You can be selected for a role but that doesn't mean you are test standard for that role. Or you can become test standard as your career moves along.
Is this really too complex for you? Just because someone isn't a test standard allrounder doesn't mean they aren't an allrounder. Same as with specialists.
Okay so what are the requirements for a test standard all-rounder then, if you want to be so pedantic about it?
It's you who's imposing requirements, you idiot. I don't care about whether they are test standard or not.
If Zak Crawley isn’t test standard why has he played in England’s last 29 tests?
Lol that's the entire point of the thread, comparing our own requirements, not asking what selection committees do. Get off your high horse man.
I never said he wasnt.
You never stated 'test standard allrounder'. So I provided the correct answer rather than making up some arbitrary criteria. Allrounder is a role, not a set of numbers.
Ok congrats 10 point for you.
My minimum is average >25 with bat and <35 with ball, minimum 2 wkts per match.
And isn't that where the "bowling all rounders" bat?
They can. Bowling ARs to me should be good enough to bat at no7 though.
Not meeting test class for any of the three doesn't change their role, just effectiveness.
He was selected as one, hence he was one. He batted and bowled.
I recall some recent conversations about criteria for ATG and how to keep it to just 30 - 40 was too restrictive. But to say there was only 10 test standard all rounders is really too restrictive
According to you.
Again this just depends on the team composition.
I didn't say the 10 were standard allrounders, I said they were my ideal allrounder with bat >30, bowl <30. For perspective there are only 43 batsmen who ave >50 (min 1000 runs) for 5 ATG spots per team)
