Benaud, Davidson, Rhodes and such - Allrounders True?

[harsh.ag]

This is to discuss whether Richie Benaud, Alan Davidson and Wilfred Rhodes (and anyone else you can find to put in this category, maybe Shaun Pollock) should be referred to as all-rounders or not.

Rhodes had a historic opening partnership with Sir Jack Hobbs (partnership average of 87!), but apart from that phase, he was a full time spinner, a great one, perhaps the first great one (discounting the mysteries of Sydney Barnes).

Benaud and Davidson both have similar records to Richard Hadlee, who is regarded as an all-rounder by all and sundry. I think if we challenge their claims of all-roundership(?), then we must do so for Hadlee too. And this should not be a taboo, I think.

There are others, maybe Shaun Pollock and Trevor Goddard could be in this conversation. Aubrey Faulkner, a fine batsman, had a bowling average of 26 which sounds fantastic by contemporary measures, but was quite high for his time.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Spikey]

i don't really consider hadlee an all-rounder

 

[harsh.ag]

i don't really consider hadlee an all-rounder

Good for you

 

[Spikey]

i carry a lot of weight around here so I hope my classification finally sorts this mess out

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee himself said he wasn't an all rounder, just a bowler who could bat a bit. Faulkner's stats are somewhat misleading and not as good as they seem. I think that it also has been proven that Rhodes was either a batsman or a great bowler, but seldom if ever both at the same timem

 

[Prince EWS]

i don't really consider hadlee an all-rounder

Yeah I'm not sure on it either. For me an allrounder is someone whose batting and bowling can influence the selection balance of a team. I definitely consider Benaud an allrounder but if we remove the cop out "bowling allrounder" definition which Hadlee and Davidson both fall into to, I'd sooner consider them bowlers than I would allrounders. They were handy number eights at Test level but I wouldn't want them batting higher and therefore their batting skills, while obviously contributing to the side, don't really contribute to the selection balance of the side. Someone like Kapil was a step above with the bat in that he regularly batted seven and gave India other balance options.

Davidson is a bit of a funny one though because he was a genuine middle order batsman in Shield cricket with a really good record; it's possible he just didn't have such a great Test record with the bat because he wasn't really needed to. Hadlee similarly hit 14 First Class hundreds including a double so he was certainly an allrounder at the level below Test cricket.

 

[NUFAN]

Hadlee himself said he wasn't an all rounder, just a bowler who could bat a bit. Faulkner's stats are somewhat misleading and not as good as they seem. I think that it also has been proven that Rhodes was either a batsman or a great bowler, but seldom if ever both at the same timem

I guess so, but whenever he batted he would always do what's best for the team. Took a good number of lower order wickets too, but nothing bad. Definitely a true all rounder.

 

[Prince EWS]

NUFAN in pro-Faulkner post shocker.

 

[smash84]

Would Wasim Akram fall in the same league as Alan Davidson?

 

[Howe_zat]

I wouldn't consider Peter Such to be an allrounder.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Of course Hadlee was an allrounder. He averaged almost 32 with the bat from 1980 on, didn't have Bangladesh around to boost his batting average, had a better overall batting average (27) than specialist NZ batsmen such as Jeff Crowe, Ken Rutherford and John Parker and even averaged 32.4 against the great West Indian attack (the same attack that Ian Botham averaged 14 against).

 

[Red]

I reckon to deserve the classification bowling all-rounder, a bowler should be capable of batting at #7 in a test team.

Beaud, Davidson & Hadlee were all able to do this.

Pollock could've also, but he generally batted after Boucher in SA's line up.

 

[watson]

In general, we have no problem categorising wicket-keepers as 'allrounders' if they bat regularly at No.7 and score good runs in that position (Haddin, Prior, Gilchrist, Flower, Dujon, Knott, Lindsay, Waite, and Parks spring to mind) - so I don't see why we can't have the same standard for bowlers.

Hadlee batted at No.7 or higher in 40% (53/134) of his Test innings - therefore I wouldn't classify him as an 'allrounder' because I don't think that this percentage is high enough. That is, if the majority of Hadlee's innings were in the tail (No's 8-11) then I don't think we have any choice but to categorise him as a 'bowling allrounder'. And this is despite the fact that Hadlee averaged 32.15 during the 36 occasions that he was promoted to No.7.

Similarly, the same applies to Benaud (56%) and Davidson (39%) - their team management didn't think their batting skills quite good enough to hold-down the important No.7 spot despite playing some good innings in that position.

kyear has already pointed out that Wilfred Rhodes cannot be categorised as an 'allrounder' because he more-or-less quit bowling when he opened the England innings with Jack Hobbs. And he's quite right.

 

[watson]

Good morning Monk.

 

[Red]

It depends on how pedantic people want to be with the term "all-rounder" I guess. Obviously someone who averages over 30 is far more valuable with the bat than Chris Martin or Courtney Walsh. They probably wouldn't make the team on their batting alone, but they balance a team a lot better.

Benaud and Davidson played in some teams that were a bit less conventional than a traditional 6 bat, keeper and 4 bowler set up. Early in their careers, Miller and Lindwall were around, both of whom were very capable batsman as well as opening bowlers. Miller usually batted top 6. Later on Ken McKay, Davidson and Benaud were often in the same team as all rounders. It's arguable whether Mackay was a better batsman than Benaud, but Mackay usually batted higher in the order than him. Mackay was probably more reliable with the bat, but Benaud more dynamic.

 

[Hooksey]

I reckon to deserve the classification bowling all-rounder, a bowler should be capable of batting at #7 in a test team...

I think that's a fair and reasonable first prerequisite.

Some people's definition of an all-rounder is that the player needs to be good enough to be selected in the team on their batting OR bowling ALONE.

I have never considered that definition realistic, and feel very few all-rounders actually meet that criteria.

 

[Coronis]

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.

 

[Hooksey]

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 an exception to nearly every rule though wasn't he.

I like your world X1 by the way. But would have had D.K. Lillee in ahead of Proctor or McGrath - just my opinion.

 

[benchmark00]

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

 

[Hooksey]

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

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's a very blurry line that separates bowlers who can bat and all-rounders.