What are the minimum record requirements for secondary disciplines to qualify someone as an all-rounder?

[subshakerz]

As the title suggests. Based on average and output, what would get them over the line?

 

[OverratedSanity]

There is no mimimum requirement. It's about their role and whether they are picked to be an all rounder or not. How good they are is irrelevant.

Rajendra Chandrika was absolutely a specialist batsman. He was absolute ****e at it.

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah in a made-up ATG team context it's perfectly reasonable to call Hadlee a specialist bowler despite him being a better batter than Chandrika at test level.

 

[kyear2]

Once you bowl regularly and contribute with the ball. Hammond, Simpson are all good enough to qualify for me.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Outstanding in every facet of the game, the role of a gun fielder is increasingly becoming a point of emphasis.

 

[Starfighter]

Outstanding in every facet of the game, the role of a gun fielder is increasingly becoming a point of emphasis.

I think you missed the word 'minimum'

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I think you missed the word 'minimum'

50 dismissals in the field

 

[subshakerz]

Once you bowl regularly and contribute with the ball. Hammond, Simpson are all good enough to qualify for me.

So its regularity rather than load and output that qualifies for an all-rounder?

 

[kyear2]

An all rounder is a very subjective term, I've seen such ridiculous definitions as averaging 50 a d two wickets per match.

For me it's anyone who contributes with the ball and bat. Let's say at least score a 50 and take a 5fer. Let's say 1 wicket per match min.

 

[kyear2]

Let's also say, I've seen Mark Taylor and even Graeme Smith referred to as all rounders (a designation you're well aware I agree with) being specialists batsmen and especially Taylor, tremendous slip fielders.

Again, very subjective

 

[subshakerz]

An all rounder is a very subjective term, I've seen such ridiculous definitions as averaging 50 a d two wickets per match.

For me it's anyone who contributes with the ball and bat. Let's say at least score a 50 and take a 5fer. Let's say 1 wicket per match min.

My definition of an all-rounder is someone capable of batting consistently in the top 7 and bowling among five bowlers in most normal teams. I agree though it is subjective, I see it more as a role.

 

[subshakerz]

Let's also say, I've seen Mark Taylor and even Graeme Smith referred to as all rounders (a designation you're well aware I agree with) being specialists batsmen and especially Taylor, tremendous slip fielders.

Again, very subjective

I have never heard Taylor and Smith referred to as all-rounders.

 

[kyear2]

My definition of an all-rounder is someone capable of batting consistently in the top 7 and bowling among five bowlers in most normal teams. I agree though it is subjective, I see it more as a role.

So how does Hammond not qualify?

 

[kyear2]

I have never heard Taylor and Smith referred to as all-rounders.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There is no mimimum requirement. It's about their role and whether they are picked to be an all rounder or not. How good they are is irrelevant.

Agree. Look at all the players England picked when trying to find the "new Botham". Some were terrible at test level but allrounders at 1st class level as that was their role.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Let's also say, I've seen Mark Taylor and even Graeme Smith referred to as all rounders

Well he was known as Tubby Taylor and Smith was a big bloke, so that would be the only way they'd be allrounders.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Ross Taylor could be an allrounder by this logic. Pretty good slip fielder as well as a bowling average of 16. Along with Hadlee, Murali, and McGrath he took a wicket with his last ball in test cricket.

 

[kyear2]

Ross Taylor could be an allrounder by this logic. Pretty good slip fielder as well as a bowling average of 16. Along with Hadlee, Murali, and McGrath he took a wicket with his last ball in test cricket.

I am not pushing the terminology. I just refer to them as all round players.

 

[subshakerz]

I am not pushing the terminology. I just refer to them as all round players.

That is something different. I would call ABD, Viv all-round players.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah Hammond would be a good shout as a 5th bowler in most historical sides.

Would fit right in around that Green/Marsh level for current Aus for example.