CW's Ranking of All-Rounders (Tests)

[subshakerz]

Its saltshakerz. The rule is "whatever keeps the Indian out".

Produce better allrounders and I will select them ahead.

 

[harsh.ag]

My position has been clear from the beginning that once you are classified as an AR I consider the better player higher. Otherwise we end up with the silly results on second half of this list with players who are supposedly better allrounders but wont be selected in a side you would consider.

Not everything is about ATXIs

 

[trundler]

Yeah, if we're making a list of all rounders, we should be picking the best.. all rounders.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hadlee

 

[_00_deathscar]

My position has been clear from the beginning that once you are classified as an AR I consider the better player higher. Otherwise we end up with the silly results on second half of this list with players who are supposedly better allrounders but wont be selected in a side you would consider.

A lot of that depends on the make up of your side though doesn't it and where you're looking to slot them in.

 

[Daemon]

Not everything is about ATXIs

Yeah, if we switch it around and say who’d make the greatest impact to a minnow then it’s the more all roundery player.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, if we're making a list of all rounders, we should be picking the best.. all rounders.

Yes and the thread said explicitly that we are at liberty to come up with our own definition of what is a better allrounder.

I don't think being more balanced = better allrounder. I look at the value of that the allrounder provides. In fact, if you were a captain and had to pick players you would look at real value too.

I think in Test cricket, specialists are almost always more valuable than bits and pieces players. So for me, the allrounder who is worldclass in at least one discipline gets the nod ahead of others. I can suffer a bit of imbalance if I get more value.

Balanced allrounders are not as great as advertised, who have to sacrifice consistency for utility.

Chris Cairns and Flintoff were balanced allrounders, yet I have no doubt having watched them that NZ wouldn't have minded Cairns being a solid no.5/6 averaging in the mid 40s if it meant his bowling was taken down a notch or two. And Eng would have preferred Flintoff being a proper consistent worldclass bowler averaging in the mid-20s even if it meant his batting wasn't good enough for the top 6.

So if you want to say Botham is a better allrounder than Hadlee, but in an actual game, not even an ATG one, you would almost never pick Botham ahead of Hadlee, being a better allrounder is pretty meaningless then.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, if we switch it around and say who’d make the greatest impact to a minnow then it’s the more all roundery player.

No. Hadlee or Kallis would matter more than Botham even to a minnow. You cant replace worldclass. Bangladesh would trade in Shakib for a Hadlee in a heartbeat.

A couple of worldclass player like Hadlee and Crowe took 80s NZ from a minnow into a competitive team.

 

[Xix2565]

Shakib is world class though? And he does things different to what Hadlee or Botham would do. This just sounds like a way to pick better bowlers/batters who can do a little bit of the other as well rather than actually setting a standard for all rounders and judging on that.

 

[CricAddict]

So if you want to say Botham is a better allrounder than Hadlee, but in an actual game, not even an ATG one, you would almost never pick Botham ahead of Hadlee, being a better allrounder is pretty meaningless then.

I will easily pick Botham ahead of Hadlee in any ATG team that has a good 3 pronged pace attack already.

 

[subshakerz]

I will easily pick Botham ahead of Hadlee in any ATG team that has a good 3 pronged pace attack already.

Of course this all depends upon the side. If you had a well stocked batting order and needed a no.7/8 then you would go for Hadlee.

But if you were building a team, who would be the first player who would choose?

 

[subshakerz]

Shakib is world class though? And he does things different to what Hadlee or Botham would do. This just sounds like a way to pick better bowlers/batters who can do a little bit of the other as well rather than actually setting a standard for all rounders and judging on that.

My standard for calling someone an allrounder is pretty clear.

They should consistently be in the 4-5 bowling options and in the top 6/7 of batting lineup during their career. As in, the team banks on them for batting and bowling contributions.

Once you qualify for that, I will opt for those who are worldclass in at least one discipline.

 

[Xix2565]

So you don't really care for all round talent beyond just the basics.

 

[subshakerz]

So you don't really care for all round talent beyond just the basics.

I am just basing this off my own time watching cricket and seeing how Test cricket as a format really favor specialists who can add a bit more versus those X-factor players who in times of pressure can't be banked on for consistent batting or bowling displays.

In ODIs, it is different btw, I am more open to balanced allrounders as the format favors them. I would take a Kapil over a Kallis then.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee

 

[Victor Ian]

If you are not batting top 6 you are not an all rounder. If you are not bowling top 4 overs workload, you are not an all rounder.

Hadlee is not an all rounder. He's just a ****ing amazing bowler who is not at all a bunny.

 

[subshakerz]

If you are not batting top 6 you are not an all rounder. If you are not bowling top 4 overs workload, you are not an all rounder.

Hadlee is not an all rounder. He's just a ****ing amazing bowler who is not at all a bunny.

Batting 7 to me is a lower order bat spot normally reserved for keepers and not a tailender. And bowling regularly as a 5th bowler like Kallis is still a main part of an attack.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

DWTA (Edit: replying to Victor Ian, not subshakerz).

Pollock and Vettori at 8 were all rounders. Holder is probably the best current all rounder in the world and he's often an 8 too. Ashwin is another all rounder who is often at 8.

Cam Green was the 5th bowler for Australia in the Ashes and was outstanding. He's considered Australia's most exciting all rounder since Miller (lot of pressure for him), but by your definition he isn't an all rounder bcos Australia don't want to over bowl him and didn't need to.

Likewise, there are batting all rounders who are 5th bowlers like Barlow, Hammond, Shastri, and Dexter (nominated a few rounds back).

 

[_00_deathscar]

Yea so IMO this whole list is now pointless because everyone's just picking all rounders based on their own meaning and not a consensus.

Some are picking the best bowler/bat who can also bowl/bat, however little, while others are picking more rounded all rounders - i.e. the best actual all rounder.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

A couple of worldclass player like Hadlee and Crowe took 80s NZ from a minnow into a competitive team.

Also had some quality batsmen in John Wright, John Reid then Andrew Jones at 3, Coney (gun slipper and handy 5th bowler too), solid bowlers, and Ian Smith was up with Dujon as a keeper.