per Test match. Not enough to get him onto the list?

has he retired?

 

[PhoenixFire]

has he retired?

Err no, he is playing today.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Dwayne Smith - 32 runs and 0.7 wickets per Test
Dwayne Bravo - 59.13 runs and 2.26 wickets per Test

 

[ret]

Err no, he is playing today.

thats why he is not in the original list

 

[fredfertang]

Going back a couple of generations when allrounders were less important Jack Gregory averaged 47.75 runs per test and 3.54 wickets so is he up there with the perfect guys?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

 

[ret]

Going back a couple of generations when allrounders were less important Jack Gregory averaged 47.75 runs per test and 3.54 wickets so is he up there with the perfect guys?

thats pretty close to Vinoo Mankad, who is one of the perfect ones

 

[ret]

G Sobers 86 & 2.5 .... 86 + 2.5(17) .... 86 + 42.5 = 128.5
R Hadlee 36 & 5.0 .... 36 + 5(17) .... 36 + 85 = 121

after adjusting to effectiveness index, you will see that Sobers and Hadlee have 86 for batting and 85 for bowling respectively, which is almost equal for the best in batting and bowling performances .... this probably shows that the benchmark of 50 runs and 3 wkts per test was almost spot on, Voila!!!!