All-Rounders Around the World

[Athlai]

To simply define an all-rounder would be a player who merits selection into his team for both their batting and bowling. Due to this role as a player who almost doubles their usefulness all-rounders have always been something of utmost interest to cricket. This includes the often criticized searches for all-rounders (see Australia/India in recent years) that inevitably occur to find players who could possibly fit such a role.

If you were to allow an all-rounder to qualify as a player with more than 500 runs and 50 wickets (Test matches) and averaged over 25 with the bat and under 35 in the ball you would discover that 40 of these players have existed.

Then if we breakdown where they have come from we can see which nations produce the most and least all-round cricketers.

Australia 7
England 13
India 4
Pakistan 3
New Zealand 5
South Africa 5
Sri Lanka 1
West Indies 2

Australia and England are far and away leaders in regards to alltime all-rounder production, yet they also have played Test cricket longer than any other nation. The lack of modern day all-rounders in Australia is particularly apparent when you limit the field to all-rounders who have played since 1970. Now only 17 qualify and Australia only adds a disappointing 1 to this number.

Australia 1
England 4
India 2
Pakistan 2
New Zealand 4
South Africa 3
Sri Lanka 1
West Indies 0

Of these players, six are current:
SM Pollock JH Kallis (SA), DL Vettori JDP Oram (NZ) A Flintoff (Eng) and IK Pathan (Ind)

So where have all the all-rounders gone?

 

[Migara]

Of these players, six are current:
SM Pollock JH Kallis (SA), DL Vettori JDP Oram (NZ) A Flintoff (Eng) and IK Pathan (Ind)

So where have all the all-rounders gone?

Missed Chaminda Vaas? Vaas > Pathan as a player

 

[Athlai]

Missed Chaminda Vaas? Vaas > Pathan as a player

Averages under 25 batting.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, obviously Vaas is a better bowler, and probably underachieved with the bat, but Pathan, whatever you think about him as a player, is a better batsman than Vaas.

 

[Migara]

Averages under 25 batting.

That's when comparing his whole career. But lately he has done very well. Sine Pathan's debut, Vaas averages 33.1 with the bat, while Pathan averages 31.6.

 

[Athlai]

Probably be interesting to do a write up on players who turned into allrounders. Vaas and Vettori come to mind.

 

[Goughy]

I think 500 runs is too low a qualification if 50 wkts is used.

Generally 1 wkt = 20 runs ie 5 wkts = 100 runs. Though looking at the lists that change doesnt exclude too many others.

 

[Athlai]

I think 500 runs is too low a qualification if 50 wkts is used.

Generally 1 wkt = 20 runs ie 5 wkts = 100 runs. Though looking at the lists that change doesnt exclude too many others.

If made 1000 runs we lose 3 Englishmen prior 1970 and 1 Aussie post 1970. I was really only keeping the runs scored qualification over from a different analysis. The fact that the batting must be higher than 25 and more than 50 wickets are required means that I only kept Mitchell Johnson out by making 500 runs the min.

Take that Mitch!

 

[Goughy]

If made 1000 runs we lose 3 Englishmen prior 1970 and 1 Aussie post 1970. I was really only keeping the runs scored qualification over from a different analysis. The fact that the batting must be higher than 25 and more than 50 wickets are required means that I only kept Mitchell Johnson out by making 500 runs the min.

Take that Mitch!

Then, IMO, the wickets qualification should be 25.

At the moment the 500 runs and 50 wkts is weighted towards bowling rather than genuine allrounders.

 

[Athlai]

Then, IMO, the wickets qualification should be 25.

At the moment the 500 runs and 50 wkts is weighted towards bowling rather than genuine allrounders.

I like the 1000-50 one TBH.

 

[Athlai]

Then, IMO, the wickets qualification should be 25.

At the moment the 500 runs and 50 wkts is weighted towards bowling rather than genuine allrounders.

500-25 gets Afridi into the list. Though that little bit of evil may be balanced by the fact that Shakib does too.

 

[The Sean]

I like the 1000-50 one TBH.

Agreed - I think that's a fairer reflection.

 

[krkode]

I think whatever the qualification, in general, test teams have less room for all-rounders. Sure, some of the greatest test players of all time have been all-rounders but these people were rare gems because it truly took special skill to be able to be a test quality batsman and bowler.

Ultimately, however, either your all-rounder is one of 6 batsmen in the team, in which case batting average above 25 is too low of a qualification nowadays. Nowadays, even #6s are expected to average over 35. Or if not one of 6 batsmen, your all-rounder plays as one of four bowlers, in which case teams will generally pick the best bowler irrespective of his batting skill. If you can get a guy averaging 28 with the ball but only 18 with the bat, you will probably go for him over someone who averages 34 with the ball but 27 with the bat. Teams just seem to over all prefer 6 solid batsmen and 4 solid bowlers.

