What Qualifies as a Test Allrounder?

[Days of Grace]

I think Davo’s reputation as an allrounder is based almost solely on the tied test performance.

 

[Bolo]

Bear in mind, though, that if a batsman gets a big innings he may well not get to bat again, but if a bowler has a good first innings they can expect to bowl again.

Consequently there are more bowlers with 6+ wickets per match (Barnes, Richardson, Lohmann, Yasir Shah, Muralitharan) than batsmen with 100+ runs per match (Bradman).

True, but there are mitigating factors at play. 100 comes in a single innings pretty frequently. Bat twice not needed. 6wpi is rare. Kallis managed a hundred three or four times more frequently than Steyn managed 6 WPI.

Finite wickets available. Many top bowlers sit around 4wpm though. 6 is distant.

3wpi is super rare. Murali was a freak who benefited from crap competition. Yasir will drop. The other guys are a product of a different era.

Maybe others did better, but Hadlee is my benchmark on big wickets. 2.7ish per innings. It's a big jump to three.

Equivalent to 45rpi. Just about all the top bats managed around this. Hadlee is the exception amongst top bowlers but the standard for top bats. Without checking stats, I feel like 50rpi is pretty common.

Limitations on number of innings stops everyone but Bradman hitting 100 per game. But you bat twice far more often than not. Even Waugh, down the order in arguably the most dominant team ever batted twice 2/3 times.

When you bat twice, 100 will be common. Its two average innings for some of the top guys. Variance, which is far more significant for bats than bowlers will get everyone else over the line even if mediocre pretty often.

There is an assumption that you don't bat too low though. Near the bottom where you miss more innings and run out of support when scoring, it will be tough.

Your next method raises a different problem though. Probably a more meaningful one.

 

[Bolo]

That might give another way to find equivalence: e.g. of people who've played 20 or more Tests, 60 have taken 4+ wickets per match and 59 have scored 75+ runs per match. If you look at the top 10 to achieve both in a match, you get:

15: Sobers
14: Shakib
11: Botham, Cairns
8: Greig, Vettori
7: Kallis, Miller
6: Flintoff, Hadlee, Mankad

which looks a reasonable mix of bating and bowling all-rounders.

(I'm not claiming this is a great way to rank the best all-rounders: Imran is in the group on 5, alongside Warwick Armstrong, Mitchell Johnson, Moeen Ali and Bob Simpson. But it does give some idea of who was most likely to be effective in both skills in the same match)

Your new method seems to be moving away from the exceptional towards the balanced. There are plenty of okay at both on the list. Hadlee is fairly low down as the first guy I would call a bowling allrounder and he batted at 7 a fair bit- often a wk or true AR slot, probably a function of weakness of batting linenup. 75runs sounds like a pretty low amount to me, and 4wpm sounds a bit higher. But I'm seeing a problem here with bowling ars. Philander sits at the bottom of what I call a bowling ar, although many go lower.

Averages 25. I don't remember him winning anything with the bat, but he impacts the direction of a lot of games. The value of his.batting is meaningful. But he averages 27 runs a game. He will almost never hit your 75 benchmark even without considering the wicket requirement. No big scores or runs of form. No measure like this will recognise his value. But it exists.

Balanced and batting ARs are rare. But there are many like Philander/Davidson/however low you are willing to set the bar. No recognition, especially when it comes to same match

Pollock a step up. Massive value with the bat, but still misses the cut. Imran almost does as well, at which point it really look a silly, but I will direct that at Trundler

 

[Bolo]

Imran and Pollock being that high doesn't sit right with me.

Looking at his entire career, Imran is elite in one discipline and more or less specialist quality in the other. He's unique in this regard. There's no argument for putting anyone but Sobers and Kallis on the same tier. For all the value their bowling brings though, their bowling stats are rubbish. I'd fancy a team with a batting lineup of Imrans ahead of one with a bowling lineup of Sobers, even though I pick Sobers first if constructing a team.

Pollock is just nerfed Imran. His batting wasn't specialist quality, but it wasn't that far off. RSA had plenty of batting allrounders so he batted low, which limited his time at the crease (DNB and not outs). It's fair to see this drop him in a statistical analysis, and perhaps a little in a subjective one over workload concerns. But when he was actualy at the crease there is a case to be made for him being comparable to a number of much more highly regarded bats, and he is way above almost all the allrounders as a bowler.

