Test All Rounders - A Statistical Look

[Line and Length]

It has been said that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" and this may well apply to what I am about to do. However, on the other side of the coin, "You can't argue with facts."

For the point of this exercise I defined a Test All Rounder as a player who has scored over 1000 runs and taken over 50 wickets. I might add that it is possible I overlooked one or two players who would have taken between 50 and 99 wickets. The player who was perhaps unluckiest to miss out here was Mike Procter with the boycott eroding much of his Test career.

The next criteria applied was a batting average in excess of 25 which said goodbye to perceived all-rounders in Richie Benaud (24,45) and Wasim Akram (22.64) and a bowling average less than 40 which precluded Ravi Shastri (40.96).

Finally there had to be a positive result after subtracting the bowling average from the batting average. Goodbye Andrew Flintoff (-1.10), Vinoo Mankad (-0.85), Ifran Pathan (-0.69), Daniel Vettori (-4.36), Moeen Ali (-7.62) and Abdul Razzaq (-8.33).

This left me with 21 names and I don't think there would be too many arguments about the top 4 names deserving to be listed as ATG all rounders in Test cricket. There may be a few surprises after that.

Here are the 21 in order:

Garfield Sobers +23.75
Jacques Kallis + 22.72 (I'm surprised he got this close to Sobers)
Imran Khan +14.88
Keith Miller + 14.00
Ted Dexter +12.96 (the 50 wickets qualification was, perhaps, too low)
Shaun Pollock +9.20
Ravindra Jadeja +10.64
Shakib Al Hasan +8.38
Trevor Goddard +8.24
Tony Greig +8.23 (rounding out a Top 10 which has a few surprises)

Jason Holder +6.35
Monty Noble +5.25
Ian Botham +5.14
Richard Hadlee +4.87
Chris Cairns +4.13
Ben Stokes +3.86
Wilfred Rhodes +3.23
Ravi Ashwin +2.67
Shane Watson +1.51
Kapil Dev +1.45
Trevor Bailey +0.53

I'm sure followers of Botham, Hadlee and Dev will be shaking their heads at my methodology but there is no way of putting a number on an intangible such as impact.

I apologise for any omissions/oversights and/or mathematical miscalculations and look forward to your opinions on the list of 21 Test all rounders.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Jacob Oram 3.59 is an obvious omission

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Brian McMillan is another one +5 (best allrounder in the world in the early 90s

If Ted Dexter qualifies then Wally Hammond and Steve Waugh should be included near Sobers and Kallis as batting allrounders. Perhaps you need wickets per match.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Also Colin De Grandhomme is on 47 wickets or else he'd be on your list too (37.03 with the bat and 31.63 with the ball).

 

[Flametree]

Er, ever hear of a player called George Faulkner?

How about Jack Gregory?

Asif Iqbal, Frank Worrell, and Billy Bates all score +10 on your measure.

Other qualifiers are Kelleway, Ulyett, Wasim Raja, Jayasuriya, Gomez

While Doug Walters is one wicket away from being third on your list....

 

[Line and Length]

Thanks! I'm no investigating and adding!

 

[Line and Length]

I'm back again. My initial investigation looked at a qualification of 1000 runs and 100 wickets but then I got sidetracked reading an article on Dexter and decided to make the qualification 50 wickets. In my haste I overlooked obvious candidates in Hammond and Steve Waugh.

Perhaps you need wickets per match.

An excellent idea! If I make it at least one wicket per match I surprisingly bar both Hammond and Waugh but Dexter remains. A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere!
From that ruling, Asif Iqbal, Saneth Jayasuriya and Wasim Raja are also excluded.
Others suggested who miss out are Bates and Ulyett (insufficient runs).

Nevertheless, thanks to the work of Fuller Pilch (great historic name that) and Flametree, my list is expanded to 28 and is set out below.

Garfield Sobers +23.75
Jacques Kallis +22.72
Imran Khan +14.88
Aubrey Faulkner +14.20
Keith Miller + 14.00
Ted Dexter +12.96
Frank Worrell +10.76
Ravindra Jadeja +10.64
Shaun Pollock +9.20
Shakib Al Hasan +8.38

Trevor Goddard +8.24
Tony Greig +8.23
Jason Holder +6.35
Jack Gregory +5.83
Brian McMillan +5.53
Monty Noble +5.25
Ian Botham +5.14
Charlie Kellaway + 5.06
Richard Hadlee +4.87
Chris Cairns +4.13

Ben Stokes +3.86
Jacob Oram +3.27
Wilfred Rhodes +3.23
Gerry Gomez +2.90
Ravi Ashwin +2.67
Shane Watson +1.51
Kapil Dev +1.45
Trevor Bailey +0.53

I feel bad about leaving out Hammond and Waugh (scores of +20.65 and +13.62 respectively) but the minimum of one wicket per match is quite generous.

