• 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.

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

ataraxia

International Coach
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

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

SillyCowCorner1

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Outstanding in every facet of the game, the role of a gun fielder is increasingly becoming a point of emphasis.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
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

International Coach
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

Cricketer Of The Year
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?
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
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

Hall of Fame Member
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

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
 

Top