-
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.
Which players you think are not considered all rounders but their stat is like all rounders? (Considering their era )
- Thread starter kohen
- Start date
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Similar bowler to Doug Walters (but not as good)
Remember Butch cleaning up the Aussie tail in a Test in 2001 finishing with 4 for not many (declaration batting). Handy little outswingers though well suited to Country cricket so not surprised he would have a decent FC average tbh
yes definitely county level, but i thought he might work fir this thread since he is remembered as an opening bat yet had a better bowling average than his teammate and supposed 'bowling allrounder' Chris Lewis.
Jane Austen
State 12th Man
Would anyone on this forum seriously describe Basil Butcher,Allan Border,Virendhar Sehwag,Marcus North,Michael Clarke,Kraigg Brathwaite,or Chris Gayle as all-rounders? They all took a Test 5-for.
Xenophon Balaskas,Nasim-ul-Ghani,John Bracewell,Anil Kumble,Pat Symcox,Saqlain Mushtaq,Jason Gillespie,Harbajhan Singh,Jerome Taylor,Mohammad Rafique,Abul Hasan,Yasir Shah and Gus Atkinson all made Test centuries.Are they all-rounders?
In fairness to Kumble he made about 8 first-class centuries.
Jerome Taylor is one of only two players to make a Test century having never previously made even a first-class fifty ( the other being his namesake Bruce Taylor who made his maiden Test century on debut AND also took a 5-for!!).
Yasir Shah's century which was v Australia,was honestly the worst hundred I've EVER seen.
Abul Hasan made his century batting at no 10,having been picked as an opening bowler,and only played three Tests.
Pat Symcox also made his sole Test century batting at no 10.He was a very competent off-spinner but never took a 5-for in twenty Tests.The only other players to score a Test century batting at no 10 were genuine batters.The first was WW Read a stroke-playing amateur,and the other was brilliant dasher Reggie Duff on debut.He and Victor Trumper proved to be a dazzling opening partnership for Australia in the first decade of the 20th century.
Of all those who have played a Test,and no matter what the reason may be, who is the greatest batter never to have made a Test century? My pick is Mike Procter.
Best bowler to have played Test cricket and never taken a 5-for? Charlie Parker for me.3278 first-class wickets (only Wilfred Rhodes and 'Tich' Freeman have taken more) Charlie probably made a wrong career move by pushing in front of the influential patrician MCC grandee and chairman of selectors,Sir Pelham Warner,to get into a lift and then grabbing him by the lapels of his jacket to enforce a point of view!! One Test only for the great slow-left arm bowler-----described as a bolshevik!
.
Xenophon Balaskas,Nasim-ul-Ghani,John Bracewell,Anil Kumble,Pat Symcox,Saqlain Mushtaq,Jason Gillespie,Harbajhan Singh,Jerome Taylor,Mohammad Rafique,Abul Hasan,Yasir Shah and Gus Atkinson all made Test centuries.Are they all-rounders?
In fairness to Kumble he made about 8 first-class centuries.
Jerome Taylor is one of only two players to make a Test century having never previously made even a first-class fifty ( the other being his namesake Bruce Taylor who made his maiden Test century on debut AND also took a 5-for!!).
Yasir Shah's century which was v Australia,was honestly the worst hundred I've EVER seen.
Abul Hasan made his century batting at no 10,having been picked as an opening bowler,and only played three Tests.
Pat Symcox also made his sole Test century batting at no 10.He was a very competent off-spinner but never took a 5-for in twenty Tests.The only other players to score a Test century batting at no 10 were genuine batters.The first was WW Read a stroke-playing amateur,and the other was brilliant dasher Reggie Duff on debut.He and Victor Trumper proved to be a dazzling opening partnership for Australia in the first decade of the 20th century.
Of all those who have played a Test,and no matter what the reason may be, who is the greatest batter never to have made a Test century? My pick is Mike Procter.
Best bowler to have played Test cricket and never taken a 5-for? Charlie Parker for me.3278 first-class wickets (only Wilfred Rhodes and 'Tich' Freeman have taken more) Charlie probably made a wrong career move by pushing in front of the influential patrician MCC grandee and chairman of selectors,Sir Pelham Warner,to get into a lift and then grabbing him by the lapels of his jacket to enforce a point of view!! One Test only for the great slow-left arm bowler-----described as a bolshevik!
