What is the best definition of an all-rounder?

[Blenkinsop]

Among current players, Shakib is the only one who will get into the team based on only batting or only bowling.

Stokes has been picked for Tests even when he wasn't fit to bowl, hasn't he?

I'd argue Jason Holder and Kyle Jamieson are worth their places as bowler alone, too.

 

[Bijed]

I'd argue Jason Holder and Kyle Jamieson are worth their places as bowler alone, too.

I must admit I've never quite got the notion of Jamieson as anything more than a bowler (admittedly a very good one). I think he's spoken about becoming a 'proper all-rounder' or something, but his First-Class record is nothing more than 'can hold the bat' (although perhaps he'd been more consistent with the bat in the season or two before his test call-up? That would make things seem more reasonable). I know his batting average was very healthy after a few innings, but it was just a few innings

I like the guy and if we played against him again tomorrow I'd be wary of him making an annoying useful contribution with the bat, but no more than any reasonable #8

 

[CricAddict]

Stokes has been picked for Tests even when he wasn't fit to bowl, hasn't he?

I'd argue Jason Holder and Kyle Jamieson are worth their places as bowler alone, too.

Sorry, that should be an 'and' and not 'or'. Holder won't get picked as batsman and Stokes won't get picked as bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

If Jadeja is in the squad and unable to bowl for some reason, he will still get to play at 7 for India considering his current form against others.

But there is also a good chance that Ashwin will play ahead of him in that case.

Come one, which team plays a specialist batsman at no.7?

For India, the five man bowling attack is key, which means Jadeja will either play as an allrounder at no.7 or not at all.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sorry, that should be an 'and' and not 'or'. Holder won't get picked as batsman and Stokes won't get picked as bowler.

Holder would actually be close I think. If they're going to pick 3-4 middle order bats then Bonner has been better than him but Blackwood only roughly as good for the past 3-4 years, and while Mayers has a good looking overall record he still only averages 25 against teams that aren't Bangladesh. Brooks still hasn't been dropped despite averaging 25 in his 11 Tests and Reifer as a #3 batsman is just really weird.

Holder always looks technically more adept than most of these guys too. I'd probably still pick him at 5 or 6 if he couldn't bowl tbh. It does say more about the WI batting options than Holder himself though.

 

[bagapath]

If someone scores 50 runs per test and takes 2/3 wickets he is an all rounder who definitely contributes to the team.

Such a cricketer after 60 tests would have crossed 3000 runs at a batting avg of 30 and taken 150 wickets. If he had bowled 25/30 overs per test and conceded about 3 runs an over he would have averaged 30 / wicket

so 30 batting average and 2+ wickets at around 30 makes one an all rounder. if he is better in both disciplines then you have an all time great like a Botham or Imran, or super strong in one but slightly weak in the other you get a Hadlee or a Kallis.

averaging 30 with bat and ball with 2+ wickets a match seems to be a good starting point to create this list.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Always felt with Kallis that he could easily have been world class in both disciplines, but didn't need to be because he was usually playing with the likes of Steyn and Pollock. He was properly quick in the first part of his career and if SA's bowling stocks had been shorter I'm sure he would have bowled more and developed more as a bowler.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Among current players, Shakib is the only one who will get into the team based on only batting or only bowling.

I am not saying Jadeja due to Ashwin's presence.

What about Mayers and Green?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What about Mayers and Green?

Green isn't fit enough to play as a specialist bowler, and while he is good enough as a batsman he probably wouldn't have been picked yet if he didn't bowl. Not far off being good enough at both though

 

[CricAddict]

Green isn't fit enough to play as a specialist bowler, and while he is good enough as a batsman he probably wouldn't have been picked yet if he didn't bowl. Not far off being good enough at both though

Same definition applies for Mayers too. Won't have been picked as specialist bowler.

 

[CricAddict]

Holder would actually be close I think. If they're going to pick 3-4 middle order bats then Bonner has been better than him but Blackwood only roughly as good for the past 3-4 years, and while Mayers has a good looking overall record he still only averages 25 against teams that aren't Bangladesh. Brooks still hasn't been dropped despite averaging 25 in his 11 Tests and Reifer as a #3 batsman is just really weird.

Holder always looks technically more adept than most of these guys too. I'd probably still pick him at 5 or 6 if he couldn't bowl tbh. It does say more about the WI batting options than Holder himself though.

Yes, Holder is very close and his case is similar to Jadeja. I thought a lot about him too.

