All-Rounders Around the World

[FaaipDeOiad]

Anyways, I think an all rounder is really someone who can and has batted in the top 7 regularly (you could quantify that as at least a third of the games in his career) and bowled on average at least 10 overs per innings. Gets rid of players like Paul Reiffel, and rightfully players like Irfan Pathan.

My feeling is similar, but I do think it's possible for an all-rounder to bat at 8. If someone like Shane Warne was a genuinely good test batsman in the second half of his career he probably still would have batted at 8, unless they picked a 5th specialist bowler and put Gilchrist up to 6. Same would apply for say Mitchell Johnson or Stuart Broad if they developed into good test batsmen.

Anyway I generally agree. 10 overs an innings seems reasonable to seperate part-timers from genuine bowlers, and an all-rounder is essentially just someone who is picked for both their batting and bowling, without one massively outweighing the other. If you start saying things like "they should be able to make the team with either discipline" you exclude even most great all-rounders, and statistical barriers just mean your list is "good all-rounders" rather than all of them.

 

[Migara]

Test 5-for = a test century

therefore a test wicket = 20 test runs!!

Prove it statistically. I have given my proof.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Prove it statistically. I have given my proof.

I don't think it's a statistical argument. It's more in terms of how highly they are rated by cricket followers in general. There's also the fact that the most prolific run scorers and wicket-takers are all around the 10,000 run/500 wicket barrier these days, which indicates around a 20/1 split.

 

[Something_Fishy]

Test 5-for = a test century

therefore a test wicket = 20 test runs!!

A Test century is only worth 4 wickets in my opinion, not 5, making it 25 runs for one wicket, which is close to what Migara showed statistically. Say a bowler takes a fifer, that means he has taken half the wickets and done just as well or better than all the other bowlers put together, whereas if you score a ton, it doesn't stop teammates from scoring one too.
I also don't think you can compare the top batsmen and bowlers statistically and say, well Murali's 750+ wickets is equal to Tendulkar's 12000+ runs. Even if you take 20 runs to be one Test wicket then Tendulkar is supposed to have scored 15000 runs. All it shows is that Murali has dominated the Sri Lankan wicket-taking department and has taken wickets when his teammates couldn't. And because they couldn't, he could bowl for long enough to take them, whereas other Indian failures don't affect Sachin stats.

 

[Something_Fishy]

In general though I don't think a wicket can count as 20 runs.

That would mean the average score is 200 per innings, which seems too low.

How about 1 Test wicket equaling 25 runs?

I think that's more fair overall.

I completely agree with 25 runs per wicket, because 200 is a bit low. And if you think 250 is low, remember that there are 4 (sometimes 3) innings in a Test.

 

[Uppercut]

Prove it statistically. I have given my proof.

Your argument only stands for their respective value in the context of a match (and even then it's highly theoretical- it's the average number of runs saved if every dismissal the bowler took was for a duck). In the context of judging a career it undersells the batsmen- as was pointed out before, 15,000 runs /= 500 wickets.

 

[Faceless void]

I completely agree with 25 runs per wicket, because 200 is a bit low. And if you think 250 is low, remember that there are 4 (sometimes 3) innings in a Test.

There is a fact missing in the argument.
If a team is 250/10 it means that all 11 players of which atleast 4 who are completely inept at batting have batted against able bowlers. On a normal pitch taking all 4 innings into consideration 240 might be the average score. But if all the batsmen who batted were able batsmen(the top 7) like all the bowlers who bowl. The average score might be somewhere around 275 mark. That would justify the argument that 1 wkt =27 runs.

P.S- Dont usually post. Only read the posts, atleast 3 times each day. Couldn't resist this time.

 

[Migara]

There is a fact missing in the argument.
If a team is 250/10 it means that all 11 players of which atleast 4 who are completely inept at batting have batted against able bowlers. On a normal pitch taking all 4 innings into consideration 240 might be the average score. But if all the batsmen who batted were able batsmen(the top 7) like all the bowlers who bowl. The average score might be somewhere around 275 mark. That would justify the argument that 1 wkt =27 runs.

P.S- Dont usually post. Only read the posts, atleast 3 times each day. Couldn't resist this time.

It's not the case.
Each Match has 44 batting innigs. But only 35.2 used on average. On average, a bowler never dismisses numbers 10 and 11 batsmen.

 

[Migara]

Looking at the cricket history there has been 3237 centuries scored. But there are only 2437 five-fors. i.e. A century is 1.33 times commoner. The original benchmark of 100 runs = 5 wicket should be edited as 133 runs = 5 wickets. Once again a wicket will erquate to 26 runs, which was similar to earlier result I have shown.

 

[tooextracool]

My feeling is similar, but I do think it's possible for an all-rounder to bat at 8. If someone like Shane Warne was a genuinely good test batsman in the second half of his career he probably still would have batted at 8, unless they picked a 5th specialist bowler and put Gilchrist up to 6. Same would apply for say Mitchell Johnson or Stuart Broad if they developed into good test batsmen.

If Shane Warne was a genuine all rounder (which he wasnt, more like a handy lower order batter), he would have batted at 6 or 7 IMO especially with Australia's penchant on having all rounders in the side at all costs. I mean lets not forget that this is a side that had Andy Symonds instead of Simon Katich because of his 'all round' abilities and that was while Warne was playing. There are cases like Watson who have played for Australia and batted in the top 7 and its hard to suggest that either of these 2 were at any point amongst the top 7 batters in the country. The same goes with Broad IMO, if he ever turns into a genuine all rounder, I am fairly confident he will bat at 6 or 7 at some point and take over the mantle from Flintoff. The fact that he bats at 8 shows insecurities about his batting ability.
I realize your point that they might be exceptions to the rule, but honestly, very few sides in the world have 7 batters who are of exceptional quality that they can afford to have a genuine all rounder bat at 8, so I dont see that happening very often.