.
Johan
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Never thought you were old enough to have seen Doug Walters, cool.
govinda indian fan
International Vice-Captain
Sachin tendulkar. He has two five wicket hauls on odis. Also joe root has 5 wickets in Ahmadabad
Jane Austen
State 12th Man
We in England were given but mere glimpses of Doug Walters' unique brilliance but it was enough,coupled with highlights of Dougie in home Ashes series,for me to adore this effervescent and cheeky batter.
He was originally picked for Australia in 65/66 more as a precocious all-rounder.The previous season,for NSW v Sth Australia,aged 19,he scored 253 and took 7 for 63 with his military medium wobblers in the same game.
I think he has taken a couple of Test 5-fors.
Despite all the fags and booze,happily he's still with us at 80,perhaps the most loved of Australian cricketers.
Last edited:
palehorse
Cricket Spectator
My shout is Chaminda Vaas. The steady evolution of his batting in the later part of his career is deeply underappreciated. Bloke literally finished his career with a superior Test average to quite a few specialist batters, designated keepers and all-rounders including Geraint Jones, Phil Simmons, Devon Smith, Dave Richardson, Chris Lewis, Stuart Williams, Mike Brearley, Nayan Mongia, Junior Murray etc. All of them have a perfectly legitimate sample size of dozens of Tests.
He even managed a better Test average than recognized bowling all-rounders like Philander, Wasim Akram and Bruce Taylor, while sitting just a fraction behind the likes of Richie Benaud, Alan Davidson and Chris Woakes.
He even managed a better Test average than recognized bowling all-rounders like Philander, Wasim Akram and Bruce Taylor, while sitting just a fraction behind the likes of Richie Benaud, Alan Davidson and Chris Woakes.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think a lot of people saw Vaas as a bowling all-rounder tbh, I know I did. If anything more so than Wasim
But Chaminda Vaas was an allrounder?
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
*Chaminda Vaas an allrounder
He became one later. His batting improved significantly as he aged, unusual for fast bowlers
Fuller Pilch
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Batting average of 44.66 and bowling average of just 16 (and one of the select few greats to take a wicket with his last ball in test cricket along with the likes of Hadlee, McGrath, and Murali):
Ross Taylor
Ross Taylor
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Malcolm Marshall, anyone?
More at FC level, possibly. Tick under 25 with the willow and seven first class tons. Coupled with a bowling average of 19.1 and it's an enticing package.
Can't honestly swear to it, but I'm pretty sure I saw him batting in the top six for Hants back when the Beeb carried live cricket. Probably Sunday League or B&H Cup, but all limited overs was played in whites back then so seemed more like proper cricket.
More at FC level, possibly. Tick under 25 with the willow and seven first class tons. Coupled with a bowling average of 19.1 and it's an enticing package.
Can't honestly swear to it, but I'm pretty sure I saw him batting in the top six for Hants back when the Beeb carried live cricket. Probably Sunday League or B&H Cup, but all limited overs was played in whites back then so seemed more like proper cricket.
palehorse
Cricket Spectator
Vaas definitely qualifies as a proper bowling all-rounder for me too. Sadly, casual fans only remember him as a handy number 8 who worked on his batting late in his career.
Look at how Cricinfo introduces Philander and Bruce Taylor. Their bios literally start with: "Vernon Philander is a powerful allrounder..." and "Bruce Taylor was a tall (6'3") allrounder..."
But for Vaas? His batting is tucked away as a footnote at the bottom of his page, describing his approach as "sincere" and labeling him just a "useful allrounder" in his later years.
Look at how Cricinfo introduces Philander and Bruce Taylor. Their bios literally start with: "Vernon Philander is a powerful allrounder..." and "Bruce Taylor was a tall (6'3") allrounder..."
But for Vaas? His batting is tucked away as a footnote at the bottom of his page, describing his approach as "sincere" and labeling him just a "useful allrounder" in his later years.
Sobers probably counts given he batted 9 in his first Test.
Charlie Macartney had the numbers of a bits and pieces player in his early career and might have been considered more useful for his bowling initially (I would be interested in the views of early cricket experts like @peterhrt on this). What is without doubt is he became an excellent batsman later on.
There will be some more but I reckon it would be a fairly short list depending on what you mean by excelled.