Top 5 test allrounders of the last 30 years.

[BoyBrumby]

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.

It's debateable, IMHO. I'd guess it's pretty rare that anyone batting at #8 doesn't at least know which end of the bat to hold, and is often a factor in their selection (see Giles, Ashley).

Might not always be ARs per se, but at least AR adjacent.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Poll needs more Moeen.

Batting average of 28.3; bowling average of 36.7

 

[Fuller Pilch]

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.

There are exceptions. Vettori averaged 40 for 6-7 years while batting at no 8 and his batting was better than his bowling.

 

[trundler]

There are exceptions. Vettori averaged 40 for 6-7 years while batting at no 8 and his batting was better than his bowling.

Hence why he's the GOAT no rounder.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hence why he's the GOAT no rounder.

Then how did he get to no2 in the test allrounder rankings when he played at the same time as Kallis?

I'd say players like Moeen Ali, Greg Matthews, or Ravi Shastri would be better choices as elite no rounders.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

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.

Watson was much worse than most of the players in the last tier, while Holder (very ineffective outside the WI) is worse than several.

 

[Burgey]

Little surprised considering your recent Shakib bashing.

Hey man, while people keep biting, the bait will keep being tossed out.

I'm not a massive fan of his but his numbers for his side clearly mean he belongs in the argument. It isn't as though properly gun all rounders come along very often. Obviously he'd be better if he stood the seam up, but it is what it is.

 

[Burgey]

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?

Not always getting picked for his own team probably docks him a few points with folks.

 

[AndrewB]

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.

Curiously, both of Pollock's Test hundreds were scored while batting at #9.

His average when batting at #7 was a respectable 32, about the same as that of Dhoni (30), Kapil (31), Hadlee (32), Flintoff (32), Dujon (33) and Imran (34).

 

[Burgey]

Then how did he get to no2 in the test allrounder rankings when he played at the same time as Kallis?

I'd say players like Moeen Ali, Greg Matthews, or Ravi Shastri would be better choices as elite no rounders.

Greg Matthews ended up with a test batting average of 41 having played from 83-93 when Aus mostly had a junk team. That's a good enough number to make a lot of sides as a batsman alone tbf to him.

Strange, strange cat is Mo. Love him, though.

 

[Xix2565]

Not always getting picked for his own team probably docks him a few points with folks.

Yeah but selection isn't perfect either so surely there's some leeway.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah for sure. Just saying if you're picking a top 5 it's a factor for some people.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Am surprised Vettori hasn't got any votes. One of only three players in history (along with Botham and Kapil) to score 4000+ runs and take 300+ wickets.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

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

All on merit though.
Vettori 4000 runs/300 wickets (Botham and Kapil the only others in history to achieve this).
Then look at the averages of the other 3 (batting 1st):
CDG 38.7/32.95
Oram 36.3/33.05
Cairns 33.5/29.4

It isn't as if the list included Nathan Astle, Corey Anderson, Jimmy Neesham, Mark Craig, and Mitchell Santner.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Curiously, both of Pollock's Test hundreds were scored while batting at #9.

His average when batting at #7 was a respectable 32, about the same as that of Dhoni (30), Kapil (31), Hadlee (32), Flintoff (32), Dujon (33) and Imran (34).

Vettori scored 1 100 @ 9 averaging 23.5, 4 100s @ 8 (39.8), interestingly highest score of 96 at 7 (29.3), and his other 100 at 6 (28.5).
He batted 11 on test debut and moved up the order over the years.

 

[ankitj]

I usually have a policy of not rating players differently as players and as all rounders. Think I violated it by not voting for Ashwin who is 2nd best cricketer in the poll. Hmm.

 

[subshakerz]

It's debateable, IMHO. I'd guess it's pretty rare that anyone batting at #8 doesn't at least know which end of the bat to hold, and is often a factor in their selection (see Giles, Ashley).

Might not always be ARs per se, but at least AR adjacent.

I agree with the batting no.7/bowling 5th definition of an AR. The important part is capable of batting or bowling in these positions, while practically the captain may switch them around.

If you are batting no.7, the team clearly expects you to contribute on a regular basis, while no.8 can often be a genuine tailender depending on the team.

 

[subshakerz]

I usually have a policy of not rating players differently as players and as all rounders. Think I violated it by not voting for Ashwin who is 2nd best cricketer in the poll. Hmm.

I have the same policy and went for Ashwin ahead of Stokes who would be my fifth. Rather silly to rate them separately as players and allrounders.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

while no.8 can often be a genuine tailender depending on the team.

Or in Vettori's case (best no 8 of all time), he was the best batsman in the team for 2-3 years.

 

[Prince EWS]

I usually have a policy of not rating players differently as players and as all rounders.

I reckon you'd make my top 5 of posters I agreed most with about historical cricketers, but this is nuts.

Dravid was not a better allrounder than de Grandhomme. He totally was a better cricketer though.