Both were picked in team primarily for bowling abilities while batting was an add-on. While Holder's batting is still better than most of the pure batsmen they pick, I doubt if selectors will have the same view and pick him as a batsman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

while Mayers has a good looking overall record he still only averages 25 against teams that aren't Bangladesh.

That's good enough to play as a specialist bat for WI

 

[shortpitched713]

For Test cricket:

2 more meaningful categories:
Batting all-rounder - picked for his batting, and can also bowl test standard
Bowling all-rounder - picked for his bowling, and offers significantly more with the bat than a "true tailender"

Bowling all-rounder is a bit more "valuable" of the two, and seen more often in Test cricket. The value of the batting all-rounder will vary based on the quality of the front line bowlers and the front line group's tolerance for a heavy workload. A good example of this lesser value for batting all-rounder I think could be seen with Shane Watson back in the Australian side's heyday under Punter. His ability to send down Test-class, but middling quality, seam up overs was mostly an afterthought, and he needed to have excellent batting form in Australian FC to get his chance in the Test side.

Less important category:
True/"genuine" all-rounder - More of a trivia category for mine. I'd define it as a player who while still fitting into one of the categories above, is better or arguably just as good as specialists in the side. So for the quintessential "balanced" example of Ian Botham. He was picked in the side for mine as a bowling all-rounder, but there were significant stretches where he was one of the top 3 batsmen on the side, and for that reason he merits the title "Genuine" all-rounder, but of course this one is a bit more subjective, as to who earns the title. Shakib al Hasan is another great example.

Secret category 4:
"Bits and pieces" cricketers - clearly don't merit a place in side for either batting or bowling, but somehow do enough combined that the selectors keep giving them an extended run in the side. IMO, selectors need to **** off with these kind of picks for higher level Test sides. Ashley Giles is the classic example.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's good enough to play as a specialist bat for WI

Yeah it probably is but that's good evidence that Holder would make it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Shane Watson back in the Australian side's heyday under Punter. His ability to send down Test-class, but middling quality, seam up overs was mostly an afterthought, and he needed to have excellent batting form in Australian FC to get his chance in the Test side.

It definitely ended up like that, but by that point in his career he was one of the best batsmen in the country anyway. Early on he was picked as a specialist all-rounder.

 

[shortpitched713]

It definitely ended up like that, but by that point in his career he was one of the best batsmen in the country anyway. Early on he was picked as a specialist all-rounder.

Wasn't he an off-on type selection before that though? I think they tried Symonds and some other specialist bats competed for that slot before Watto's batting form made it an easier selection.

Whereas I think if there was a better batting bowling all-rounder 3rd seamer for Australia at the time, I think Lee/Kaspa would have had their place out of the side around that time, but such a player didn't exist.

Generally, I don't think the Australia of the time believed in all-rounders at all ( and with good reason, as they had the best specialist bowling and specialist batting lineups of the world ).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wasn't he an off-on type selection before that though? I think they tried Symonds and some other specialist bats competed for that slot before Watto's batting form made it an easier selection.

Whereas I think if there was a better batting bowling all-rounder 3rd seamer for Australia at the time, I think Lee/Kaspa would have had their place out of the side around that time, but such a player didn't exist.

Generally, I don't think the Australia of the time believed in all-rounders at all ( and with good reason, as they had the best specialist bowling and specialist batting lineups of the world ).

Yeah you're mostly right. He was an on-off selection a lot because he was always on-off injured. He never really played as a 3rd seamer either, except when they wanted to play 2 spinners like at the Sydney Test, otherwise he was a 4th seam option.

As far as not believing in all-rounders, the Australian side around that time were actually always talking about how they really wanted to find one. They didn't need one of course but many saw it as a missing piece. When young Watson came along they chucked him in there pretty quickly.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah you're mostly right. He was an on-off selection a lot because he was always on-off injured. He never really played as a 3rd seamer either, except when they wanted to play 2 spinners like at the Sydney Test, otherwise he was a 4th seam option.

As far as not believing in all-rounders, the Australian side around that time were actually always talking about how they really wanted to find one. They didn't need one of course but many saw it as a missing piece. When young Watson came along they chucked him in there pretty quickly.

Let's be real, he was never good enough to do that role for a side like that peak Australia test team.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The true definition of an all-rounder is, performing under pressure.

 

[CricAddict]

The true definition of an all-rounder is, performing under pressure.

Why is that specific to all-rounders? Every player needs to do that.