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

[Starfighter]

You do realise they weren’t giving out Man of the Match awards in the 50’s right? They didn’t start doing it til the mid 80’s

Does anything else in his posting indicate he possesses that awareness?

 

[Brook's side]

You do realise they weren’t giving out Man of the Match awards in the 50’s right? They didn’t start doing it til the mid 80’s

It was earlier than that. I wrote:

"
Note, player/man of the match awards only go back to late December 1980. For matches prior to this I had to go through the cards to identify whether I could assess a MOM performance. Players who played prior to the cut off point and for whom I had to do this (whether for some or all of their games) are highlighted in yellow in the raw info chart. Where I had to make an assessment, I didn’t look at the cards for every match, but did so where the player’s summary stats (as shown in the player’s Test Match List details on ESPN Cricinfo), indicated a strong performance. So typically I checked where the player had scored 100 or taken 6 or more wickets. If there were 2 or more seemingly equal candidates for MOM I didn’t award it.
"

 

[Nintendo]

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

Root doesn't give you that much flexibility though? He's not good enough to be a 5th bowler anywhere except the SC unless be gets a bunch of left handers and some assistance from the deck, and even in the SC you don't want him to be the second spinner because bowling long ass spells ****s with his batting, as was clear in the in the first half of the ENG IND series recently.

 

[Coronis]

It was earlier than that. I wrote:

"
Note, player/man of the match awards only go back to late December 1980. For matches prior to this I had to go through the cards to identify whether I could assess a MOM performance. Players who played prior to the cut off point and for whom I had to do this (whether for some or all of their games) are highlighted in yellow in the raw info chart. Where I had to make an assessment, I didn’t look at the cards for every match, but did so where the player’s summary stats (as shown in the player’s Test Match List details on ESPN Cricinfo), indicated a strong performance. So typically I checked where the player had scored 100 or taken 6 or more wickets. If there were 2 or more seemingly equal candidates for MOM I didn’t award it.
"

So you make up your own man of the matches and then judge players based on their number of man of the matches. Makes sense.

 

[Brook's side]

So you make up your own man of the matches and then judge players based on their number of man of the matches. Makes sense.

I didn't judge them based on their MOM awards, it was a small factor in the calculation.
Although I had to make some awards myself pre-1980, I felt it was too important a category for best all-rounder to ignore.

Points were awarded for the following:

BATTING
Most runs
Highest average
Highest strike rate
Most 6s

BOWLING
Most wickets
Lowest average
Lowest strike rate
Most wickets per match
5 & 10 wicket hauls

ALL ROUNDER
Catches
MOM awards (awarded by me prior to 1980)
Batting Ave - Bowling Ave
Non Allrounder Penalties (where one part of game was substantially better than the other, as explained above)
A discretionary bonus points award for players with a record of getting their team over the line in matches with 3rd and 4th innings performances

 

[Coronis]

I didn't judge them based on their MOM awards, it was a small factor in the calculation.

Ok

 

[Majestic]

He should be good enough to either impact a game with his secondary discipline or be able to contribute on a regular basis in that discipline.

I would have Kallis and Pollock as all rounders because their secondary discipline was just good enough to fit my criteria. Same goes for Stokes who for most part was good enough as all rounder although not a great one but his primary discipline wasn't that good.

Is Ashwin or Hadlee an all rounder? No.

Is Vettori an all rounder? Now that's extremely debatable because I see it as a borderline case. He has 6 hundreds but his ODI batting and even his test batting for most part seemed ineffective. I just don't not see him as all rounder in true sense.

I would have below names in my all rounder category starting since 60s:-

Gary Sobers
Tony Greig
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Chris Cairns
Jacques Kallis
Shaun Pollock
Andrew Flintoff
Shakib Al Hasan
Ben Stokes
Ravindra Jadeja

 

[Coronis]

He should be good enough to either impact a game with his secondary discipline or be able to contribute on a regular basis in that discipline.

I would have Kallis and Pollock as all rounders because their secondary discipline was just good enough to fit my criteria. Same goes for Stokes who for most part was good enough as all rounder although not a great one but his primary discipline wasn't that good.

Is Ashwin or Hadlee an all rounder? No.

Is Vettori an all rounder? Now that's extremely debatable because I see it as a borderline case. He has 6 hundreds but his ODI batting and even his test batting for most part seemed ineffective. I just don't not see him as all rounder in true sense.

I would have below names in my all rounder category starting since 60s:-

Gary Sobers
Tony Greig
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Chris Cairns
Jacques Kallis
Shaun Pollock
Andrew Flintoff
Shakib Al Hasan
Ben Stokes
Ravindra Jadeja

List looks more for great/quality allrounders rather than just an allrounder in general.

 

[Jarquis]

The talk of minimum statistical requirements is rubbish. Ian Blackwell averages 4 with the bat, infinity with the ball and was picked as an all rounder.

