The true all-rounder

[Debris]

A true all-rounder is a player who is in the top 6 batsman and the top 4 bowlers for his country. Just wondering how many cricketers people would consider to be in this category for a extended period, say at least 5 years. I am not sure that I can confidently say that anyone from the major test playing nations has fit this qualiification.
Gary Sobers seems to be closest but was he really in the Windies top 4 bowlers. Obviously the stronger the country, the harder it is.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this. Are there any cricketers who have filled this qualification?

 

[Pothas]

Keith Miller was, not much doubt about that

 

[rivera213]

Sobers, Botham & Imran at peak definitely. I think Sobers was in the top 4 of his day. He wouldn't be anywhere near in a top 4 in the West Indies all-time XI (or get into the SQUAD based on his bowling only), but it's all relative. Wes Hall & Lance Gibbs were much better, but I don't think Valentine or Ramadhin were much better, if at all (I'd put Sobers as a more useful bowler than Valentine myself- though his stats don't say so).

Kapil Dev maybe, though he wasn't in a quality side.

Flintoff hasn't had 5 great seasons, though due to our lack of talent, he's still in the top 6 batsmen and the best bowler! Lmao

POTENTIALLY, Dwayne Bravo for the W.Indies. He's probably no. 3 behind Edwards and Taylor in the bowling department and behind Gayle, Sarwan and Chanderpaul in the batting department.

 

[andyc]

Would argue that Shakib fits the bill pretty much perfectly, in terms of top 6 batsmen, top 4 bowlers. Could potentially stretch it to Vettori as well.

 

[fredfertang]

Botham certainly was between 77 and 85

 

[Arjun]

A true all-rounder is a player who is in the top 6 batsman and the top 4 bowlers for his country. Just wondering how many cricketers people would consider to be in this category for a extended period, say at least 5 years. I am not sure that I can confidently say that anyone from the major test playing nations has fit this qualiification.
Gary Sobers seems to be closest but was he really in the Windies top 4 bowlers. Obviously the stronger the country, the harder it is.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this. Are there any cricketers who have filled this qualification?

That definition is very Utopian. It's difficult to find such a player. However, we find that relatively lesser players, who are not good enough in one facet, do well for their teams. Pollock's batting wasn't quite enough for a South Africa top six, but he's done well as a late-order striker. Gayle isn't a top bowler for WI, but he's played a full role, and he's just right for that. Then, even as England haven't got enough out of Flintoff, a truly genuine all-rounder who fits this definition, you have Styris, average with bat and ball, doing a lot for New Zealand. Practically, an all-rounder would be someone who performs a full batting and bowling role for his team.

Truly genuine all-rounders would have to be Sobers, Botham, Imran (doubtful), Kapil (played for a weak side), Cairns and now Flintoff and Shakib. To stretch it a little, we'd get in someone like Abdul Razzaq.

 

[ret]

A true all-rounder is a player who is in the top 6 batsman and the top 4 bowlers for his country.

according to that definition, Gilly can not be counted as an all-rounder!

 

[zaremba]

Mike Procter?

 

[rivera213]

At first class level for sure, but I doubt he'd have been in the top 6 batsmen for South Africa in tests over an extended period.

His 48 first-class centuries is great, but he didn't get a half century (I know he was only 2 runs off but you know what I mean!) in 10 innings against a mediocre Australian bowling attack.

I doubt he'd have got centuries against the better bowlers- but that's obviously summise.

I personally don't think he'd be up there with Sobers, Botham, Imran, Miller even if he was a better bowler than those 4.

 

[fredfertang]

By definition I would say that Vinoo Mankad would have been selected if either discipline had been his specialism although in his time India were relatively weak

 

[popepouri]

Lance Klusener in the 90's.

 

[Uppercut]

Pollock has a case in ODIs. He wasn't one of the best batsmen in the country per se, but by the latter half of his career, was there anyone else in South Africa that would have done the lower-order job as well as he did?

 

[zaremba]

Pollock has a case in ODIs. He wasn't one of the best batsmen in the country per se, but by the latter half of his career, was there anyone else in South Africa that would have done the lower-order job as well as he did?

I always felt that Shaun Pollock had so much talent with the bat that he could have developed into a front-line batsman had he concentrated on that rather than his bowling. The same has been said of Mike Procter.

 

[andruid]

shakib!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Flintoff hasn't had 5 great seasons, though due to our lack of talent, he's still in the top 60 batsmen and the best bowler! Lmao

Corrected for accuracy.

(+ RTD)

 

[zaremba]

corrected for accuracy.

(+ rtd)

rtd?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Probably merited a second post, or at least an explanatory paragraph. Was suggesting Tarick's voodoo doll, Ryan ten Doeschate, as a true allrounder in the Dutch ODI side.

 

[James_W]

Only thing I can think of is Ryan Ten Doeschate.

I also don't agree with the definition of allrounder in the OP. I would say a true all-rounder is someone who could get into their side based on their batting or bowling alone. In ODI's, I think Pollock fits as he was awesome in the lower order, not sure about tests though. Sobers is a genuine allrounder as even though his test bowling average is quite mediocre, he still would've got in the side as a bowler due to his sheer versatility, his ability to bowl different styles at a high standard. Also, he was originally picked for the West Indies has a bowler. That would be my definition of an all-rounder anyway.

EDIT: ^ Right I was.

 

[zaremba]

WG Grace?

 

[subshakerz]

Only thing I can think of is Ryan Ten Doeschate.

I also don't agree with the definition of allrounder in the OP. I would say a true all-rounder is someone who could get into their side based on their batting or bowling alone. In ODI's, I think Pollock fits as he was awesome in the lower order, not sure about tests though. Sobers is a genuine allrounder as even though his test bowling average is quite mediocre, he still would've got in the side as a bowler due to his sheer versatility, his ability to bowl different styles at a high standard. Also, he was originally picked for the West Indies has a bowler. That would be my definition of an all-rounder anyway.

EDIT: ^ Right I was.

I agree with this definition, an all-rounder should be able to make it into a normal side based on either skill. Imran should fit this as well. People in my opinion discredit Imran a bit by saying he could be selected only as a bowler for most of his career until around 1989 and only as a batsman after that as he was finished as a bowler. However, when he was injured at the height of his bowling career in 82-82, he was still selected purely as a batsman and did quite well even before he could start bowling again in 84-85.