What are the minimum record requirements for secondary disciplines to qualify someone as an all-rounder?

[Prince EWS]

Ross Taylor could be an allrounder by this logic. Pretty good slip fielder as well as a bowling average of 16. Along with Hadlee, Murali, and McGrath he took a wicket with his last ball in test cricket.

He couldn't bowl a hoop down a hill.

 

[Xix2565]

For me personally, I would have some basic requirements in terms of runs and wickets per match. 30 runs and 1 wicket seems fine.

 

[Coronis]

He couldn't bowl a hoop down a hill.

Can you?

 

[Prince EWS]

Can you?

Yes.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yes.

But can you bowl a cricket ball down a pitch?

 

[Starfighter]

@OverratedSanity answered correctly in the first reply. Trying to put a numerical value on it is silly - it's the intent of the selection that counts.

 

[kyear2]

@OverratedSanity answered correctly in the first reply. Trying to put a numerical value on it is silly - it's the intent of the selection that counts.

Agreed

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah Hammond would be a good shout as a 5th bowler in most historical sides.

Would fit right in around that Green/Marsh level for current Aus for example.

Was Hammond used that regularly

 

[Coronis]

Was Hammond used that regularly

Compares decently with Green, I think most teams would quite like that as a 5th bowler. (Remembering Green has played in a bowling friendly era and Hammond played in a batting friendly era)

Bowled in 65 matches (110 innings) bout 20 overs per match or 12 overs per innings. Didn’t bowl in 20 matches, 10 of those were in the final 11 matches of his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Bowled in 65 matches (110 innings) bout 20 overs per match or 12 overs per innings. Didn’t bowl in 20 matches, 10 of those were in the final 11 matches of his career.

Interesting that's around Kallis' load average.

 

[subshakerz]

For me personally, I would have some basic requirements in terms of runs and wickets per match. 30 runs and 1 wicket seems fine.

Similar here. My combo is output and work load.

My cutoff would be a Hooper/Hammond level bowler and Hadlee/Ashwin level bat.

 

[Coronis]

Interesting that's around Kallis' load average.

Yeah not as good as Kallis obviously, but yeah most actual teams throughout history would happily take that from their 5th bowler.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Let's also say, I've seen Mark Taylor and even Graeme Smith referred to as all rounders (a designation you're well aware I agree with) being specialists batsmen and especially Taylor, tremendous slip fielders.

Again, very subjective

That so sounded like it was going to be a set up for a fat joke.

Disappointed it wasn't, tbh.

To the matter at hand though, I think any statistical contrivance to measure the minimum is ultimately going to be arbitrary.

There's also the problem that we tend to look at players' careers as a whole, rather than the evolving sagas they actually are.

Take Joe Root. His offies aren't anywhere near good enough to get him selected on their own, but they've developed to the extent that they might just be adequate for a captain to be persuaded to do without a specialist twirler on a track that looks on the greenish side on day one on the faint chance a bit of spin is needed later on.

Does that make him an all-rounder? Probably not, but he's effectively been selected as a nominal one in this scenario.

 

[kyear2]

That so sounded like it was going to be a set up for a fat joke.

Disappointed it wasn't, tbh.

To the matter at hand though, I think any statistical contrivance to measure the minimum is ultimately going to be arbitrary.

There's also the problem that we tend to look at players' careers as a whole, rather than the evolving sagas they actually are.

Take Joe Root. His offies aren't anywhere near good enough to get him selected on their own, but they've developed to the extent that they might just be adequate for a captain to be persuaded to do without a specialist twirler on a track that looks on the greenish side on day one on the faint chance a bit of spin is needed later on.

Does that make him an all-rounder? Probably not, but he's effectively been selected as a nominal one in this scenario.

And that's more than good enough. And the flexibility he offers in terms of selection is invaluable.

 

[subshakerz]

And that's more than good enough. And the flexibility he offers in terms of selection is invaluable.

That's a part timer though, not an allrounder.

 

[kyear2]

That's a part timer though, not an allrounder.

You're the one jung up on the labels.

You perform both rolls for me, you're an all rounder. Doesn't mean you were a great or even very good one..

 

[subshakerz]

You're the one jung up on the labels.

You perform both rolls for me, you're an all rounder. Doesn't mean you were a great or even very good one..

Do you consider Marshall and Warne all-rounders?

 

[Xix2565]

I can understand the roles the players are being selected for, but you have to actually play up to expectations in order to get the label.

 

[Prince EWS]

I can understand the roles the players are being selected for, but you have to actually play up to expectations in order to get the label.

Nah, disagree. It's not a qualitative assessment. Calling someone an allrounder doesn't mean they're good, just as calling Runako Morton a Test batsman doesn't mean he was good at that.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah, disagree. It's not a qualitative assessment. Calling someone an allrounder doesn't mean they're good, just as calling Runako Morton a Test batsman doesn't mean he was good at that.

I think it is a qualitative assessment when it comes to CW and how we assess players.

Perhaps it is clearer to ask what is a test-class all-rounder?