What Qualifies as a Test Allrounder?

[mr_mister]

I like my batting position argument better. It shows what the coach/captain had in mind when actually selecting the player

 

[bagapath]

Here is a much more rounded list

all those cricketers with 15+ scores above 40 and 15+ three wicket hauls

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo


JH Kallis (ICC/SA) 1997-2013 113 10952 224 116.51 45 112 6/54 12.17 5 29 0 104.33
GS Sobers (WI) 1954-1974 72 6690 365* 113.38 26 132 6/73 18.35 6 22 0 95.03
N Kapil Dev (INDIA) 1978-1994 89 3478 163 79.04 8 291 9/83 18.19 23 25 0 60.84
IT Botham (ENG) 1977-1989 72 3439 208 90.50 14 293 8/34 17.46 27 53 0 73.03
DL Vettori (NZ) 1997-2012 72 3116 140 77.90 6 229 7/87 21.01 20 26 0 56.88
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH) 2008-2018 44 2879 217 89.96 5 152 7/36 17.47 18 5 0 72.49
RJ Shastri (INDIA) 1981-1992 46 2836 206 88.62 11 78 5/75 18.97 2 10 0 69.65
AW Greig (ENG) 1972-1977 34 2758 148 78.80 8 79 8/86 19.30 6 16 0 59.49
A Flintoff (ENG/ICC) 1999-2009 50 2667 167 74.08 5 116 5/58 17.86 3 17 0 56.22
CL Cairns (NZ) 1991-2004 46 2381 158 74.40 5 157 7/27 17.70 13 8 0 56.70
Imran Khan (PAK) 1976-1991 66 2258 136 118.84 6 272 8/58 15.64 23 10 0 103.19
KR Miller (AUS) 1946-1956 34 2097 147 83.88 7 100 7/60 14.69 7 11 0 69.19
SM Pollock (SA) 1995-2008 76 2040 111 107.36 2 263 7/87 14.49 16 21 0 92.87
BA Stokes (ENG) 2013-2018 29 2009 258 80.36 6 60 6/22 14.48 4 4 0 65.87
TL Goddard (SA) 1955-1970 29 1732 112 69.28 1 67 6/53 13.25 5 10 0 56.02
MM Ali (ENG) 2014-2018 35 1725 155* 90.78 5 97 6/53 18.53 5 8 0 72.25
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 1973-1990 68 1597 151* 93.94 2 361 9/52 15.98 36 26 0 77.95
GA Faulkner (SA) 1906-1912 21 1473 204 86.64 4 61 7/84 14.98 4 11 0 71.66
MH Mankad (INDIA) 1946-1959 29 1465 231 104.64 5 119 8/52 21.97 8 20 0 82.66
R Ashwin (INDIA) 2011-2018 51 1337 124 78.64 4 265 7/59 16.94 26 11 0 61.70
WPUJC Vaas (SL) 1994-2008 58 1320 100* 82.50 1 215 7/71 15.53 12 8 0 66.96
W Rhodes (ENG) 1899-1930 32 1283 179 80.18 2 91 8/68 14.83 6 12 0 65.35
MA Noble (AUS) 1898-1909 26 1281 133 75.35 1 84 7/17 14.19 9 7 0 61.16
SCJ Broad (ENG) 2008-2018 69 1280 169 75.29 1 258 8/15 14.47 16 12 0 60.81
R Benaud (AUS) 1952-1964 41 1269 122 66.78 3 188 7/72 17.36 16 30 0 49.42
TE Bailey (ENG) 1949-1959 32 1238 134* 82.53 1 84 7/34 13.97 5 10 0 68.55
Wasim Akram (PAK) 1985-2000 64 1219 257* 87.07 3 303 7/119 15.91 25 21 0 71.15
SK Warne (AUS) 1992-2007 103 1157 99 77.13 0 574 8/71 17.35 37 60 0 59.77
Abdul Razzaq (PAK) 2000-2006 23 1090 134 90.83 3 54 5/35 16.07 1 2 0 74.75
Harbhajan Singh (INDIA) 1998-2015 64 1076 115 67.25 2 288 8/84 19.43 25 21 0 47.81
MG Johnson (AUS) 2007-2015 48 1023 123* 113.66 1 220 8/61 17.60 12 13 0 96.05
M Prabhakar (INDIA) 1989-1995 26 988 120 89.81 1 56 6/132 21.32 3 5 0 68.49
MD Marshall (WI) 1980-1991 56 870 92 72.50 0 266 7/22 12.98 22 7 0 59.51
R Illingworth (ENG) 1959-1973 26 848 113 70.66 2 67 6/29 14.49 3 9 0 56.17

I am so happy with this list that I am ready to go to work

 

[Starfighter]

So you're arbitrarily limiting by career length. No Gregory, no Watson. To put it simply, no. Your criteria are wrong.

