Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59

Thread: All-Rounders Around the World

  1. #1
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Plops Champion! Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,215

    All-Rounders Around the World

    To simply define an all-rounder would be a player who merits selection into his team for both their batting and bowling. Due to this role as a player who almost doubles their usefulness all-rounders have always been something of utmost interest to cricket. This includes the often criticized searches for all-rounders (see Australia/India in recent years) that inevitably occur to find players who could possibly fit such a role.

    If you were to allow an all-rounder to qualify as a player with more than 500 runs and 50 wickets (Test matches) and averaged over 25 with the bat and under 35 in the ball you would discover that 40 of these players have existed.

    Then if we breakdown where they have come from we can see which nations produce the most and least all-round cricketers.

    Australia 7
    England 13
    India 4
    Pakistan 3
    New Zealand 5
    South Africa 5
    Sri Lanka 1
    West Indies 2

    Australia and England are far and away leaders in regards to alltime all-rounder production, yet they also have played Test cricket longer than any other nation. The lack of modern day all-rounders in Australia is particularly apparent when you limit the field to all-rounders who have played since 1970. Now only 17 qualify and Australia only adds a disappointing 1 to this number.

    Australia 1
    England 4
    India 2
    Pakistan 2
    New Zealand 4
    South Africa 3
    Sri Lanka 1
    West Indies 0

    Of these players, six are current:
    SM Pollock JH Kallis (SA), DL Vettori JDP Oram (NZ) A Flintoff (Eng) and IK Pathan (Ind)

    So where have all the all-rounders gone?
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society

  2. #2
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colombo, SL
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Of these players, six are current:
    SM Pollock JH Kallis (SA), DL Vettori JDP Oram (NZ) A Flintoff (Eng) and IK Pathan (Ind)

    So where have all the all-rounders gone?
    Missed Chaminda Vaas? Vaas > Pathan as a player
    Diuretics are used to look good at TV shows

    I played for 20 years in the Lankan team, I did not have any problems as a Tamil - Muralidaran

  3. #3
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Plops Champion! Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Migara View Post
    Missed Chaminda Vaas? Vaas > Pathan as a player
    Averages under 25 batting.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    24,918
    Yeah, obviously Vaas is a better bowler, and probably underachieved with the bat, but Pathan, whatever you think about him as a player, is a better batsman than Vaas.


  5. #5
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colombo, SL
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Averages under 25 batting.
    That's when comparing his whole career. But lately he has done very well. Sine Pathan's debut, Vaas averages 33.1 with the bat, while Pathan averages 31.6.

  6. #6
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Plops Champion! Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,215
    Probably be interesting to do a write up on players who turned into allrounders. Vaas and Vettori come to mind.

  7. #7
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,027
    I think 500 runs is too low a qualification if 50 wkts is used.

    Generally 1 wkt = 20 runs ie 5 wkts = 100 runs. Though looking at the lists that change doesnt exclude too many others.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  8. #8
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Plops Champion! Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    I think 500 runs is too low a qualification if 50 wkts is used.

    Generally 1 wkt = 20 runs ie 5 wkts = 100 runs. Though looking at the lists that change doesnt exclude too many others.
    If made 1000 runs we lose 3 Englishmen prior 1970 and 1 Aussie post 1970. I was really only keeping the runs scored qualification over from a different analysis. The fact that the batting must be higher than 25 and more than 50 wickets are required means that I only kept Mitchell Johnson out by making 500 runs the min.

    Take that Mitch!
    Last edited by Athlai; 15-01-2009 at 09:01 AM.

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    If made 1000 runs we lose 3 Englishmen prior 1970 and 1 Aussie post 1970. I was really only keeping the runs scored qualification over from a different analysis. The fact that the batting must be higher than 25 and more than 50 wickets are required means that I only kept Mitchell Johnson out by making 500 runs the min.

    Take that Mitch!
    Then, IMO, the wickets qualification should be 25.

    At the moment the 500 runs and 50 wkts is weighted towards bowling rather than genuine allrounders.

  10. #10
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Plops Champion! Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    Then, IMO, the wickets qualification should be 25.

