All-rounder-heavy Test teams

[neville cardus]

The England team in the Ashes Test of 1882 contained no fewer than six all-rounders (Barlow, Grace, Barnes, Steel, Ulyett and Studd), which explains why in both innings it had front-line batsmen at number ten. I can't think of a line-up that even approximates this. Can anyone else?

 

[a massive zebra]

South Africa had Kallis, Cronje, McMillan, Pollock, Klusener and Symcox. Every single player was a capable batsman.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...d-test-south-africa-tour-of-australia-1997-98

England had Jackson, Braund, Jessop, Hirst, Lockwood and Rhodes. Rhodes at 11 scored over 2,000 Test runs @ 30 with multiple Test centuries.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...ralia-5th-test-australia-tour-of-england-1902

England had Arnold, Braund, Hirst, Bosanquet, Relf and Rhodes. Again with Rhodes at 11.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...lebone-cricket-club-tour-of-australia-1903-04

 

[trundler]

I remember a game between India and South Africa in which the latter had a ridiculously strong tail with Symcox at 11, I think.

 

[trundler]

Sri Lanka did a similar thing in ODIs. Did they ever do it in tests also?

 

[NZTailender]

NZ's best stab at this (which is pretty mediocre obviously) would be a side containing Cairns, Oram, Styris, Vettori and if you want to get fun with it, Astle and McMillan.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I remember a game between India and South Africa in which the latter had a ridiculously strong tail with Symcox at 11, I think.

Not really against India, but here's a decent tail:

 

[trundler]

Trying to think of an equivalent for Pakistan. Perhaps Afridi, Mahmood, Mushtaq and Akram? That's pushing the all rounder label a bit.

 

[Tom Flint]

If all of the Zimbabwean players actually played for zimbabwe they would have a good few

 

[the big bambino]

Pretty sure Australian sides just after the second war was filled with all rounders. What a contrast to the years since Davo and Benaud.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

South Africa generally could bat down to eleven in most games where Allan Donald didn't play. There would likely have been sides where Donald was the only one without a FC century on occasion

 

[the big bambino]

Don't know if this is an exhaustive list but Australia had these players who could be called all rounders just after the war. Miller, Lindwall, Loxton, McCool, Ring, Ian Johnson, Pepper, Bill Alley. Some of these are probably on the edge of bowlers who can bat but Lindwall had two test tons and all the others, with the possible exception of Johnson, were arguably better bats than he.

 

[jimmy101]

NZ's best stab at this (which is pretty mediocre obviously) would be a side containing Cairns, Oram, Styris, Vettori and if you want to get fun with it, Astle and McMillan.

Jimmy Franklin could also be added to that lineup.

 

[morgieb]

Don't know if this is an exhaustive list but Australia had these players who could be called all rounders just after the war. Miller, Lindwall, Loxton, McCool, Ring, Ian Johnson, Pepper, Bill Alley. Some of these are probably on the edge of bowlers who can bat but Lindwall had two test tons and all the others, with the possible exception of Johnson, were arguably better bats than he.

Yeah Lindwall and Johnson are probably more bowlers who could bat rather than pure all-rounders (Ring maybe the same), but yeah that's an impressive stash of all-rounders.

Then there's Davidson, Benaud and Archer not that far behind them.....

 

[CricAddict]

Trying to think of an equivalent for Pakistan. Perhaps Afridi, Mahmood, Mushtaq and Akram? That's pushing the all rounder label a bit.

Add Razzaq to it as well. I think above 4 and Razzaq played together at some point. Not sure if you are referring to Mushtaq Ahmed or Saqlain Mushtaq but both weren't allrounders.

 

[ankitj]

I remember a game between India and South Africa in which the latter had a ridiculously strong tail with Symcox at 11, I think.

Symcox was a batting all-rounder. Don't believe me? See his top career batting and bowling rating points.

 

[a massive zebra]

Symcox was a batting all-rounder. Don't believe me? See his top career batting and bowling rating points.

In terms of output, I don't think it is unreasonable to call Symcox a batting all rounder. He made a Test century and averaged as much as quite a few top order batsmen who are given an extensive runs in the side. He took less than 2 wickets per match at an average of over 40 in in Tests. As the ICC ratings are based on performance rather than perception, I dont think his relative batting and bowling ratings are particularly absurd.

 

[Dendarii]

It was Symcox's batting which got him into the South African side. They didn't have much in the way of decent spin options at the time, so they went for the one most likely to contribute with the bat (which they would also do a bit later on with Nicky Boje).

 

[Red]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17417/scorecard/62811/england-vs-australia-1st-test-australia-tour-of-england-1956

McDonald
Burke
Harvey
Burge
Miller
Archer
Benaud
Johnson
Lindwall
Langley +
Davidson

You could argue (to degrees of success) that all of the players in blue would be capable of batting at #7 in test teams, if not higher, in addition to being frontline bowlers.

Jim Burke was a handy part time offie.

 

[morgieb]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17417/scorecard/62811/england-vs-australia-1st-test-australia-tour-of-england-1956

McDonald
Burke
Harvey
Burge
Miller
Archer
Benaud
Johnson
Lindwall
Langley +
Davidson

You could argue (to degrees of success) that all of the players in blue would be capable of batting at #7 in test teams, if not higher, in addition to being frontline bowlers.

Jim Burke was a handy part time offie.

Would be one of the best attacks of all-time too!

 

[the big bambino]

its looks great but half of them were probably too old (though Miller took a 10fa at Lords that Ashes) and the other half just a little too green. None really at their prime for that series.