Top 5 test allrounders of the last 30 years.

[CricAddict]

Who do you not consider allrounders?
Cronje I guess, and...?

I'd guess he means Ashwin.

Yes. Definitely Ashwin. Do not rate his batting at all.

To each his own. But imo from that list, this is how I define.

Very good all-rounders: Shakib, Stokes, Jadeja, Pollock
Good to decent all-rounders: Mcmillan, Cairns, Flintoff, Watson and Holder
Last tier of all-rounders: Oram, CDG, Green, Mayers, Woakes

Others are all batsmen or bowlers who can do the other discipline too a bit.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Is a decent #8 less of an rounder than someone who takes 1.5 wickets per match?

Hard to quantify, isn't it. If a top order bat is providing a legit 5th bowling option and thus allows your side to pack an extra batsman in then I expect most people would be happy to classify them as a batting all rounder. Doesn't seem to be a consensus around bowlers who make a decent #8, perhaps depends on the balance of the team around them.


Obviously Kallis won his side enough games to count.

 

[CricAddict]

Yes. Definitely Ashwin. Do not rate his batting at all.

To each his own. But imo from that list, this is how I define.

Very good all-rounders: Shakib, Stokes, Jadeja, Pollock
Good to decent all-rounders: Mcmillan, Cairns, Flintoff, Watson and Holder
Last tier of all-rounders: Oram, CDG, Green, Mayers, Woakes

Others are all batsmen or bowlers who can do the other discipline too a bit.

And while doing this list, noticed how there are so many kiwis in there, starting with Stokes.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Poll needs more Moeen.

 

[CricAddict]

Poll needs more Moeen.

And Jamieson has waned off a bit now. Otherwise, FP would have 100% added him lol.

 

[Xix2565]

Ashwin literally makes close to as much runs per innings as Pollock though, and has more wickets than him. On what basis is he not an all rounder like Pollock?

 

[Coronis]

Ashwin literally makes close to as much runs per innings as Pollock though, and has far more wickets than him. On what basis is he not an all rounder like Pollock?

Because Jadeja.

 

[Xix2565]

Because Jadeja.

This is Ashwin vs Pollock though? We already count Jadeja as an AR, I'm disputing this idea that Ashwin isn't one.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Because Jadeja.

Yeah, rightly or wrongly (I'd definitely suggest the latter) Ashwin has been deemed surplus to requirements to the test XI more than once recently and the selectors have invariably preferred Jadeja.

FWIW I'd take Ashwin ahead of Jadeja all day long.

 

[trundler]

Hard to quantify, isn't it. If a top order bat is providing a legit 5th bowling option and thus allows your side to pack an extra batsman in then I expect most people would be happy to classify them as a batting all rounder. Doesn't seem to be a consensus around bowlers who make a decent #8, perhaps depends on the balance of the team around them.


Obviously Kallis won his side enough games to count.

We could differentiate between better player and better all rounder but no one really thinks like that. Kallis, Pollock, Ashwin and Jayasuriya are all the same 'degree' of all rounder to me and I'd have them in that order as cricketers.

 

[Xix2565]

Selectors being idiots for Tests outside the subcontinent on the rare occassions one of Ash/Jadeja aren't injured doesn't suddenly make Ashwin a bowler who can bat a bit. Not sure why their opinions need to be relied on so much more for what their records show us.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont think Ashwin is a proper test match allrounder and I dont think Shaun Pollock was one either. They both are very good #8 batsmen who would somehow feel a place too high everytime they batted 7.

 

[Xix2565]

Think that feels a little restrictive since no one here's set a guideline for genuine ARs, batting ARs and bowling ARs.

 

[Bolo.]

I reckon Ashwin is one of the best in the list, but he has gone from bowling AR to bowler who can bat a bit over his career. Really used to rate his batting and thought he would end up averaging mid 30s.

Everyone except Shakib and Jadeja are batting/bowling ARs, but he is a step too far for me.

 

[ZK$]

Yeah, Ashwin is probably the second best cricketer in the poll, but I’m not sure if he qualifies as an allrounder.

 

[trundler]

On reflection, I should either pick Ashwin over Cairns or Jadeja over Pollock for consistency's sake.

 

[CricAddict]

Ashwin literally makes close to as much runs per innings as Pollock though, and has more wickets than him. On what basis is he not an all rounder like Pollock?

Yes Pollock is very borderline too. I agree on that. But still feel he is more of an allrounder than Ashwin.

 

[Bitmap]

Yeah in hindsight it seems I picked Pollock more due to him being the best cricketer in the poll. Cairns is probably as good an all rounder as Pollock if not better.

 

[Xix2565]

Just a basic look at the outputs of Jadeja, SPollock and Ashwin per Test/Innings in both disciplines.

BATTING	Matches played	Innings batted	Runs made	Balls faced	Dismissals	Batting Average	Strike Rate	Runs per Test	Runs per Innings	100s made	50s made
Ravindra Jadeja	60​	89​	2523​	4240​	69​	36.57​	59.50​	42.05​	28.35​	3​	17​
Shaun Pollock	108​	156​	3781​	7198​	117​	32.32​	52.53​	35.01​	24.24​	2​	16​
Ravichandran Ashwin	86​	123​	2931​	5364​	109​	26.89​	54.64​	34.08​	23.83​	5​	12​

BOWLING	Matches played	Innings bowled	Runs conceded	Balls bowled	Wickets taken	Bowling Average	Strike Rate	Wickets per Test	Wickets per Innings	10 wickets in a match	5 wickets in an innings
Ravindra Jadeja	60​	114​	5980​	14751​	242​	24.71​	60.95​	4.03​	2.12​	1​	10​
Shaun Pollock	108​	202​	9733​	24353​	421​	23.12​	57.85​	3.90​	2.08​	1​	16​
Ravichandran Ashwin	86​	162​	10666​	23089​	442​	24.13​	52.24​	5.14​	2.73​	7​	30​

Ashwin doesn't seem too far off either of them to be considered not an all-rounder.

 

[ZK$]

I think an all rounder should probably be someone that is at least a proper #7 bat and at least a proper fifth bowling option.