    At the moment the 500 runs and 50 wkts is weighted towards bowling rather than genuine allrounders.
    I like the 1000-50 one TBH.

  11. #11
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Plops Champion! Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    Then, IMO, the wickets qualification should be 25.

    At the moment the 500 runs and 50 wkts is weighted towards bowling rather than genuine allrounders.
    500-25 gets Afridi into the list. Though that little bit of evil may be balanced by the fact that Shakib does too.

  12. #12
    International Captain The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    I like the 1000-50 one TBH.
    Agreed - I think that's a fairer reflection.
    Member of the Twenty20 is Boring Society

    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    C'mon Man U.
    RIP Craigos

  13. #13
    State Captain krkode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,781
    I think whatever the qualification, in general, test teams have less room for all-rounders. Sure, some of the greatest test players of all time have been all-rounders but these people were rare gems because it truly took special skill to be able to be a test quality batsman and bowler.

    Ultimately, however, either your all-rounder is one of 6 batsmen in the team, in which case batting average above 25 is too low of a qualification nowadays. Nowadays, even #6s are expected to average over 35. Or if not one of 6 batsmen, your all-rounder plays as one of four bowlers, in which case teams will generally pick the best bowler irrespective of his batting skill. If you can get a guy averaging 28 with the ball but only 18 with the bat, you will probably go for him over someone who averages 34 with the ball but 27 with the bat. Teams just seem to over all prefer 6 solid batsmen and 4 solid bowlers.

    There was an article on cricinfo recently talking about this that I thought was interesting. He made a point about how while Australia was experimenting with test all-rounders like McDonald, White, Watson and Symonds they've passed by specialist batsmen with fantastic FC records such as Hodge and David Hussey who are getting older and less and less eligible by the year.

    Fact is, all-rounders are far more useful in ODIs, where there's a need for a fifth bowler and the stamina and skill set required is less than is demanded of a test all-rounder. I'm sure if one did such an analysis on ODI all-rounders, more names would pop up (numbers might have to be adjusted). And I think in general all-rounders is the thing that sets apart the really good ODI teams (along with fielding). Part of the reason why SA and NZ were so great in the late-90s, early 2000s. Guys like Klusener, Cairns, Jayasuriya, Abdur Razzaq, Chris Harris made real differences in the sides they played for.
    Last edited by krkode; 15-01-2009 at 10:30 AM.

  14. #14
    First Class Debutant Chemosit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    844
    I'd be interested to see a similar list for ODIs both for its own interest and to see who managed it at both formats.
    Kenyacricket blog: Building a better future for Kenyan Cricket
    Become a fan of Kenya Cricket.com on facebook :

  15. #15
    State Captain krkode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,781
    Identical qualification list for ODIs

    Actually a lot fewer names than I had imagined. But I wonder if we should alter the numbers some how. For example, Chris Harris - one of NZ's best ODI players in the past doesn't make the list because his bowling average is 37. However, his economy is a very respectable 4.28, which is why he was so well-regarded as an ODI cricketer. Jayasuriya also does not make the list despite having over 300 wickets because he averages 36.5. Kapil Dev and Ian Botham do not make the cut-off because their batting average is 23. Shahid Afridi also does not make the list, although some will argue he doesn't belong near such a list.

    I adjusted the numbers a little bit - lowered the batting average cut-off to 20 and increased the bowling average cutoff to 40. The number of names on the list doubles and we see a few more familiar names like the afore mentioned Kapil Dev, Botham, Shastri, Ganguly, DeSilva, Mark Waugh - although some of these players were arguably more "5th bowler role" than all-rounder role.
    Last edited by krkode; 15-01-2009 at 02:41 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. All Rounders XI
    By Googenheim in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 09:50 AM
  2. All-Rounders XI
    By Engle in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 15-12-2007, 08:52 PM
  3. Best All - Rounders..
    By amokk1 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 08:16 PM
  4. NZ all-rounders
    By Tim in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 25-01-2003, 08:52 PM
  5. All-rounders.
    By Swing in forum General
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 27-07-2002, 04:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •