• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The true all-rounder

Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The problem with that definition is, Dwayne Bravo is certainly an all-rounder but you could argue is not one of the top six batsmen or top four bowlers in the West Indies. You pick him anyway of course, because he helps your side win cricket matches (which is all that matters, i'm not having all this idealistic crap about "must be good enough to make the side on one discipline alone").
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Debris said:
A true all-rounder is a player who is in the top 6 batsman and the top 4 bowlers for his country. Just wondering how many cricketers people would consider to be in this category for a extended period, say at least 5 years. I am not sure that I can confidently say that anyone from the major test playing nations has fit this qualiification.
Gary Sobers seems to be closest but was he really in the Windies top 4 bowlers. Obviously the stronger the country, the harder it is.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this. Are there any cricketers who have filled this qualification?
Click to expand...
Given Albie Morkel played for South Africa as a specialist bowler recently, Kallis is probably a decent shout at the moment.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Prince EWS said:
Given Albie Morkel played for South Africa as a specialist bowler recently, Kallis is probably a decent shout at the moment.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't have if it weren't for his lower order batting though.

That said, Kallis's experience probably makes him every bit as good a bet to take wickets as anyone else they pick outside their first choices. He was their best bowler on the successful tour of England remember- nabbed KP early three times- quite underrated as a bowler IMO. He's cast as a "defensive bowler" or "partnership breaker" when all these things mean is that Smith brings him on to bowl when his side aren't on top i.e. at the most difficult times.

Is he better at bowling than Morne Morkel? At the moment, probably. So yeah, Kallis is a good shout.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
ret said:
according to that definition, Gilly can not be counted as an all-rounder!
Click to expand...
Of course he can't. Gilchrist was a wicketkeeper-batsman (or probably more accurate to say batsman-wicketkeeper), not an all-rounder. BIG difference.

Anyway I've always said that an all-rounder is someone roughly equal in batting and bowling skill. Khaled Mahmud was an all-rounder, he just wasn't (by international standards) a very good one, same way Anwar Hossain Monir wasn't a very good bowler and Mohammad Ashraful isn't a very good batsman.

The very best all-rounders would indeed be good enough to play Test cricket purely as either bowler or batsman, but such all-rounders are exceptionally rare. All-rounders good enough to be in their country's top-five batsman list and top-five bowler list might well be virtually unheard-of.

Imran Khan between '80/81 and '88/89 might, just, have been such a thing for Pakistan. But it'd be hard to say conclusively that he was better with bat than all of Javed, Zaheer, Majid, whoever else was playing at the time. Clearly with ball he's better than any other Pakistani.

Likewise was Botham of '78-'84 really one of the best batsmen in England? Possibly, but can we say for sure he was better than Gooch, Boycott, Gower, etc.? No.

Sobers is about the only one who might qualify, from serious Test teams of the 1930s onwards. Even Keith Miller must've been precious rarely among the best batsmen in his teams, given they contained the likes of Barnes, Morris, Hassett, Bradman, Loxton, Harvey etc.

Sobers, BTW, was most certainly one of the best four bowlers in West Indies between, perhaps, '61/62 and '73. Before then he wasn't much of a bowler. And clearly he was THE best batsman in West Indies between '58 and '73. He's perfectly possibly the best batsman in West Indian history.

I suppose Kallis of '97/98-'03 or so might, just, qualify.

I think the question posed is an unrealistic one. World-class all-rounders, who are good enough to play Test cricket as batsmen and bowlers simualtaneously, are exceptionally rare: Hirst, Noble, Miller, Sobers, Imran Khan, Botham. Even Kapil Dev doesn't even qualify IMO - who seriously thinks that, at any point, he'd have played for India purely as a batsman given the wealth of quality batting they've virtually always had to choose from?

Test-class all-rounders and World-class all-rounders are different things. Jacob Oram and Andrew Flintoff are the former; precious few have ever been the latter.
 
Debris

Debris

International 12th Man
I realise that it is a fairly unrealistic standard to set for an all-rounder. It came out of an argument I was having about how it is almost impossible to master 2 different disciplines to world standard.

