Benaud, Davidson, Rhodes and such - Allrounders True?

[Red]

It'll be a cold day in hell before someone convinces me that Shaun Pollock was an all rounder.

True. But the pedants (me included) need some sort of classification that separates someone like him or Hadlee from Glenn McGrath or Courtney Walsh.

Though yes, the team they play for certainly matters. Say if a great allrounder had been a part of the Aussie side in the 00's he still probably would've batted behind Gilchrist.

Gilchrist was as legit an all rounder as I've seen. Such a luxury at #7. No doubt if he was playing in the current Australian side he'd be batting a few spots higher than 7.

 

[Hooksey]

...Gilchrist was as legit an all rounder as I've seen. Such a luxury at #7. No doubt if he was playing in the current Australian side he'd be batting a few spots higher than 7.

Gilchrist could obviously have played test cricket purely as a batsman and batted anywhere from 4 to 6.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Gilchrist could obviously have played test cricket purely as a batsman and batted anywhere from 4 to 6.

Gilchrist as a batsman never looked out of place in any side. In his early days I only wanted him for his batting. Having had a reliable keeper in Healy for so long to go to Gilchrist who's technique had him dropping many opportunities would make me mad. But over the years he picked up and became someone who was a true allrounder (in that he should be picked on his glovework as well).

 

[Migara]

Though yes, the team they play for certainly matters. Say if a great allrounder had been a part of the Aussie side in the 00's he still probably would've batted behind Gilchrist.

Kallis?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Symonds, whose bowling was at least a factor in his original selection even if all-rounder is a stretch, batted ahead of Gilly when both briefly were in the same test XI.

Just sayin'.

I personally would consider Benaud more of an all-rounder at test level than Davidson or Lindwall. With the latter two their batting was a handy adjunct to their bowling, which would have got them into the team even if they were Bert Ironmongeresque batsmen. With Richie tho I think his batting kept him in the team whilst his leggies developed.

Could maybe say the same thing about SR Waugh's medium pace propping up his batting early on in his career; famously took 20-odd tests to crack three figures for the first time but his handy seamers kept him in or at least around the team.

 

[Hooksey]

Gilchrist as a batsman never looked out of place in any side. In his early days I only wanted him for his batting. Having had a reliable keeper in Healy for so long to go to Gilchrist who's technique had him dropping many opportunities would make me mad. But over the years he picked up and became someone who was a true allrounder (in that he should be picked on his glovework as well).

I found it fascinating how Gilchrist always thought of himself first, foremost and almost only as a wicketkeeper. To him his batting was very much secondary to his keeping. A different mindset to say Botham, whose attitude tended to be ''if I fail with the bat I'll just come out and take a bag of wickets".

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Another question is do allrounders have to bat in the top 7? Why?

By that reckoning Vettori (average of 40 at no 8) isn't an allrounder.

I certainly consider Pollock an allrounder - (perhaps even no 3 of the modern era behind Kallis and Imran) and he was primarily a no 8

 

[Hooksey]

Kallis?

Jaques Kallis would definitely have batted ahead of Gilchrist. Not necessarily because he's a better bat, but he is top 6 bat in most any team.

Kallis remains the most underrated of allrounders. But his figures are astonishing. The guy is just an unstoppable cricket machine.

 

[fredfertang]

Benaud, Lindwall and Davidson's batting stats suffered because they were at their best in the most bowler friendly era of the 20th century - even Neil Harvey only averaged 48

 

[Migara]

Benaud, Lindwall and Davidson's batting stats suffered because they were at their best in the most bowler friendly era of the 20th century - even Neil Harvey only averaged 48

So they are overrated as bowlers?

 

[fredfertang]

So they are overrated as bowlers?

You read too much in to things mate, but as you mention it I have had a look at the subject - I think they must be over-rated, given that as far as I can see between the three of them they never once dismissed Kumar Sangakkara, Tillakaratne Dilshan, Mahela Jayawardene, Sanath Jayasuriya or Aranvinda De Silva

 

[The Sean]

Ha ha, Fred on fire at the moment.

