Bowling All Rounders or Batting All Rounders +

[subshakerz]

What about someone like Stokes, who has been above 2 wpm for most of his career but whose bowling has become less of a factor in recent times, not because of ability, but fitness?

Same happened to Kallis late career. They are to me the borderline ones but we shouldn't go lower.

 

[Qlder]

What about someone like Stokes, who has been above 2 wpm for most of his career but whose bowling has become less of a factor in recent times, not because of ability, but fitness?

Thanks to Kallis's low bar, Stokes is still better bowling than him with 1.90 wpm. Maybe it should be 1 wkt per innings bowled as that takes away injury, old age or playing as a specialist bat.

Kallis has 292 wkts from 272 innings bowled, while Stokes has 203 wkts from 154 innings bowled.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

Same happened to Kallis late career. They are to me the borderline ones but we shouldn't go lower.

Without looking, I feel like there aren’t many players with a significant body of work who have between 1 and 1.75 wpm, being an all-rounder (especially a seam-bowling all-rounder) is a demanding job, I feel there are probably a fair few up and coming all-rounders who got weeded out early by focusing on just the one discipline or fell away through injuries/loss of form (Broad averaged in the high 20s as a batter at one point but became a meme towards the end of his career)

 

[subshakerz]

Without looking, I feel like there aren’t many players with a significant body of work who have between 1 and 1.75 wpm, being an all-rounder (especially a seam-bowling all-rounder) is a demanding job, I feel there are probably a fair few up and coming all-rounders who got weeded out early by focusing on just the one discipline or fell away through injuries/loss of form (Broad averaged in the high 20s as a batter at one point but became a meme towards the end of his career)

Yes. I prefer it that way. Same for asking for bats who regularly bat in the top 7, makes it exclusive to be a AR.

 

[subshakerz]

Thanks to Kallis's low bar, Stokes is still better bowling than him with 1.90 wpm. Maybe it should be 1 wkt per innings bowled as that takes away injury or old age.

Kallis has 292 wkts from 272 innings bowled, while Stokes has 203 wkts from 154 innings bowled.

If we are so exclusive that Kallis can't be called an AR it puts the criteria iñ question.

 

[Qlder]

If we are so exclusive that Kallis can't be called an AR it puts the criteria iñ question.

That's why I said Kallis forces criteria to be max 1.75 wpm as he was definitely an allrounder. See above where I said maybe it should be a wkts per innings bowled criteria instead.

It definitely needs some criteria as people in this thread are calling Hammond and Simpson allrounders

 

[kyear2]

Meh, so someone plays 100 Tests for 100 wickets as batting allrounder and about 1500 runs for bowling allrounder. Mind blowing mediocrity

I don't care which term one uses, but a Hammond or Simpson is good enough for me. Hell a Marshall, Wasim or Warne is also good enough for me at 8 tbh. Just want the rotation filled and not to not have total collapses in the tail every match.

 

[Qlder]

I don't care which term one uses, but a Hammond or Simpson is good enough for me. Hell a Marshall, Wasim or Warne is also good enough for me at 8 tbh. Just want the rotation filled and not to not have total collapses in the tail every match.

Well if you think Hammond, Simpson, Warne, Marshall and Wasim are allrounders then there is no point of any further discussion from me (right up there with Barry Richards is best Test opener ever)

 

[capt_Luffy]

Now now, I am lenient with most terms and certainly 'all-rounder' qualifies for that, partially atleast. But Warne and Marshall is pushing it way too far imho.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't care which term one uses, but a Hammond or Simpson is good enough for me. Hell a Marshall, Wasim or Warne is also good enough for me at 8 tbh. Just want the rotation filled and not to not have total collapses in the tail every match.

I refuse to believe you actually consider Warne or Marshall full fledge ARs.

If they are batting at 8 their entire career, bottomline the team ain't really relying on their batting, they are just better than the rest of the tail.

And don't say I don't care what term you use when it's the point of the thread.

 

[kyear2]

Well if you think Hammond, Simpson, Warne, Marshall and Wasim are allrounders then there is no point of any further discussion from me (right up there with Barry Richards is best Test opener ever)

Did I say they were all rounders?

 

[Qlder]

Did I say they were all rounders?

Yes you did since the whole thread is about batting or bowling allrounders and you said this

I don't care which term one uses, but a Hammond or Simpson is good enough for me. Hell a Marshall, Wasim or Warne is also good enough for me at 8 tbh.

Where else does a bowling allrounder bat other than at 8?

 

[kyear2]

I refuse to believe you actually consider Warne or Marshall full fledge ARs.

If they are batting at 8 their entire career, bottomline the team ain't really relying on their batting, they are just better than the rest of the tail.

And don't say I don't care what term you use when it's the point of the thread.

The point of the thread wasn't to define what all rounders were or to squabble about who is or isn't.

It was for me to see that of the two specific combinations of skill sets did the community find to more valuable.

The fast bowler who could bat a bit / bowling all rounders.....
Or the batsman who could serve as a 5th bowler / batting all rounder who was also a specialists at slip.

Similar to the comps given above

A Wasim vs a Kallis

Or

Hammond vs Lindwall.

I don't care if they quality as all rounders or not.

 

[Qlder]

I don't care if they quality as all rounders or not.

So why did you name the thread and poll "Batting Allrounders or Bowling Allrounders" if it doesn't matter if they are allrounders or not?

 

[kyear2]

Yes you did since the whole thread is about batting or bowling allrounders and you said this


Where else does a bowling allrounder bat other than at 8?

Good enough for me personally in a team structure, not good enough for any specific term.

Re your last point, according to Subz, a bowling all-rounder should be able to bat in the top 7.

I personally don't care and I personally rate them as cricketers not all rounders

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

I don't care which term one uses, but a Hammond or Simpson is good enough for me. Hell a Marshall, Wasim or Warne is also good enough for me at 8 tbh. Just want the rotation filled and not to not have total collapses in the tail every match.

A batting average close to a bowling average does not an all-rounder make, or else I'd have been an all-rounder at U12 level when I averaged about 4 with the bat lol

 

[Qlder]

Good enough for me personally in a team structure, not good enough for any specific term.

I personally don't care and I personally rate them as cricketers not all rounders

So again, why did you start an allrounder thread only to change to the above non-allrounder terms just because no-one agreed with you about who you think are allrounders

 

[kyear2]

So why did you name the thread and poll "Batting Allrounders or Bowling Allrounders" if it doesn't matter if they are allrounders or not?

If you read literally either of the first two posts, the intent of the thread was clear.

Like it's literally spelt out what the intent was.

 

[kyear2]

So again, why did you start an allrounder thread only to change to the above non-allrounder terms just because no-one agreed with you about who you think are allrounders

Have you even read the posts of the theead or just being you?

 

[Qlder]

Have you even read the posts of the theead or just being you?

Yep, in a thread titled batting allrounder or bowling allrounder, with a poll asking which is best, you said you're happy with Marshall, Wasim or Warne