Anyway I generally agree. 10 overs an innings seems reasonable to seperate part-timers from genuine bowlers, and an all-rounder is essentially just someone who is picked for both their batting and bowling, without one massively outweighing the other. If you start saying things like "they should be able to make the team with either discipline" you exclude even most great all-rounders, and statistical barriers just mean your list is "good all-rounders" rather than all of them.

Yeah I think that was the definition I used to go by, and while it can be twisted a little bit to include some of the all rounders in the game, it still leaves out a lot of players who werent very good all rounders. As a result, Ive tweaked my definition, and I think its a far more accurate indication of whos an all rounder and who isnt.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If Shane Warne was a genuine all rounder (which he wasnt, more like a handy lower order batter), he would have batted at 6 or 7 IMO especially with Australia's penchant on having all rounders in the side at all costs. I mean lets not forget that this is a side that had Andy Symonds instead of Simon Katich because of his 'all round' abilities and that was while Warne was playing. There are cases like Watson who have played for Australia and batted in the top 7 and its hard to suggest that either of these 2 were at any point amongst the top 7 batters in the country. The same goes with Broad IMO, if he ever turns into a genuine all rounder, I am fairly confident he will bat at 6 or 7 at some point and take over the mantle from Flintoff. The fact that he bats at 8 shows insecurities about his batting ability.
I realize your point that they might be exceptions to the rule, but honestly, very few sides in the world have 7 batters who are of exceptional quality that they can afford to have a genuine all rounder bat at 8, so I dont see that happening very often.

I disagree with this, actually. It was only post-2005 when the Aussies came down with a case of the Freddie-envy that they tried to crow-bar an all-rounder in at any cost. For the vast majority of Warne's career Australia played six specialist batsman and four bowlers, with a bit of fill-in from the batsmen (noteably the Waughs and Lehmann).

 

[tooextracool]

I disagree with this, actually. It was only post-2005 when the Aussies came down with a case of the Freddie-envy that they tried to crow-bar an all-rounder in at any cost. For the vast majority of Warne's career Australia played six specialist batsman and four bowlers, with a bit of fill-in from the batsmen (noteably the Waughs and Lehmann).

Obviously the search for an all-rounder got more desperate after Freddie's Ashes. However, its not like they never tried to fit in an all rounder in their side in the 90s. Bevan played as one of 4 bowlers during the 90s, there was a joke of a player named Brendan Julian and there was also a Shaun Young. I have no doubt that if they had some worthwhile options they would have selected them as well. The selectors have always had a love affair for allrounders even while having 6 of the best batsmen and 4 of the best bowlers in the world and a keeper that was revolutionizing test cricket with the way he played.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Obviously the search for an all-rounder got more desperate after Freddie's Ashes. However, its not like they never tried to fit in an all rounder in their side in the 90s. Bevan played as one of 4 bowlers during the 90s, there was a joke of a player named Brendan Julian and there was also a Shaun Young. I have no doubt that if they had some worthwhile options they would have selected them as well. The selectors have always had a love affair for allrounders even while having 6 of the best batsmen and 4 of the best bowlers in the world and a keeper that was revolutionizing test cricket with the way he played.

Playing Bevan as a bowler is just stacking the batting, surely? Similar to the Cam White fudge recently. &, without checking, I doubt either Julian or Young was played in the top six, were they?

 

[tooextracool]

Playing Bevan as a bowler is just stacking the batting, surely?

If my memory serves me correctly, Bevan played a lot of his games as an 'all rounder' albeit a batting all rounder. There were games when he played a part with just 3 front line bowlers. Its certainly not much different from Symonds' selection IMO, if Bevan was not in the side they would almost certainly have played 4 bowlers.

Similar to the Cam White fudge recently. &, without checking, I doubt either Julian or Young was played in the top six, were they?

Nope looks like they both batted at 8. Although, even though this might be an exception to my rule about all rounders stated earlier, I cant see how Shaun Young played as anything other than an allrounder when you look at his record. Julian too was always considered as an all-rounder, obviously he wasnt a very good one though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nope looks like they both batted at 8. Although, even though this might be an exception to my rule about all rounders stated earlier, I cant see how Shaun Young played as anything other than an allrounder when you look at his record. Julian too was always considered as an all-rounder, obviously he wasnt a very good one though.

Yeah, fair enough. I think it's entirely possible they were selected ahead of better bowling options because of their alleged batting prowess. We're seeing something similar with Broad in our team just now.

So that sort of gives weight to Faaip's contention that all-rounders (or would-be all-rounders, anyway) can play at 8 for me.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, fair enough. I think it's entirely possible they were selected ahead of better bowling options because of their alleged batting prowess. We're seeing something similar with Broad in our team just now.

So that sort of gives weight to Faaip's contention that all-rounders (or would-be all-rounders, anyway) can play at 8 for me.

Yeah I guess there are some exceptions to that rule, although I think that Young would almost certainly have batted higher if he had played more than 1 test. I do think that that rule holds though and it would include the vast majority of all rounders (not just the good ones) to have played the game even if it is not all-inclusive.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Was Young even in the original Ashes squad? And I thought Julian always played as part of a four man attack; he was viewed as a bowler first and foremost.

 

[Simon]

Was Young even in the original Ashes squad? And I thought Julian always played as part of a four man attack; he was viewed as a bowler first and foremost.

Young just happened to be in the right place at the right time, we had a heap of injuries and he was on holiday or playing sunday league cricket or something similar.

 

[thierry henry]

Theres a reason why hes bowled nearly twice as many overs in the shorter format than the longer format.

And it seems most likely that the reason is a misconception