Why the issue with these two? Imran is the one guy that is basically free of problems, and I feel like only Shakib's specific place might present as few problems as Pollock in the top ten.

Is DoG correct on the Pollock comment? And is this something you feel applies to Imrans batting as well?

 

[trundler]

Yeah I was going to say Imran, in a way, was an upgraded Pollock. ATG in one (top 10 even) and solid (more so than Pollock) in the other. He did bat up higher because I think he was in a weaker batting line up. I don't think much more can be said about his batting than 'solid' and 'capable'. Wouldn't say he's a genuine top order bat like Miller, or even Botham. That makes him a bowling all rounder primarily IMO - not a balanced, free of problems one. I think there ought to be a middle ground between a list that has Dexter fairly high and one that has Pollock that high. Balanced all rounders are rarer and are getting undervalued on both types of measures. Between an average of 36 and 3 WPM, Miller's true value is lost - how he could combine both disciplines in one match. Imran gets a boost from his period as a specialist bat too.

Passes the mic to smali - the authoritative voice on Imran.

Side note: Pollock vs Boucher? The better batsman?

 

[bagapath]

Putting aside the number crunching, even ignoring how effective they were, purely based on their roles in their teams...

Batting all-rounders

Sobers
Kallis
Hammond

Batsmen who could bowl

Dexter
Bob Simpson
Jayasuriya

Balanced all-rounders

Faulkner
Mankad
Miller
Imran
Greig
Botham
Kapil
Cairns
Flintoff
Shakib

Bowling all-rounders

Noble
Gregory
S.Pollock
RJ Hadlee
Benaud

Bowlers who could bat

Lindwall
Akram

in my opinion, any list that kind of reflects this order would be right

 

[trundler]

Think Hammond and Imran blur the line between those categories a bit.

 

[bagapath]

Agree with hammond who could be termed a batsman with bowling ability


But Imran was a true all-rounder; his wicket was important for the opposition. he did play some valuable knocks (a lot more in ODIs, probably) and he was good enough to be in the XI as a batsman alone. He averaged 50+ with the bat for a whole decade; who are we to question his all-round abilities and his status as possibly the greatest cricketer that ever lived?

 

[bagapath]

Revised...


Batsmen who could bowl

WG Grace
Stanley Jackson
Walter Hammond
Ted Dexter
Bob Simpson
Sanath Jayasuriya

Batting all-rounders

Gary Sobers
Jacques Kallis

Balanced all-rounders

GA Faulkner
Vinoo Mankad
Keith Miller
Imran Khan
Tony Greig
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Chris Cairns
Andrew Flintoff
Shakib al Hasan

Bowling all-rounders

Wilfred Rhodes
Monty Noble
Jack Gregory
S.Pollock
RJ Hadlee
Richie Benaud

Bowlers who could bat

Ray Lindwall
Wasim Akram

 

[mr_mister]

Vettori missing from that list

6 tons and 362 wickets certainly should win him points with your longevity criteria

 

[trundler]

I agree but he had 2 distinct phases as bowler and batsman though I don't question that there was a significant overlap between those 2 periods. Sobers and Miller had more bat/ball combined performances. I would still rate Imran the second best after Sobers would just as Sir Gary was a batting all rounder, Imran would be a bowling all rounder for me.

 

[bagapath]

Vettori missing from that list

6 tons and 362 wickets certainly should win him points with your longevity criteria

Agree the list is incomplete. Where does he sit? With Botham Kapil and Miller? Or with S.Pollock and Hadlee?

 

[bagapath]

I agree but he had 2 distinct phases as bowler and batsman though I don't question that there was a significant overlap between those 2 periods. Sobers and Miller had more bat/ball combined performances. I would still rate Imran the second best after Sobers would just as Sir Gary was a batting all rounder, Imran would be a bowling all rounder for me.

You probably feel this way because he was such a giant of a bowler.

Imagine Kallis averaging 3 wickets per test @ a bowling average of around 30. You would still feel he was batting a allrounder though it should place him in the more balanced category.

 

[Bolo]

Excluding specialist bowler, imran played as every combination of batsman and bowler at some point in his career. Specialist bat (one of the best in the world), but for only a handful of games is the most confusing.

Fitting him into a single category doesn't make much sense. But if we do so it must be bowling allrounder. His bowling record is distinctly stronger. And he spent too much of his career batting down the order and made too few runs per game.