 

[Brook's side]

The talk of minimum statistical requirements is rubbish. Ian Blackwell averages 4 with the bat, infinity with the ball and was picked as an all rounder.

Wrong.

In my system it wasn't about the difference between averages, it was the difference generated from a points system for batting and bowling derived from the statistics.

This then generates its own points to be added to the tally.

Someone with figures like the ones you mentioned wouldn't be in the equation anyway, as they wouldn't score anything for batting or for bowling. But the fact that their averages were miles apart in each discipline wouldn't determine how they were assessed in terms of how consistent their strengths were.

It just needs someone with brains like me to sort this stuff out that you blokes have been floundering hopelessly at for the last 20 years.

 

[Prince EWS]

Someone with figures like the ones you mentioned wouldn't be in the equation anyway, as they wouldn't score anything for batting or for bowling.

That's precisely why your system is next to useless for determining whether or not someone was an allrounder.

At best it measures how good an allrounder someone was; not whether they were one.

 

[Starfighter]

It just needs someone with brains like me

I think you could use a second opinion on that one.

 

[Brook's side]

That's precisely why your system is next to useless for determining whether or not someone was an allrounder.

At best it measures how good an allrounder someone was; not whether they were one.

My system gives points for bowling and points for batting, but then disallows points (or a proportion of them) for the better scoring facet once it exceeds a threshold pro rata to the weaker facet.

What's wrong with that?

It might be "next to useless" as identifying cricketers who are all-rounders (or might not be, I haven't considered it), but I wasn't trying to do that and it would be a daft exercise.
What I was doing was identifying the BEST all-rounder(s).
My starting point for that wasn't every person who's ever played cricket, but was a list of cricketers who might be considered as possible candidates for the title of best all-rounder. I identified 21, who I analysed including by applying the calculation I've described above.

 

[Prince EWS]

It might be "next to useless" as identifying crickets who are all-rounders (or might not be, I haven't considered it), but I wasn't trying to do that and it would be a daft exercise.

That's what this thread is about though. Jarquis probably wasn't even talking about your diversion of a post when he made his.

 

[Brook's side]

That's what this thread is about though. Jarquis probably wasn't even talking about your diversion of a post when he made his.

Fair enough.

 

[Brook's side]

Then my personal response to the OP, would be respectfully that the question is a red herring.

I'd say that players are picked in particular teams in particular roles, so it's not possible to establish criteria from an overall career - certainly not on a uniform basis - which determines whether a player was or was not an allrounder.

It's a question of degree, and a question of particular circumstances.

That would be my first thought anyway.

 

[kyear2]

That's precisely why your system is next to useless for determining whether or not someone was an allrounder.

At best it measures how good an allrounder someone was; not whether they were one.

Exactly.

 

[subshakerz]

Then my personal response to the OP, would be respectfully that the question is a red herring.

I'd say that players are picked in particular teams in particular roles, so it's not possible to establish criteria from an overall career - certainly not on a uniform basis - which determines whether a player was or was not an allrounder.

It's a question of degree, and a question of particular circumstances.

That would be my first thought anyway.

This is at least debatable. What degree and what circumstances.

 

[bagapath]

One argument used to be that a good allrounder would get picked in any team for either his batting or bowling alone. That would be the explanation for the superstardom accorded to Kapil/ Imran/ Botham and Miller

But Richard Hadlee and Shaun Pollock can make it to any team with a batting average of zero, purely as bowling spearheads.
Sobers and Kallis are all time great bats and certainties in any team whose bowling was just an added advantage to their teams.

So if I flip that argument, then an answer might emerge.

I think a functional allrounder - what the OP wants definition for - is someone who cannot be picked for one skill alone; but with a combination of his batting and bowling abilities, he becomes a more useful member of the playing XI.

by this definition, it possible to justify the selections of

Ravi Shastri
Moen Ali
Brian McMillan
Greg Matthews
Warwick Armstrong

None of those could have had long careers for their batting or bowling alone.

Within this set comprising of dual skilled cricketers are individual players with varying abilities who are more, or less, useful in one role or the other.
With a little more success in one of the primary skills, in this case bowling, the following became superior allrounders compared to the earlier set of players.

Vinoo Mankad
Andrew Flintoff
Wilfred Rhodes
Daniel Vettori

These all rounders fulfil some minimum criteria as test cricketers without possessing the killer bowling skills of Hadlee or the batsmanship of Sobers.

So I would say that for an allrounder the sum their batting or bowling skills mean more together than individually.

 

[subshakerz]

I think a functional allrounder - what the OP wants definition for - is someone who cannot be picked for one skill alone; but with a combination of his batting and bowling abilities, he becomes a more useful member of the playing XI.

That is the definition of a no-rounder.