Your countries first 3 xis of your era

[bagapath]

India has produced only two world class all rounders at test level: kapil dev and vinoo mankad.
And kapil dev played in this era. So apart from the team with him other teams are bound to suffer in terms of balance

I would be happy to swap kapil and dhoni. And ashwin and jadeja. And open with rohit for team c.

 

[stephen]

Jadeja is a world class all rounder. average of 35/24 is ridiculous even if he doesn't get many overseas tests. 30/30 is the measure of a world class all rounder.

 

[bagapath]

i am going to take my shot at the aussies as well...

AustraliA

Hayden
Taylor
Ponting
Smith
S. Waugh
Border *
Gilchrist +
Warne
Johnson
Harris
McGrath


AustraliB

Langer
Warner
Boon
M Waugh
M Clarke *
M Hussey
Healy +
Gillespie
McDermott
McGill
Reid

AustraliC

Slater
Katich
Labuschagne
Jones
Martyn
Watson
Haddin +
Starc
Lyon
Cummins
Hughes

 

[bagapath]

Jadeja is a world class all rounder. average of 35/24 is ridiculous even if he doesn't get many overseas tests. 30/30 is the measure of a world class all rounder.

not sure if even Shaun Pollock was an allrounder in my books. Ability to score hundreds is a big factor to be called an allrounder, i will say. 3/4 centuries in the kitty would make jadeja an automatic no 6 for me. he has the potential for sure. but he is not there yet. he is a better batsman than ashwin, who is also definitely not bad with the bat.

 

[Saint Kopite]

Revised

IndiA

Gavaskar
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Kohli
Kapil Dev (1)
Dhoni *+
Kumble (5)
Srinath (2)
Zaheer (3)
Bumrah (4)

I would take one of Srinath or Bumrah out for Ashwin or Jadeja.

That line-up could use Ashwin's or Jadeja's extra batting and also, 4 seamers in an Indian team feels overkill.

Zak is possibly the weakest test bowler out of Kapil, Srinath and Bumrah. But a lefty provides a different dimension to the attack and he is possibly the best at reverse swing in that list.

I would personally with Kapil, Srinath, Zak, Kumble and Ashwin.

That has off spin, leg spin, left arm pacer, right arm pacer, can provide orthodox swing as well as reverse swing.

That

 

[stephen]

not sure if even Shaun Pollock was an allrounder in my books. Ability to score hundreds is a big factor to be called an allrounder, i will say. 3/4 centuries in the kitty would make jadeja an automatic no 6 for me. he has the potential for sure. but he is not there yet. he is a better batsman than ashwin, who is also definitely not bad with the bat.

Honestly if Jadeja can't be called a genuine all rounder when he's averaging mid 30s with the bat and mid 20s with the ball then the only true all rounders are Sobers, Kallis and maybe Botham.

Any all rounder who averages more with the bat than with the ball is a huge boon to any team. Very few bowling all rounders are able to do that. For me the bar for being a "genuine" all rounder is taking 1+ wpm and averaging 30+ with the bat. That lets you bat 6,7 or 8 and helps balance the team's weaknesses. Mitch Marsh is a failure at test level only because he's quite a bit short on the runs required. Watson was a genuine all rounder despite being massively frustrating because he did average 30+ and took >1 wpm.

 

[honestbharani]

Its interesting you bring up Watson, Stephen. I was trying to think of the top 3 Aussie sides in my time of watching. I think I might have the 3rd XI open with Warner and Watson (Hayden and Langer for the first, Taylor and Slater for the second). You think I am missing anyone good or Watson good enough to play as an opener for the third XI, accepting that his bowling is gonna be useful.

 

[stephen]

Rogers, Katich and Jaques.

 

[honestbharani]

Katich is a good shout but I wont put Jacques or Rogers above Watson.

EDIT: Well, Rogers maybe but not Jacques.

 

[marc71178]

Honestly if Jadeja can't be called a genuine all rounder when he's averaging mid 30s with the bat and mid 20s with the ball then the only true all rounders are Sobers, Kallis and maybe Botham.

Any all rounder who averages more with the bat than with the ball is a huge boon to any team. Very few bowling all rounders are able to do that. For me the bar for being a "genuine" all rounder is taking 1+ wpm and averaging 30+ with the bat. That lets you bat 6,7 or 8 and helps balance the team's weaknesses. Mitch Marsh is a failure at test level only because he's quite a bit short on the runs required. Watson was a genuine all rounder despite being massively frustrating because he did average 30+ and took >1 wpm.

I’ve see some relaxed definitions for an all rounder but 1 wicket per match is by far the worst yet.

 

[honestbharani]

Murali Vijay, then?

Or let Shastri open

Yeah Shastri is a good choice.

 

[stephen]

I’ve see some relaxed definitions for an all rounder but 1 wicket per match is by far the worst yet.

You would be surprised how few players in history this definition covers.

 

[marc71178]

You would be surprised how few players in history this definition covers.

Still doesn’t make them an all rounder to me.

 

[honestbharani]

How about a batting average of 30+ and wickets per match of 2 or more?

 

[stephen]

Here is the full list of the 57 players in history that have taken 50+ wickets and have a batting average >30.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...alval2=wickets;template=results;type=allround

 

[stephen]

Someone like Frank Worrall or Shane Watson only took just over 1 wpm but I'd still call them all rounders.

 

[stephen]

How about a batting average of 30+ and wickets per match of 2 or more?

This excludes Kallis as an all rounder.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah but it also points out the number of times he did not bowl as much. But yeah, I get what you mean. Maybe 1.5 wickets per match?

 

[bagapath]

for me it is more about the number of times they have created an impact with either bat or ball... then eventually you've to get into averages and home vs away record etc etc to split them further and rank them.

if a player has the ability to score a forty or fifty or take three-four wickets in an innings often, then he is making an impact with either of the skills, and he is an all-rounder. This is my definition.

I consider Miller and Botham to be the purest all-rounders. they often contributed with the bat or ball. With kapil and shakib right behind them. Imran is a great bowler and a useful bat. Hadlee is a bowling all-rounder, so is Shaun pollock. Sobers and Kallis are batting allrounders. this is how i see them.


With Covid 19 changing this world's demographics, I want this to be put on record for future generations.

 

[trundler]

It's interesting how the pacers and openers for Australian are basically interchangeable between the 3 sides based on personal opinion