Thanks again for the help and I'm more than open to further nominations and comments.

 

[honestbharani]

Why is Pollock coming above Jadeja and Worrell?

 

[mr_mister]

Unfortunately it helps batting allrounders too much

Nearly all ATG bowlers range from 20-25

Nearly all ATG batsmen range from 45-60

 

[h_hurricane]

I would say ratio of batting average to bowling average is a better metric than the difference.

 

[Line and Length]

Why is Pollock coming above Jadeja and Worrell?

Oops. Typo fixed!

 

[stephen]

I would say ratio of batting average to bowling average is a better metric than the difference.

I'm not even sure that is the case. For me, the best all rounders are players that add more value to a team than a specialist.

Look at Mitch Marsh for example. Does he add more to a team than say Patterson or Head or Neser would? I'm not sure he does, and what he does add is inconsistent - most of the time it's nothing, sometimes it's a couple of wickets, sometimes (rarely) it's a few runs.

Compare that to someone like Shane Watson. He was arguably good enough to be picked as a batsman alone and his bowling was a bonus. Or Pollock. Pollock was always going to be picked even if he batted like McGrath. His batting was a very nice bonus.

An interesting one is Carl Hooper. Her played for years as the West Indies primary spinner. Sure he was garbage at the job, but he was also a capable batsman. The West Indies got a lot more out of him than they would have gotten out of a specialist in either discipline.

The worse a team, or the weaker a team's options to cover a particular role, the more benefit that team gets out of an all rounder. Jacques Kallis is going to benefit a club side far more than Steve Smith would.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not even sure that is the case. For me, the best all rounders are players that add more value to a team than a specialist.

Look at Mitch Marsh for example. Does he add more to a team than say Patterson or Head or Neser would? I'm not sure he does, and what he does add is inconsistent - most of the time it's nothing, sometimes it's a couple of wickets, sometimes (rarely) it's a few runs.

Compare that to someone like Shane Watson. He was arguably good enough to be picked as a batsman alone and his bowling was a bonus. Or Pollock. Pollock was always going to be picked even if he batted like McGrath. His batting was a very nice bonus.

An interesting one is Carl Hooper. Her played for years as the West Indies primary spinner. Sure he was garbage at the job, but he was also a capable batsman. The West Indies got a lot more out of him than they would have gotten out of a specialist in either discipline.

The worse a team, or the weaker a team's options to cover a particular role, the more benefit that team gets out of an all rounder. Jacques Kallis is going to benefit a club side far more than Steve Smith would.

Jacques Kallis would probably benefit any side more than Steve Smith would tbf

unless they're already full of bowling options, or if they were really strong already and needed quicker scoring

 

[Bolo.]

Jacques Kallis would probably benefit any side more than Steve Smith would tbf

unless they're already full of bowling options, or if they were really strong already and needed quicker scoring

Every side could use a batting AR, and hardly any have had a top draw one.

The example works better on bits and pieces players, where Stokes for example might be a better pick than Smith at a club level.

 

[cnerd123]

Shakib > Botham

I've been saying it all along

 

[cnerd123]

Jacques Kallis is going to benefit a club side far more than Steve Smith would.

IDK about that. Troll legspin is pretty h4x in club cricket

 

[StephenZA]

Who the hell is George Faulkner? I`m pretty sure you mean Aubrey...

Edit: Apologies, I just realised his first name was George. Never heard him called that before, does not even appear in google when I search for George Faulkner!

 

[Line and Length]

Who the hell is George Faulkner? I`m pretty sure you mean Aubrey...

Edit: Apologies, I just realised his first name was George. Never heard him called that before, does not even appear in google when I search for George Faulkner!

It had me foxed too when Flametree threw the name in. It helps to add "cricketer" after a name when searching.

 

[Line and Length]

Shakib > Botham

I've been saying it all along

Nice try. This was a statistical exercise and stats don't indicate the strength (or weakness) of the opposition.

Having said that, he fully deserves the rankings he has achieved in the ICC player rankings.

 

[StephenZA]

It had me foxed too when Flametree threw the name in. It helps to add "cricketer" after a name when searching.

If you type in Aubrey you get him straight away (at least here in SA). He was SA first really great cricketer. Maybe, along with Vogler and Jimmy Sinclair. I don't think I have never heard him called anything but Aubrey.