I think the issue here is we have what I call "borderline all rounders" - players whose secondary skill (be it batting or bowling) is considerably less highly regarded than their primary skill. I see Hammond in this category (WPM < 1) but his usefulness as a part-time bowler qualifies him as an all rounder (albeit borderline).
To have Wasim and Marshall classified as all rounders stretches it a bit as neither has a batting average that suggests they were expected to score heavily for their team. Wasim's Test centuries might qualify him but averaging well below 25 shouldn't. Marshall didn't average 20. To have either of them (and other possible borderline examples) ahead of genuine all rounders whose batting average is in the 30s, and whose bowling provided an integral part of an attack, would be farcical.
Marshall could bat, like seriously bat, but yada yada yada etc, reasons not important.
But I recall a thread where we were looking at best tours and Imran '82 came up, and his batting average. And I found it interesting that Marshall's output for his India '83 tour was identical, and from the same amount of innings, with a critical innings from Maco that won a match, but one averaged either high 40's or 50, and the other was lower ( can't recall the amount), but everyone just looks at the average.
Wasim had his massive not out double century, Hadlee was one that, while a better bat, was uniquely aware of his numbers and stats and milked it for what it was worth.
Subs loves to **** on Kallis and now many are saying Hammond wasn't an all rounder, but no argument that both are way more impactful for anyyyy team over someone like Kapil. Balance, impact, any of it.
Why I never liked the term all rounder, or buy into the stated importance.
Kallis, Hammond, Sobers, Chappell, Simpson (who will be getting votes from me shortly) etc.., contributed more to victories over the courses of their career with their catching than...
1) with their own bowling (Sobers apart likely), and...
2) that the bowling- all rounders batting.
But we get so caught up with the notion of all rounders, which India are showing that stacking your middle and lowest order with them hurts on all levels.
You need a top order batsman who can help the rotation and help get a few wickets, Hammond and Simpson are more than good enough for that.
You need a no. 8 and if viable without weakening your bowling in any way, a no. 9 who can hold a bat, and bail you out on the odd occasion if your batsmen collapse or hold on to secure a win or add on some useful runs. Yeah, an Imran is great, but Marshall, Warne, hell look at what Cummins is doing, is more than good enough.
This whole all rounder thing is just the spread sheet junkies, and bat deep devotees.
So yeah, I prefer to look at who's the better all round cricketers who can help your team the most, think
@Prince EWS was possibly hinting at same. From that regard, Kallis and Hammond are more than good enough, they are almost invaluable.