I hadn't thought about Sobers versatility. That might push him over the line for me. Still not convinced about any of the others. I am sure that SA can find 4 bowlers better than Kallis, for instance.

Wicket-keepers are a whole other topic, although I am pretty sure that Gilly was never the best wicket-keeper Australia had available.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Between 1995/96 and 2003, I'd be surprised if there were four convincingly better bowlers in South Africa than Kallis.

Pollock always was, of course; Donald was until 2001; Klusener very briefly (like, a year or two) was; Hayward, maybe (and only maybe) for a year or two; possibly Ntini from 2000/01 onwards (ie, essentially as a replacement for Donald) and with Ntini he was miles better one season and miles worse the next.

In 1998, for example, Kallis was the third seamer. It was Donald, Pollock, Kallis, Klusener. Even despite the fact Kallis was easily good enough to play as a number-three batsman.

Kallis as a batsman was never close to Sobers' level for mine, but as an all-round package he is probably in an elite group of two with him. Likewise, Miller and Imran are in an elite group of two of their own, a group which Botham might have joined had he had a better attitude to practice and physical conditioning and which Hirst might have been in much earlier had he actually been handled well by England selectors.
 
sanga1337

sanga1337

U19 Captain
Aubrey Faulkner? Had a great record and I can't say the South African team he played in was particularly strong either.
 
Debris

Debris

International 12th Man
You may be right. I have always thought of SA having an endless supply of good seam bowlers but behind the big three of Pollock, Donald and Ntini they had very little. Kallis might sneak in.

Would SA have picked him as a bowler if he averaged 5 with the bat? Interesting thought.
 
Last edited:
J

James_W

U19 Vice-Captain
Uppercut said:
The problem with that definition is, Dwayne Bravo is certainly an all-rounder but you could argue is not one of the top six batsmen or top four bowlers in the West Indies. You pick him anyway of course, because he helps your side win cricket matches (which is all that matters, i'm not having all this idealistic crap about "must be good enough to make the side on one discipline alone").
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, not buying that for a second.

How can someone win a cricket match (which matters, obviously) if they cannot contribute significantly with either bat or ball? About Bravo;

Would he make the West Indies side in either format based on batting alone? Yes, definately.

Would he make the West Indies side in either format based on bowling alone? Yes, definately.

Of course, in my opinion. But that really is because West Indies, apart from a few players, are quite poo. Would I define him as a genuine all-rounder if he were South African, Australian or Indian? Not at all a far as test cricket is concerned, perhaps an argument could be made for ODI's though.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Uppercut said:
Yes. If you're interested, here is the South African seamers' respective records over the past year. With Kallis sitting pretty in second place, only just behind Dale Steyn.

Very underrated bowler IMO.
Click to expand...
Underrated, yes, but there's no chance he would find a place in a South African side if he were just a bowler (maybe in New Zealand though). As it is though, he serves the fourth seamer function just fine. The idea of a batsman getting a handy wicket or two regularly each game is such a boon...
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
subshakerz said:
Underrated, yes, but there's no chance he would find a place in a South African side if he were just a bowler (maybe in New Zealand though). As it is though, he serves the fourth seamer function just fine. The idea of a batsman getting a handy wicket or two regularly each game is such a boon...
Click to expand...
Bah, that just means he bowls at the worst possible times. When batsmen are set, when there's a partnership that needs to be broken, when the other bowlers aren't doing the job, when the other team is on top. This is when the ball is thrown to Kallis. Surely if he was a mainline seamer, and hence got to bowl when batsmen were new, when tail-enders were at the crease, when the ball still had some shine and when South Africa were well on top, he'd have an even better record?
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
zaremba said:
... which would make Craig White an all-rounder, but not Garry Sobers. :unsure:
Click to expand...
Indeed it would, and i see his point. "All-rounder" isn't an honorary title given to excellent players, it's one of four roles a player can have in a side. Craig White was picked as an all-rounder, taking all of his skills into account, whereas Sobers was most often picked as a batsman and happened to have other useful skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top