Capable or solid in reference to his batting feels dismissive. I'd use the term for Pollock. But Imran was a quality bat, even when weakened by his slow start and not looking at his peak.

His batting average would label him as impressive, even for a specialist considering the era. It's spoiled a bit by the fact that he poked his way to too many not outs from low down the order and feasted at home, but he's still at least close to specialist quality, if a bit behind on output.

 

[trundler]

Yeah Imran would make it as a bat and Sobers as a bowler. They're still bowling and batting all rounders respectively.

 

[bagapath]

Still, bunching him with Hadlee and S.Pollock, doesn't feel right. He belongs more in the Botham - Kapil - Miller group I feel.

 

[Bolo]

That makes him a bowling all rounder primarily IMO - not a balanced, free of problems one. I think there ought to be a middle ground between a list that has Dexter fairly high and one that has Pollock that high. Balanced all rounders are rarer and are getting undervalued on both types of measures. Between an average of 36 and 3 WPM, Miller's true value is lost - how he could combine both disciplines in one match. Imran gets a boost from his period as a specialist bat too.

To say Imran couldn't do both at the same time is a bit of an overstatement, but he does pose tough questions. It's not an issue within the bounds of the rankings though- it's actually heavily rewarded. It would be problematic if transferred outside the rankings, but I'm assuming we are accepting the batting and bowling rankings to discuss the AR rankings.

I don't think balanced ARs are being underanked. Botham, Shakib, Dev,s Cairns and Miller rate highly. They are not at the very top because they are simply statistically worse. Millers 3wpm is a huge drop. You gain a little over Imran in RPI, but not enough (ignoring your other issues).

Dev vs Pollock shows how heavily balanced allrounders are favoured. In terms of points, Pollock is basically equal to Kapil. Kapil scored a pile more runs, so not without reason. But it's largely a product of team composition that influenced batting position. Calling Pollocks placement too high is odd when he sits next to Kapil, because he's so notably ahead on bowling (average and wpm), and would be even if you assumed a drop in output via normalising the batting position.

It's not so clear cut, There's a pretty solid case for Pollock being the better bat as well. Massive difference in away average. Slightly better overall average. And the ability to do more than slog to build partnerships if needed (but a quality slogger as well). Outraged cries that Kapil was a matchwinner potentially incoming. So I will just state that I don't know if Kapil had the right style for his team, but I do know that Pollocks reliable little knocks and building the odd partnership were the perfect fit for his.

There is no way he two can be seriously compared if number of runs scored is ignored. But Pollock batted low down and his output isnt balanced, and runs count, so they end as equals.

 

[Starfighter]

I think Davo’s reputation as an allrounder is based almost solely on the tied test performance.

It's based more on the fact he mainly batted in allrounders positions at 7 or 8 and averaged 33 in first class cricket. Of course he didn't really succeed as an allrounder at test level but allrounder-ness is based on the logic behind selection and team role not some arbitrary level of excellence. David Capel was as much an allrounder as anyone, he simply wasn't a very good one.

 

[Victor Ian]

Pollock's high ranking is deserved. I always thought he was as valuable an all rounder as Kallis and the fact they are neighbours in the ranking somewhat justifies it for me. Pollock is way under appreciated.

 

[mr_mister]

It's based more on the fact he mainly batted in allrounders positions at 7 or 8 and averaged 33 in first class cricket. Of course he didn't really succeed as an allrounder at test level but allrounder-ness is based on the logic behind selection and team role not some arbitrary level of excellence. David Capel was as much an allrounder as anyone, he simply wasn't a very good one.

yeah this. i dont understand how all these guys don't get it.

I was never saying he was some competent in his test batting,but he was certainly considered an all-rounder. Only averaged a smidge less than Hadlee who we definitely consider to be one. But yeah, the fact he spent more than half his test innings batting 7 or higher should be enough to settle this.

It's similar to Miller who averaged only 38 but batted mainly at 5. Like he was considered one of Australia's premier bats(and bowlers), not just a bowler who could bat. Despite the underwhelming average

also holy **** what a performance in that tied test from Davidson, i never knew the specifics. 11 wickets, 1 catch and 124 runs. First person to get a tenfer and score 100 runs in a match. Insane


edit - and in Davidson's final 29 tests(when he starting coming into own as a player, before that his career hadn't been that great) he averaged 19 with the ball and 28 with the bat. Definitely all-round stats