ATG All-round Performances in a Calendar Year

[Line and Length]

There have been numerous discussions/debates about ATG all-rounders with Garfield Sobers and Jacques Kallis generally ranked 1 and 2 with Imran Khan and Richard Hadlee generally ranked next.

But what if we look closely at performances over a calendar year where players could definitely have said to have had a truly great all-round performance.

For the sake of this exercise I'm considering a year where a player, in Tests, averaged over 30 with the bat and under 25 with the ball. The results may well surprise.

In a career over 17 years, Richard Hadlee achieved these figures on 5 occasions (1980, '83, '86, '87 & '90).

Shaun Pollock reached this level on 4 occasions ('99, '01, '03 & '07) in a career that covered 14 years. Imran Khan also achieved this on 4 occasions ('80, '82, '83 & '85) but he played 5 more years than Pollock.

Four players made this grade on 3 occasions. Keith Miller ('46, '49 & '51) in an 11 year career. Ian Botham ('78, '79 & '80) over 14 years. Kapil Dev ('79, '80 & '88) over 17 years. Garfield Sobers ('56, '62 & '66) over 20 years.

What about the highly regarded Jacques Kallis? He never averaged over 30 with the bat and under 25 as a bowler.

I'm not for one minute suggesting this is the way to rank ATG all-rounders, but I found it an interesting exercise. I only looked at these 8 particular players and I'm sure I've overlooked others worthy of mention.

 

[Howe_zat]

For the sake of this exercise I'm considering a year where a player, in Tests, averaged over 30 with the bat and under 25 with the ball.

That means you’re considering bowlers.

What about the highly regarded Jacques Kallis? He never averaged over 30 with the bat and under 25 as a bowler.

Kallis wasn’t a bowler.

The results may well surprise.

They do not

 

[trundler]

That means you’re considering bowlers.



Kallis wasn’t a bowler.



They do not

Sobers is surprising tbh. What a freak. His bowling peak is underrated

 

[Coronis]

Sobers at points was his team’s number one option iirc. Kallis has always been a decent 4th or 5th option so its no surprise at all that he doesn’t rank on this exercise. If you’re expecting a 4th or 5th option to be averaging under 25 you’ve got a problem.

 

[Line and Length]

As I said, it was simply an exercise. What parameters do @Howe_zat and @Coronis consider to be an ATG all-rounder performance over a year? If we extend the batting average to over 35 and the bowling average to under 30 we are, perhaps, looking at a more even balance whilst if it was batting at over 40 and bowling at under 35 it would be more akin to a batsman/part-time bowler.
Let's look at the >35 and <30 scenario then.
Garfield Sobers achieved this on no fewer than 7 occasions.
The remaining 8 players I considered reached this level on several occasions, with Shaun Pollock (6), leading the way ahead of Jacques Kallis (5), Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Keith Miller (4), Richard Hadlee (3) and Ian Botham (2).
Perhaps this restores Sir Garfield to his rightful ranking and better reflects the value of Kallis.
Perhaps it also indicates how good Miller was over a much shorter career and how Pollock is often overlooked in discussions.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Pollock’s problem is that there are other better pure bowlers than him, and all rounders that bring more variety than he brings. He was an amazing player but in an all time XI (first) he simply doesn’t fit.

 

[CricAddict]

For all-rounders, it is a very easy calculation of batting average-bowling average to rate them, excluding anomalies.

 

[Line and Length]

Pollock’s problem is that there are other better pure bowlers than him, and all rounders that bring more variety than he brings. He was an amazing player but in an all time XI (first) he simply doesn’t fit.

I'd have him in a SA all time XI along with Donald, Steyn and Kallis providing the pace quartet.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I'd have him in a SA all time XI along with Donald, Steyn and Kallis providing the pace quartet.

I meant World XI (first or second team - he’s in the discussion anyway but won’t make most people’s).

No doubt he gets into a South Africa XI - He gets into decade or whatever XIs too.

 

[Line and Length]

For all-rounders, it is a very easy calculation of batting average-bowling average to rate them, excluding anomalies.

True, but some/most of these players had seasons where their value was in one department while their contribution in the other area was nothing outstanding.

 

[honestbharani]

For all-rounders, it is a very easy calculation of batting average-bowling average to rate them, excluding anomalies.

That is not really fair though given the best batsmen can average upwards of 50 which is a good 5 points higher than standard test class (at times 10 points) but when it comes to bowling average the best is still around 20-22 which means differentially, its a lot less obvious when you are of a good standard as a bowler than as a batsman if you go purely by averages.

 

[sunilz]

Ratio of batting to bowling average is also a good measure.