There was an article on cricinfo recently talking about this that I thought was interesting. He made a point about how while Australia was experimenting with test all-rounders like McDonald, White, Watson and Symonds they've passed by specialist batsmen with fantastic FC records such as Hodge and David Hussey who are getting older and less and less eligible by the year.

Fact is, all-rounders are far more useful in ODIs, where there's a need for a fifth bowler and the stamina and skill set required is less than is demanded of a test all-rounder. I'm sure if one did such an analysis on ODI all-rounders, more names would pop up (numbers might have to be adjusted). And I think in general all-rounders is the thing that sets apart the really good ODI teams (along with fielding). Part of the reason why SA and NZ were so great in the late-90s, early 2000s. Guys like Klusener, Cairns, Jayasuriya, Abdur Razzaq, Chris Harris made real differences in the sides they played for.

 

[Chemosit]

I'd be interested to see a similar list for ODIs both for its own interest and to see who managed it at both formats.

 

[krkode]

Identical qualification list for ODIs

Actually a lot fewer names than I had imagined. But I wonder if we should alter the numbers some how. For example, Chris Harris - one of NZ's best ODI players in the past doesn't make the list because his bowling average is 37. However, his economy is a very respectable 4.28, which is why he was so well-regarded as an ODI cricketer. Jayasuriya also does not make the list despite having over 300 wickets because he averages 36.5. Kapil Dev and Ian Botham do not make the cut-off because their batting average is 23. Shahid Afridi also does not make the list, although some will argue he doesn't belong near such a list.

I adjusted the numbers a little bit - lowered the batting average cut-off to 20 and increased the bowling average cutoff to 40. The number of names on the list doubles and we see a few more familiar names like the afore mentioned Kapil Dev, Botham, Shastri, Ganguly, DeSilva, Mark Waugh - although some of these players were arguably more "5th bowler role" than all-rounder role.

 

[Julian87]

I am going to look completely ignorant here, but I never realised Imran Kahn and Kapil Dev had such good records with the bat. I knew they were all-rounders, and they were before my time, I always wrongly assumed they were more in the Hadlee/Akram category of definite bowling all rounders.

 

[thierry henry]

Identical qualification list for ODIs

Actually a lot fewer names than I had imagined. But I wonder if we should alter the numbers some how. For example, Chris Harris - one of NZ's best ODI players in the past doesn't make the list because his bowling average is 37. However, his economy is a very respectable 4.28, which is why he was so well-regarded as an ODI cricketer. Jayasuriya also does not make the list despite having over 300 wickets because he averages 36.5. Kapil Dev and Ian Botham do not make the cut-off because their batting average is 23. Shahid Afridi also does not make the list, although some will argue he doesn't belong near such a list.

I adjusted the numbers a little bit - lowered the batting average cut-off to 20 and increased the bowling average cutoff to 40. The number of names on the list doubles and we see a few more familiar names like the afore mentioned Kapil Dev, Botham, Shastri, Ganguly, DeSilva, Mark Waugh - although some of these players were arguably more "5th bowler role" than all-rounder role.

I don't really agree with a batting average over 20/bowling average under 40, you could get some rather hopeless cricketers in that way.

Bowling averages are generally LOWER in ODIs anyway, not higher. I think allowing low-20s batting averages is ok, but if anything the bowling average should come down to 32 or 33 at worst, OR under 40 with an RPO under 4.5, or something like that.

Fact of the matter is Jayasuriya and Harris were/are completely rubbish as far as wicket-taking goes, not all-rounders at all. You could argue, however, that Harris was a valid ODI all-rounder because of his economy rate. Jayasuriya on the other hand is really not much of an all-rounder imo, yes he has the numbers on the board with all the games he has played, but in terms of both bowling average and economy he is pretty much dire.

 

[thierry henry]

The funny thing about Jayasuriya, actually, is that he is perceived as a "specialist ODI bowler" when really his test bowling stats are appreciably better than his ODI bowling stats.

 

[Goughy]

Just ran my own criteria.

500 runs and 25 wickets.

If less than 100 wickets then must average 2 or more wickets a Test.

Must have more than 1 Test century (anything must be repeated to have validity)

Batting average of over 25 and bowling average of under 40.

It gives me a list of 24 genuine Test allrounders in the History of the game.

N Kapil Dev (India)
JH Kallis (ICC/SA)
SM Pollock (SA)
IT Botham (Eng)
GS Sobers (WI)
DL Vettori (ICC/NZ)
Imran Khan (Pak)
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ)
A Flintoff (Eng/ICC)
CL Cairns (NZ)
AW Greig (Eng)
W Rhodes (Eng)
KR Miller (Aus)
Abdul Razzaq (Pak)
MH Mankad (India)
DJ Bravo (WI)
DG Phadkar (India)
BR Knight (Eng)
C Kelleway (Aus)
GA Faulkner (SA)
JM Gregory (Aus)
BD Julien (WI)
LC Braund (Eng)
AG Steel (Eng)

Looks a fair list.

 

[inbox24]

The title of this thread should be "All around the world".