 

[bagapath]

So you're arbitrarily limiting by career length. No Gregory, no Watson. To put it simply, no. Your criteria are wrong.

ok. cool. I think its right, though

 

[Starfighter]

ok. cool. I think its right, though

You may think that, but it is not so.

 

[bagapath]

You may think that, but it is not so.

Good to hear an authoritative voice on such earth shattering things.
I am sticking to my pov.

 

[Starfighter]

Good to hear an authoritative voice on such earth shattering things.
I am sticking to my pov.

So under your definition Watson and Gregory aren't worthy of being considered in your list of allrounders even though they were primary allrounders in their teams and both are arguably better as allrounders than say Ilingworth or Broad. It's not their fault that guys like Gregory or Kelleway couldn't play enough to meet your arbitrary criteria. Or Johnny Briggs or Charlie Macartney. You clearly have no understanding how the change in the quantity of cricket makes your criteria flawed or the limitations of your criteria that I already explained.

 

[bagapath]

I don't consider Barry Richards or G Pollock in the great batsmen discussions because they didn't play long enough to be in the running. So if these guys don't make the cut because they played too little, then so be it.
unless a cricketer crosses 30/40 runs frequently and takes 2/3 wickets on a regular basis, he is not an allrounder. he might be a batsman who picked up wickets on a few occasions or a bowler who scored runs on certain days... but not an allrounder.
there are good/ bad/ consistent/ non consistent all rounders and there are specialists who excel in their secondary skills on rare occasions. to categorise players into these sets, they should have played enough number of tests. so I will go with this logic. I wont worry about who makes the cut finally and tailor my criteria accordingly.

 

[Starfighter]

Your criteria are running against what have been used as criteria for an allrounder since cricket has been around and your time limiting is arbitrary and silly so I think I'll go with the cricketing consensus on this one.

 

[bagapath]

Your criteria are running against what have been used as criteria for an allrounder since cricket has been around and your time limiting is arbitrary and silly so I think I'll go with the cricketing consensus on this one.

Cool. I'll carry on without your support.

here is a beauty

20 cricketers who crossed 40 with the bat on more than 20 occasions; and also claimed 15+ 3 wicket hauls

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

 

[Starfighter]

'Here is something I've arranged using my stupid criteria without considering the changes in the quantity of cricket over the years nor the normal distribution of runs and wickets for the average player because reasons I can't articulate'. No thanks.

 

[bagapath]

'Here is something I've arranged using my stupid criteria without considering the changes in the quantity of cricket over the years nor the normal distribution of runs and wickets for the average player because reasons I can't articulate'. No thanks.

Sure, mate. you made it clear more than once that you wont buy my logic. I am cool with it. Will be posting some more lists along the same lines. I take it that you don't care about them. And that is perfectly fine by me.

 

[bagapath]

Am thinking along these lines...

A five test series provides an all rounder with 20 opportunities to prove his worth in the team. Assuming a 300+ score is a fighting total, the man who comes in at 5,6,7,8 is good if he scores 30+ runs. And in order to take 20 opposition wickets, the fifth (or fourth bowler) should take at least 2 wickets in an innings. so... if out of 20 opportunities an allrounder delivers 4 or five times with either bat or ball, that is he scores 30+ runs or takes 2+ wickets, then he continues to be a useful contributor to the team.
If I set 6 years/ 30 tests as a minimum standard to judge a player's abilities, then this translates into about 25 to 30 instances of a player grabbing 2 wickets per innings + scoring 30+ over a career to be called an allrounder. To give weightage to both disciplines, Ill keep it at 15 times each.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

The top names are all batsmen who could bowl
And the bottom is full of bowlers who could bat

Somewhere in the middle, from Tony Grieg to Goddard, IMO, you will find those who contributed with both bat and ball in more equal measures.

 

[Days of Grace]

'Here is something I've arranged using my stupid criteria without considering the changes in the quantity of cricket over the years nor the normal distribution of runs and wickets for the average player because reasons I can't articulate'. No thanks.

Agree sometimes with your opinions but your tone is off-putting.

 

[mr_mister]

On the contrary bagapath is a good poster but I can't get on board with his logic here

 

[Migara]

So, 1 wicket a match?

The official ICC allrounder ratings multiply the batting rating by the bowling rating and before dividing by 1000. This has the effect of rewarding more balanced allrounders. So, a straight 700 + 300 would be 1000. The same as 500 + 500. With the above calculation, player A (a batsman and part-time bowler) would have 210 ratings points and player B, a true allrounder, would have 250 points. I wonder if there is a way to make this gap larger in favor of player B?

Square it and divide by 100. A - 441, B - 625

 

[trundler]

What I'm interested is in how bowling and batting all rounders will be rated relative to each other generally.

 

[Howe_zat]

Was David Capel an allrounder?

If not, what was he?

 

[bagapath]

Was David Capel an allrounder?

If not, what was he?

He was a good son, husband and father. And a law abiding citizen in general.

 

[trundler]

A no rounder