 

[bagapath]

Usually it is said that a true all rounder in someone who will make it to his team either as a batsman or as a bowler. But I think a true all rounder is someone who may not be of any great value in either department individually on a regular basis, but would be irreplaceable as an overall package.

Players like Imran, Hadlee, Akram, Davidson, and Pollock, for example, could have averaged 0 with the bat but they would still have made it to their national teams purely as bowlers - like McGrath, Donald or Waqar - and be ranked among the greatest ever cricketers. (Who considers the 21 batting avg of Lindwall's and Marshall/Warne's 18 and 17 runs/innings while placing them among the very best cricketers of all time?)

Sobers, Kallis and Hammond - on the other hand - could have taken 0 wickets in tests but they would anyway have been bunched with Lara, Tendulkar, Border etc as the best middle orders batters of all time and still figure in the list of greatest cricketers.

But take Miller, Botham, Kapil, Greig, Flintoff, Mankad, Rhodes, Faulkner, Noble, Gregory, Cairns and Goddard. They all can point to some scintillating hundreds and fifties in their resumes that won games. Or five-fers and ten- fers that blew out the opposition. Even boast of out of the blue match winning catches. One of them scored 14 hundreds and claimed 27 five fers which is more than what 75% of specialist batsmen and 95% of specialist bowlers have achieved. Still, the USP of this men is so obviously their twin skills combined. They could have played as bowlers alone but very few of them would have made it to the top 30 list without difficulty. They would not have had long careers purely as batters (though it is always assumed that Miller was good enough to avg 45 in test cricket) And none would have made it to the top 100. But when you combine their skills, they all should be among the top 100 cricketers of all time, with some of them breaking into the top 20 easily.

In my opinion they are the correct examples for the term "all rounders". A great bowler like Imran batting so well or a champion bat like Sobers taking wickets should be considered nothing short of a boon and that is why they are among the top 5 cricketers ever. But if you want to define an all rounder, this group represents that term better.

 

[kyear2]

You read too much in to things mate, but as you mention it I have had a look at the subject - I think they must be over-rated, given that as far as I can see between the three of them they never once dismissed Kumar Sangakkara, Tillakaratne Dilshan, Mahela Jayawardene, Sanath Jayasuriya or Aranvinda De Silva

 

[Migara]

You read too much in to things mate, but as you mention it I have had a look at the subject - I think they must be over-rated, given that as far as I can see between the three of them they never once dismissed Kumar Sangakkara, Tillakaratne Dilshan, Mahela Jayawardene, Sanath Jayasuriya or Aranvinda De Silva

So that was a big catch then?

 

[fredfertang]

So that was a big catch then?

I'm afraid you've lost me this time

 

[harsh.ag]

In my opinion they are the correct examples for the term "all rounders". A great bowler like Imran batting so well or a champion bat like Sobers taking wickets should be considered nothing short of a boon and that is why they are among the top 5 cricketers ever. But if you want to define an all rounder, this group represents that term better.

So, Davidson, Pollock and Rhodes would be similar to Imran, and Benaud closer to the package thing.

 

[Dissector]

Rhodes wasn't a frontline bowler for most of his test career and not a top-class batsman either. Closer to a bits and pieces player than a genuine all-rounder at the test level.

 

[bagapath]

Rhodes wasn't a frontline bowler for most of his test career and not a top-class batsman either. Closer to a bits and pieces player than a genuine all-rounder at the test level.

Really? I won't call him a bits and pieces all rounder; that would be the Carl Hooper/ Ravi Shastri types who typically average more with the ball while averaging under 40 with the bat. As a whole package, one can say confidently, Rhodes was always a frontline player for England. I agree, though, that individually as a bowler or as a batsman he wouldn't have made the cut at the test level. Averaging 60 in his opening partnerships with Hobbs, and chipping in with a couple of wickets every test on average, he did provide his teams the opportunity to select an extra batsman or bowler coz he was filling in for the missing element anyways.

 

[Dissector]

Rhodes was a top bowler for the first few years of his test career but after that he was an average batsman who bowled a bit. I guess you could debate what that makes him but a genuine all-rounder he most certainly wasn't.