 

[Coronis]

As I said, it was simply an exercise. What parameters do @Howe_zat and @Coronis consider to be an ATG all-rounder performance over a year? If we extend the batting average to over 35 and the bowling average to under 30 we are, perhaps, looking at a more even balance whilst if it was batting at over 40 and bowling at under 35 it would be more akin to a batsman/part-time bowler.
Let's look at the >35 and <30 scenario then.
Garfield Sobers achieved this on no fewer than 7 occasions.
The remaining 8 players I considered reached this level on several occasions, with Shaun Pollock (6), leading the way ahead of Jacques Kallis (5), Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Keith Miller (4), Richard Hadlee (3) and Ian Botham (2).
Perhaps this restores Sir Garfield to his rightful ranking and better reflects the value of Kallis.
Perhaps it also indicates how good Miller was over a much shorter career and how Pollock is often overlooked in discussions.

I wasn’t saying that the parameters were necessarily incorrect, just pointing out why Kallis’ poor performance in this particular exercise was unsurprising to me. I think all rounders are harder to quantify based purely on statistical measures than specialists, you really have to consider their role in their particular team and how they performed relative to that to define an all rounder and rank their importance.

 

[kyear2]

That means you’re considering bowlers.



Kallis wasn’t a bowler.



They do not

Exactly, this exercise was meant to favor bowling all rounders rather than batting ones. It was inherently biased, similar to one that looked at years averaging over 50 with the bat and under 30 with the ball

 

[Dendarii]

Kallis did have two seasons where he met the 30/25 criteria (1999/00, 2002/03). Those wouldn't span a full 12-month period but do perhaps raise the question as to whether a calendar year is an appropriate cut-off.

 

[Line and Length]

Getting back to the original theme, let's look at great all-round performances in a calendar year. Here, in alphabetical order, are the players and their possibly finest calendar year as an all rounder.

Player	Year	Batting	Bowling
Botham	1978	597 @ 39.80	78 @ 18.20
Dev	1979	619 @ 30.95	74 @ 22.96
Hadlee	1987	336 @ 49.85	39 @ 20.74
Imran	1982	393 @49.13	62 @ 13.29
Kallis	2001	1120 @ 70.00	35 @ 26.66
Miller	1951	568 @ 51.64	25 @ 20.44
Pollock	2001	573 @ 52.09	55 @ 21.38
Sobers	1966	895 @ 99.44	32 @ 24.00

 

[Line and Length]

Exactly, this exercise was meant to favor bowling all rounders rather than batting ones. It was inherently biased, similar to one that looked at years averaging over 50 with the bat and under 30 with the ball

Two points.
Firstly, this exercise wasn't intended to favour bowlers and I subsequently applied different parameters.
Secondly, it could be argued that any set of statistics are 'inherently biased' to a degree.

 

[Line and Length]

Kallis did have two seasons where he met the 30/25 criteria (1999/00, 2002/03). Those wouldn't span a full 12-month period but do perhaps raise the question as to whether a calendar year is an appropriate cut-off.

You raise a very valid point. It becomes a difficult exercise checking full 12 month periods as opposed to calendar years. I sadly didn't have the time to do the former but I'd be more than happy if someone could supply such data.

 

[Dendarii]

You raise a very valid point. It becomes a difficult exercise checking full 12 month periods as opposed to calendar years. I sadly didn't have the time to do the former but I'd be more than happy if someone could supply such data.

Yeah, I appreciate that it's a lot more work to do it that way. It's a nice thought though as having that data would also allow further exploration with things like extending it to a longer period or seeing who had the longest run of ATG performances.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Getting back to the original theme, let's look at great all-round performances in a calendar year. Here, in alphabetical order, are the players and their possibly finest calendar year as an all rounder.

Player	Year	Batting	Bowling
Botham	1978	597 @ 39.80	78 @ 18.20
Dev	1979	619 @ 30.95	74 @ 22.96
Hadlee	1987	336 @ 49.85	39 @ 20.74
Imran	1982	393 @49.13	62 @ 13.29
Kallis	2001	1120 @ 70.00	35 @ 26.66
Miller	1951	568 @ 51.64	25 @ 24.44
Pollock	2001	573 @ 52.09	55 @ 21.38
Sobers	1966	895 @ 99.44	32 @ 24.00

Kyle Jamieson's FIRST calendar year in test cricket:

2020 196 runs @ 49.00 and 25 wickets @ 14.44

I daresay Jadeja, Ashwin, and Holder have done this more than once and perhaps Shakib and Stokes (not sure about the bowling for those two).