• 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.

Is Moeen Ali the best ever test no-rounder?

J

Jayro

U19 12th Man
Chris Lewis and other bits, other allrounders that kept English hopes high in their quest of finding another Botham throughout the nineties, before finally proving disappointments.
 
S

SpinBin

Cricket Spectator
No Mo was perfectly fine playing test cricket and some top moments too.

Nicky Boje at 25.23 with the bat and 42.65 with the ball is a genuine contender.

Those still playing I have to say Royston Chase at 28.11 with the bat and 43.94 with the ball after 41 is a case of not really quite good enough for test cricket but plays for a weak nation so still plays.

The worst though is Mitchell Santner who has played 24 tests for a return of 24.70 with the bat, 45.63 with the ball. Arguably Santner is the worst because you could legitimately question whether hes even good enough to play first class cricket as an all rounder with a FC batting average of 28.31 and a genuinely not FC standard bowling average of 47.39.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
So all rounder is someone who will get selected ether on his batting or bowling alone. No rounder is someone who will not get selected on either skill alone but somehow still gets selected in the team as an "all round" package?
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ankitj said:
So all rounder is someone who will get selected ether on his batting or bowling alone. No rounder is someone who will not get selected on either skill alone but somehow still gets selected in the team as an "all round" package?
Click to expand...
This is almost all all-rounders tbh. Even gun all-rounders like Flintoff and Stokes wouldn't have played as much if they were just batsmen or bowlers.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
So where do you draw the line between all-rounders and no-rounders. The latter are a thing for sure.
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
The genuine all-rounder would get in as a batsman or bowler in just that discipline, but you don't really get those at all. Not sure if Kallis would make a third or fourth seamer if he couldn't bat. There was a couple of years when Botham would have made the England team as either. You really just define the batting all-rounder or bowling all-rounder who are Test standard at one or the other. The no-rounder wouldn't be picked in either discipline as a stand alone but gets picked when the cupboard is bare.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lillian Thomson said:
The genuine all-rounder would get in as a batsman or bowler in just that discipline, but you don't really get those at all.
Click to expand...
I can't think of many. Botham as you mentioned.
Keith Miller maybe.
Shakib probably.
Possibly Vettori but mostly because NZ had terrible batting back then and no better spinner.
Imran Khan but from what I've heard he was alternatively a great bowler or a gun batsman but not at the same time.
Sobers much like Kallis might not have played much as a specialist bowler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top