What is the best definition of an all-rounder?

[subshakerz]

The classic definition of an all-rounder is someone who can be selected based on batting or bowling alone. The reality is that barely any cricketer would qualify based on this strict criteria.

On the other hand, you cant have someone like Carl Hooper or Philander be described as all-rounders either, as they clearly are part-timers who lack the necessary skill in their secondary disciplines.

My definition of an all-rounder is someone who is expected to bat in the top seven and bowl as one of the first five bowling options on a regular basis. If you are batting the high up or bowling in the top five, you are basically expected to contribute with the bat and ball on a consistent basis which means, relative to the team you play, they consider you an all-rounder.

No.8 onwards you are essentially a tailender. Bowling as a no.6 bowling option means you are just a part-time bowler at best.

Any thoughts?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bowling average half their batting average + 7

 

[trundler]

All rounder is a role, not a title based on ability. Roston Chase is an all rounder, just not a very good one. Anyone who is part of the top 7/8 batsmen and 5/6 bowlers is an all rounder.

 

[CricAddict]

A positive batting average - bowling average with a minimum criteria on runs and wickets is the simplest way to go.

 

[honestbharani]

Someone who contributes to the team in 2 or more disciplines.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Someone who contributes to the team in 2 or more disciplines.

This. Keep it simple.

 

[subshakerz]

This. Keep it simple.

So would you consider Shane Warne or Tendulkar allrounders? If they are allrounders, then the term is pretty meaningless IMO.

Being an all-rounder to me is a specialist category that not everybody who bowls an over or two or has a nice cameo towards the end qualifies for.

 

[subshakerz]

All rounder is a role, not a title based on ability. Roston Chase is an all rounder, just not a very good one. Anyone who is part of the top 7/8 batsmen and 5/6 bowlers is an all rounder.

I would say a regular no.8 isnt an all-rounder because no side who has expectations of runs from you would put you in that position.

There are exceptions like Pollock who batted in that position because the team had all-rounders like Klusener or Kallis before him already. Hadlee would be a borderline all-rounder as he only became a regular no.7 mid to late in his career.

The same is with a no.6 bowler. He is just bowled to fill out some overs rather than take wickets. Kallis as a fifth bowling option had some wicket taking expectations.

 

[Line and Length]

Coming up with a precise definition is difficult when there are sub-groups within the all-rounder category. We have batting all-rounders who can be defined as players primarily selected for their batting ability but who are more than part-time bowlers and bowling all-rounders who are a vital component of a team's bowling attack but bat well enough not to be considered a tailender. Kallis is a prime example of a batting all-rounder while Hadlee and Dev are examples of bowling all-rounders.

 

[Jarquis]

Who is a genuine allrounder? Do Kallis, Hadlee and Jadeja fit the bill?

Who is a genuine allrounder? Do Kallis, Hadlee and Jadeja fit the bill?

Looking at it on the basis of players' batting and bowling contributions per match throws up some interesting lists

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[TheJediBrah]

So would you consider Shane Warne or Tendulkar allrounders? If they are allrounders, then the term is pretty meaningless IMO.

Being an all-rounder to me is a specialist category that not everybody who bowls an over or two or has a nice cameo towards the end qualifies for.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Warne "contributes" significantly as a batsman to the team most of the time, likewise Tendulkar as a bowler.

If you're going to be pedantic about it technically if Chris Martin makes 1 run then he's contributed to the team as a batsman

 

[subshakerz]

Who is a genuine allrounder? Do Kallis, Hadlee and Jadeja fit the bill?

Who is a genuine allrounder? Do Kallis, Hadlee and Jadeja fit the bill?

Looking at it on the basis of players' batting and bowling contributions per match throws up some interesting lists

www.espncricinfo.com

The article is ok but somehow assumes that bowling or batting all rounders are not genuine all rounders. Being tilted towards one discipline doesnt make you less of an all rounder IMO.

 

[Jarquis]

Then include both batting and bowling allrounders in your list then. You’re just moving the parameters to ‘bats better than a bowler’ and ’bowls better than a batsman’.
otherwise the article is entirely based on what you put forth in the OP…

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Warne "contributes" significantly as a batsman to the team most of the time, likewise Tendulkar as a bowler.

If you're going to be pedantic about it technically if Chris Martin makes 1 run then he's contributed to the team as a batsman

I guess that is my point. Warne was a specialist no.8 and averaged around 18. While that is useful, you would agree it is a stretch to consider it a contribution in the sense when we talk about as an all-rounder.

