The true all-rounder

[Evilhoopler]

I think a bowler that can bat is as good as an all-rounder. IMO Johnson is one of the best all rounders in the world at the moment. He has potential to be a front line bowler, and bat at 6. He takes it as a bit of fun, if he took it seriously, he could bat as well as symonds, and be a much better bowler.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Loved it when Cairns got going. Sort of like watching a senior cricketer facing an U/16 side, had ridiculous power from real cricket shots.

 

[NUFAN]

Shahid Afridi ODI

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Loved it when Cairns got going. Sort of like watching a senior cricketer facing an U/16 side, had ridiculous power from real cricket shots.

Yeah, some of my favourite cricket memories are of Cairns when he just got into the zone. He and Zulu are the only two cricketers that I've witnessed in my time that could make the opposition look 14 years old with the smallest of effort.

 

[TT Boy]

he is a batsman who could bowl; a kind of steve waugh who continued to bowl throughout his career. full fledged all rounder? dont think so.

Bit more than that. I mean he was good enough to open the bowling for South Africa, in an era when they had a number of decent seamers about.

Just remember his bowling in the 1999 WC, it was definitely more than a leisurely pasttime.

 

[zaremba]

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.

Are you really claiming that Sobers wasn't an all-rounder? Without wishing to reignite the amazingly tedious threads that we've had on Sobers-related subjects recently, I'd suggest this means that your (or Richard's) definition of all-rounder must be wrong if Sobers isn't regarded as an all-rounder.

Imagine if Sobers was playing in club cricket, where he was the best bowler and the best batsman in the team. Would he be an all-rounder even then? No, according to Richard's definition, because his ability with the bat comfortably exceeds his ability with the ball. That can't be right, surely.

Richard's theory also makes no allowance for someone who's equally untalented with bat and ball. From time to time in my club team we make up the numbers with someone who can't bowl, can't field and can't bat. In my book, he's no all-rounder...

 

[Uppercut]

Are you really claiming that Sobers wasn't an all-rounder? Without wishing to reignite the amazingly tedious threads that we've had on Sobers-related subjects recently, I'd suggest this means that your (or Richard's) definition of all-rounder must be wrong if Sobers isn't regarded as an all-rounder.

Imagine if Sobers was playing in club cricket, where he was the best bowler and the best batsman in the team. Would he be an all-rounder even then? No, according to Richard's definition, because his ability with the bat comfortably exceeds his ability with the ball. That can't be right, surely.

Richard's theory also makes no allowance for someone who's equally untalented with bat and ball. From time to time in my club team we make up the numbers with someone who can't bowl, can't field and can't bat. In my book, he's no all-rounder...

I'm not too fussed on Sobers in particular. You could pick him to play either role if you wanted to.

But you seem to think by "not an all-rounder" we're trying to denigrate his ability, which isn't the case. They're just two different roles in a cricket team. If I were to say Patrick Vieira wasn't a defender would you immediately deny that simply because in low-level football he could do a job there better than anyone else?

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Miller
Sobers
C Cairns
Faulkner
Botham
Reid
Gregory?

 

[zaremba]

I'm not too fussed on Sobers in particular. You could pick him to play either role if you wanted to.

But you seem to think by "not an all-rounder" we're trying to denigrate his ability, which isn't the case. They're just two different roles in a cricket team. If I were to say Patrick Vieira wasn't a defender would you immediately deny that simply because in low-level football he could do a job there better than anyone else?

No, the simple point is that you can be an all-rounder without being equally good in both disciplines - and that's the central reason why I disagree with Richard's definition.

You can test the point by looking at a series of great all-rounders.

WG Grace - better with bat than ball

Sobers - ditto

Kapil Dev - better with ball than bat

Hadlee - ditto

By Richard's definition, these are not all-rounders (!) because their batting skills are not of broadly the same quality as their batting skills. And yet, quite plainly, they are all-rounders - and among the very best all-rounders that there have ever been. These examples show Richard's definition to be so flawed that I just can't accept it.

 

[zaremba]

I'm not too fussed on Sobers in particular. You could pick him to play either role if you wanted to.

NB this is a different definition to Richard's...

