All-Rounders Around the World

[Athlai]

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

No

 

[Migara]

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.

1 wicket = 30 runs in test cricket

 

[Matt79]

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.

Without looking it up, surprised Warwick Armstrong doesn't meet those criteria.

 

[The Sean]

1 wicket = 30 runs in test cricket

So 10,000 Test runs is equivalent to only 333 Test wickets?

Computer says no.

 

[Goughy]

1 wicket = 30 runs in test cricket

Nah, IMO score a hundred is worth more than taking 3 wickets.

A hundred is like taking a fifer.

 

[Matt79]

1 wicket = 30 runs in test cricket

So 10,000 Test runs is equivalent to only 333 Test wickets?

Computer says no.

And of course Murali's scored the equivalent of 23,000 runs, or there about?

 

[The Sean]

Without looking it up, surprised Warwick Armstrong doesn't meet those criteria.

Fair call - though he probably doesn't meet the 2 wickets/Test criteria. I know he took 87 Test wickets, and I think he played more than 44 Tests (about 50 I think?).

 

[Migara]

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.

Jayasuriya was a specialist death bowler in his early days. So the high ER. But only Murali has taken more 5 wicket hauls in ODIs than him (Jayasuriya has 3 5-wicket hauls). Then the ER s should be weighted for Jaya and Harris, because their carrers span for different time periods, because these days bowlers have hig ERs..

Here are adjusted values (minus minnows)

CZ Harris - 173 wkts, Avg. 38.9, ER: 4.3, SR: 54.0
ST Jayasuriya - 263 wkts, Avg 37.2, ER 4.8, SR 46.4

Jayasuriya is clearly the better wicket taker than Harris, because of his low SR and average.

 

[NUFAN]

In general though I don't think a wicket can count as 20 runs.

That would mean the average score is 200 per innings, which seems too low.

How about 1 Test wicket equaling 25 runs?

I think that's more fair overall.

 

[Matt79]

1 wicket = 30 runs in test cricket

So 10,000 Test runs is equivalent to only 333 Test wickets?

Computer says no.

And of course Murali's scored the equivalent of 23,000 runs, or there about?

 

[Migara]

Nah, IMO score a hundred is worth more than taking 3 wickets.

A hundred is like taking a fifer.

Test batsman on average makes 29.94 runs per innings.

 

[Migara]

Ok. Its like this.

In average innigs, batsman makes 29.94 runs. There are 35.2 innigs per match on average. So 29.94 * 35.2 / 40 (available wickets) would give a better value, which is 26.34

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

It does look the best list so far. Rather shocked to see Barry Knight in there tho. Was quite surprised that he's made two test tons. Rather freakish that his only two scores over 50 were both 100s.

Might be worth including a similar ruling on 5-fors as for 100s tho? Knight never even managed one, so it seems generous to include him where a bloke like (say) Monty Noble is out because although he made 17 50+ scores he only made one ton.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Wouldn't be unhappy if you chopped Goughy's list before Bravo. (Well, except you'd lose Faulkner and Braund.)

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Dont really think that using statistics to quantify the number of all rounders in this history of the game actually makes sense. Is this supposed to be the number of all rounders or the number of 'good' all rounders? I think the two have been mixed up. Even so, its hard to justify how Mike Proctor and Jacob Oram are not all rounders while Dwayne Bravo is.

 

[tooextracool]

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?

They havent gone anywhere. There just arent any good all rounders. Personally, if we the argument is that there are no all rounders these days, then a different method should be used for obviously there are not going to be very many players who have taken 50 wickets and also scored 500 or 1000 runs because some players are just starting off. Anyways, I think an all rounder is really someone who can and has batted in the top 7 regularly (you could quantify that as at least a third of the games in his career) and bowled on average at least 10 overs per innings. Gets rid of players like Paul Reiffel, and rightfully players like Irfan Pathan.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Hes more of an all rounder in ODIs than in tests because hes called on to bowl a much larger proportion of his teams overs in the shorter format than in the longer format. Theres a reason why hes bowled nearly twice as many overs in the shorter format than the longer format.

 

[pup11]

1 wicket = 30 runs in test cricket

Test 5-for = a test century

therefore a test wicket = 20 test runs!!

 

[pup11]

I think its pretty unfair to just class people who can bowl and bat, as all-rounders, because imo, any player who excels in two or more areas of the game are pretty much all-rounders, a wicket-keeper, who has neat glove-work and at the same time is also good enough to hold his own in the team as a batsman, is as much an all-rounder, as a guy who can bat and bowl.

 

[Goughy]

Might be worth including a similar ruling on 5-fors as for 100s tho?

I see the logic there but I dont subscribe to it. Everyone bats and an allrounder betting at 5/6/7/8 as opportunities to score big runs.

Overs are generally approx 90 overs per day and the allrounder may be the 5th or 6th bowler. They may not get enough overs to take fifers but has key bowing roles of a few spells and useful wickets.

There are fewer opportunities for lower bowlers than lower batsmen to perform big.