What is the best definition of an all-rounder?

[subshakerz]

Jadeja is another good example. India clearly feels he is good enough as a no.7 to justify pushing Pant up the order and get five bowlers in.

Most teams would be happy with someone averaging in the 30s at 6/7 or someone taking 1-2 wickets as fifth bowler. Below those standards and it is hard to call someone an all-rounder.

 

[Howe_zat]

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

He's an interesting one because if he batted like Phil Tufnell he never would've been picked for England but when you look at his Test career it's his bowling that holds up on its own

 

[Starfighter]

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

When I've seen the definition like in that cricinfo article I've always though of it as good enough to be selected in one role or the other. To define it like you just have would be rather recursive IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

4 categories:
- Genuine All-Rounder (Botham, Keith Miller, Jadeja)
- Batting All-Rounder (Sobers, Kallis)
- Bowling All-Rounder (Hadlee, Davidson)
- No-Rounder (Moeen Ali, Mitch Marsh)

 

[Shady Slim]

When I've seen the definition like in that cricinfo article I've always though of it as good enough to be selected in one role or the other. To define it like you just have would be rather recursive IMO.

but that would make sense, because as you pointed out, it's wiser to just do a simple definition based on role rather than stats

 

[Starfighter]

but that would make sense, because as you pointed out, it's wiser to just do a simple definition based on role rather than stats

Let's look at the definition paraphrased from Bailey, which is one of the more common ones I have seen and that I also think is dodgy:

In his book The Greatest Since My Time, Trevor Bailey wrote that an allrounder is a player who commands a place in the XI either as a batter or as a bowler.

To me that definitely implies the consideration of performance against the pool of potential players and is not a role-based definition. Defining it 'in the XI' is not useful - most teams with four specialist bowler attacks will have a fifth-best bowler who is in the top seven bats, but without meeting the above definition. So no, the recursive definition doesn't make sense and isn't what's meant.

 

[Shady Slim]

Let's look at the definition paraphrased from Bailey, which is one of the more common ones I have seen and that I also think is dodgy:



To me that definitely implies the consideration of performance against the pool of potential players and is not a role-based definition. Defining it 'in the XI' is not useful - most teams with four specialist bowler attacks will have a fifth-best bowler who is in the top seven bats, but without meeting the above definition. So no, the recursive definition doesn't make sense and isn't what's meant.

great, but i also don't particularly care for that definition (and neither do you as you admit)

a team that runs say, four seamers and joe root, for example, they don't use the "fifth" bowler as the fifth "bowler"

 

[Starfighter]

great, but i also don't particularly care for that definition (and neither do you as you admit)

But it's the one my original contention was scrutinising, not that funny one you came with.

 

[Shady Slim]

i mean to my mind

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.

this is the exact case in point why role only is what matters

 

[subshakerz]

4 categories:
- Genuine All-Rounder (Botham, Keith Miller, Jadeja)
- Batting All-Rounder (Sobers, Kallis)
- Bowling All-Rounder (Hadlee, Davidson)
- No-Rounder (Moeen Ali, Mitch Marsh)

Jadeja is a bowling all-rounder like Imran.

 

[Flem274*]

Trundler is right - it's a role. Michael Bracewell was selected to be an allrounder, despite not being one. He still batted and bowled a lot.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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

32 with bat, 33 with ball is an allrounder for me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Trundler is right - it's a role. Michael Bracewell was selected to be an allrounder, despite not being one. He still batted and bowled a lot.

I'm broadly in agreement, but what about chaps like Kallis, Sobers, Hadlee and Pollock, S? The former two would've been selected if they never turned their arms over, and the latter two likewise even if their batting was of CMartinesque (in)competence.

Feels wrong not to call them all-rounders because they weren't (or at least not primarily) selected as such.

 

[Shady Slim]

I'm broadly in agreement, but what about chaps like Kallis, Sobers, Hadlee and Pollock, S? The former two would've been selected if they never turned their arms over, and the latter two likewise even if their batting was of CMartinesque (in)competence.

Feels wrong not to call them all-rounders because they weren't (or at least not primarily) selected as such.

this is a case of if my nan had wheels she'd be a bike though isn't it?

because they did bowl, and they also did bat, and they were selected to do both. and likewise when stokes wasn't bowling in australia for eg he was being selected just as a batsman, he was in the team as a batsman and not an all rounder

 

[subshakerz]

great, but i also don't particularly care for that definition (and neither do you as you admit)

a team that runs say, four seamers and joe root, for example, they don't use the "fifth" bowler as the fifth "bowler"

Yeah Joe Root is more like 5/6th bowler compared to Kallis who was like a 4/5th bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Trundler is right - it's a role. Michael Bracewell was selected to be an allrounder, despite not being one. He still batted and bowled a lot.

Whether you are selected as an allrounder or specialist is less relevant IMO compared to what role you play in the actual lineup. If you are expected to bat upfront and bowl a lot then you are an all-rounder.

Clearly the captain is not going to play you at 6 if you are a tailender talent or bowl you first change if you take 1 wicket every three games.

 

[Shady Slim]

Yeah Joe Root is more like 5/6th bowler compared to Kallis who was like a 4/5th bowler.

yeah exactly, there's like the literal meaning of fifth bowler, the guy who's the fifth person to bowl in your team generally

but there's also a more different definition to the composite expression "fifith bowler" we're talking when discussing allrounders

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

4 categories:
- Genuine All-Rounder (Botham, Keith Miller, Jadeja)
- Batting All-Rounder (Sobers, Kallis)
- Bowling All-Rounder (Hadlee, Davidson)
- No-Rounder (Moeen Ali, Mitch Marsh)

Sobers averaged 4 wickets per test for a 7 year period, arguably More genuine Allrounder than Botham.

 

[Jarquis]

Pick a better example. Root has bowled 2/3 of his balls as either the 6th or 7th bowler. Clearly not a fifth bowler in either the literal or substantive sense

 

[Migara]

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.

Tendulkar is a better bowler than Shane Warne a batsman. At least in ODIs