 

[Uppercut]

Well i'm just drawing a line between Kapil Dev, who was picked for both his batting and his bowling, and Mitchell Johnson, who is picked exclusively for his bowling but happens to be excellent with the bat too. One i'd call an all-rounder, the other a bowler.

 

[fredfertang]

Trevor Bailey?

His batting average was higher than his bowling average (not by much mind) but he’d surely never have been picked as a batsman and if he just bowled his opportunities would have been limited by two or more of Bedser, Trueman, Statham or Tyson always being ahead of him – despite that at the time of his last test only Compton, Evans, Hammond, Hutton and Woolley had played more often for England

You don’t need to be as good as the specialists to be a successful all rounder – you simply need, to borrow a phrase from Chris Cowdrey, to be good enough

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, that's one definition i've got used to over the years, all-rounders should have a higher batting average than bowling average. But that would mean someone like Tendulkar fits the bill IIRC, so it's somewhat flawed, but it's a decent basis

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, that's one definition i've got used to over the years, all-rounders should have a higher batting average than bowling average. But that would mean someone like Tendulkar fits the bill IIRC, so it's somewhat flawed, but it's a decent basis

Tends to undervalue bowling all-rounders in comparison to batting all-rounders though.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, that's one definition i've got used to over the years, all-rounders should have a higher batting average than bowling average. But that would mean someone like Tendulkar fits the bill IIRC, so it's somewhat flawed, but it's a decent basis

It's more a measure of an all-rounder's performance (and generally speaking a pretty good one) rather than a definition, though. Andrew Flintoff is clearly an all-rounder but his batting average is lower than his bowling average.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, that's one definition i've got used to over the years, all-rounders should have a higher batting average than bowling average. But that would mean someone like Tendulkar fits the bill IIRC, so it's somewhat flawed, but it's a decent basis

Micheal Hussey and Ian Bell in FC cricket
Donald Bradman
Ricky Ponting

Were 4 who sprang to my mind that might possibly fit the bill... and all 4 do.
However, Paul Collingwood can only be classified as a T20 all rounder???

That definition certainly doesn't work.

 

[zaremba]

Well i'm just drawing a line between Kapil Dev, who was picked for both his batting and his bowling, and Mitchell Johnson, who is picked exclusively for his bowling but happens to be excellent with the bat too. One i'd call an all-rounder, the other a bowler.

I know what you mean but I'm still struggling to see how the distinction works in practice. Kapil would have been picked for India as a bowler throughout his career even if his batting had been of Chris Martin standard. And if there were other bowlers of similar ability to Johnson available to Australia, but whose batting was weaker, his batting would be taken into account by the selectors in picking him.

There's no really simple definition of an all-rounder that I have come across which adequately describes who is, and who isn't, an all-rounder. Perhaps they are like elephants - easier to recognise than to define.

 

[rivera213]

You could judge by looking at averages.

A true allrounder should have career batting average of 30+ and a bowling average of 30- which equates to:

Ian Botham (33.54 and 28.40 even though his last 7 years were injury plagued!)
Imran Khan (37.69 and 22.81- certainly case for being THE best A.R)
Kapil Dev (31.05 and 29.64)
Keith Miller (36.97 and 22.97)

being true allrounders and:

Garfield Sobers (57.78 and 34.03)
Richard Hadlee (27.16 and 22.29)
Jacques Kallis (54.66 and 31.08)

Not being TRUE allrounders (though the stats aren't exactly bad! Lol)

I'm not a fan of stats being the be-all and end-all, but I've often regarded Hadlee as a bowler who could bat and Sobers and Kallis as batsmen who could/can bowl.

Discuss.

EDIT: Needless to say, they'd have to be 1 of the top 6 batsmen as well as being 1 of the 5 bowlers every innings to qualify.

 

[zaremba]

Actually not a bad rule of thumb.

 

[GIMH]

It's more a measure of an all-rounder's performance (and generally speaking a pretty good one) rather than a definition, though. Andrew Flintoff is clearly an all-rounder but his batting average is lower than his bowling average.

Yeah - was gonna mention Flintoff. At his 04-06 peak, his batting average was indeed higher than his bowling average, but generally wasn't before and hasn't been since.