 

[GIMH]

A positive batting average - bowling average with a minimum criteria on runs and wickets is the simplest way to go.

See this is a reasonable one but by this Joe Root qualifies. In fact he also qualifies by trundler’s as he’s nearly always in the top six bowlers.

I like the top 7/first 5 bowlers line myself

 

[Starfighter]

I feel like the more you think about it the more you end up with an Alice in Wonderland definition. I predominantly agree with an expectation or role based definition - an allrounder is someone who is expected to make a significant contribution with bat and ball, and may be selected because of this. I say may be selected because some allrounders are or could be picked for one discipline with the second as a bonus - they are an allrounder by output, but it's not an important factor in their selection.

I hate definitions that assume a certain level of performance. As @subshakerz points out, the list of people selected as allrounders who were in the top four bowlers or six batsmen their country would be very small. I also dislike "batting average higher than bowling average" (at some arbitrary number of wickets). Mitchell Marsh was clearly selected in tests to be an allrounder. At no point was he amongst the best in Australia as a batsman or bowler. At no point did his batting average exceed his bowling average. This doesn't make him not an allrounder. He simply wasn't a very good one.

 

[GIMH]

If you want to be really strict you can say it’s a player who would get in from either discipline. Anyone else would, as per L&L’s post, be a batting or bowling all-rounder.

It would make them few and bar between. Botham would certainly be one. Stokes wouldn’t. Flintoff would have from 04-06 but not afterwards (hence batting 7 late in his career). Staying close to home though, are there arguably spells where Moeen qualifies by this definition? Suppose that says more about our post-Swann spin stocks than anything.

 

[subshakerz]

I feel like the more you think about it the more you end up with an Alice in Wonderland definition. I predominantly agree with an expectation or role based definition - an allrounder is someone who is expected to make a significant contribution with bat and ball, and may be selected because of this. I say may be selected because some allrounders are or could be picked for one discipline with the second as a bonus - they are an allrounder by output, but it's not an important factor in their selection.

I hate definitions that assume a certain level of performance. As @subshakerz points out, the list of people selected as allrounders who were in the top four bowlers or six batsmen their country would be very small. I also dislike "batting average higher than bowling average" (at some arbitrary number of wickets). Mitchell Marsh was clearly selected in tests to be an allrounder. At no point was he amongst the best in Australia as a batsman or bowler. At no point did his batting average exceed his bowling average. This doesn't make him not an allrounder. He simply wasn't a very good one.

Moeen Ali would be another who is selected as a specialist all-rounder rather than based on any one skill.

 

[Shady Slim]

I feel like the more you think about it the more you end up with an Alice in Wonderland definition. I predominantly agree with an expectation or role based definition - an allrounder is someone who is expected to make a significant contribution with bat and ball, and may be selected because of this. I say may be selected because some allrounders are or could be picked for one discipline with the second as a bonus - they are an allrounder by output, but it's not an important factor in their selection.

I hate definitions that assume a certain level of performance. As @subshakerz points out, the list of people selected as allrounders who were in the top four bowlers or six batsmen their country would be very small. I also dislike "batting average higher than bowling average" (at some arbitrary number of wickets). Mitchell Marsh was clearly selected in tests to be an allrounder. At no point was he amongst the best in Australia as a batsman or bowler. At no point did his batting average exceed his bowling average. This doesn't make him not an allrounder. He simply wasn't a very good one.

i feel the top seven bats and top five bowlers thing means in the xi not in the country though

 

[subshakerz]

If you want to be really strict you can say it’s a player who would get in from either discipline. Anyone else would, as per L&L’s post, be a batting or bowling all-rounder.

It would make them few and bar between. Botham would certainly be one. Stokes wouldn’t. Flintoff would have from 04-06 but not afterwards (hence batting 7 late in his career). Staying close to home though, are there arguably spells where Moeen qualifies by this definition? Suppose that says more about our post-Swann spin stocks than anything.

The reason I go with the batting/bowling position criteria rather than team selection criteria is that in real match situations, teams are willing to accept if you are merely decent but not hopeless as a lower order bat or 4/5th bowling option as the onus is on the specialists batters and bowlers to perform. What the team gets in the overall package justifies a slight reduction in quality in one area.

Flintoff as a low 30s lower order bat was slightly below par for 2000s England normally but he was decent enough to allow the advantage of having a 5-man bowling attack which gave them the edge.