I consider them more than good enough to fill the role.Do you consider Marshall and Warne all-rounders?
A player could be selected as a batsman, come in at 6 and average 26. He's still a batsman.I can understand the roles the players are being selected for, but you have to actually play up to expectations in order to get the label.
I would not confirm or deny.....TIL @kyear2 works at ESPNcricinfo and writes player profiles.
He isn't going to play a lot of games though, and I'm not looking at this as how a player would be classified for one game. If they don't meet my mark over a period of time they're not ARs IMO. We can set benchmarks for what the low ends for specialist batters/bowlers based on average output over time and then if the players meet that minimum then they can be considered an AR. What type and how good of an AR they are would require more analysis, but that's for after.A player could be selected as a batsman, come in at 6 and average 26. He's still a batsman.
Do I need to tap the sign? What you are doing is introducing a constraint that doesn't apply to specialists without providing any good reason to do so. Sure a crap allrounder won't be playing many games, same as a crap specialist batsman or bowler. It doesn't take away from the fact they were still selected as an allrounder, regardless of whether they meet your personal benchmarks.He isn't going to play a lot of games though, and I'm not looking at this as how a player would be classified for one game. If they don't meet my mark over a period of time they're not ARs IMO. We can set benchmarks for what the low ends for specialist batters/bowlers based on average output over time and then if the players meet that minimum then they can be considered an AR. What type and how good of an AR they are would require more analysis, but that's for after.
Really? To me they are clearly useful tailenders. They aren't ARs. I would never bat them beyond no.8I consider them more than good enough to fill the role.
Why are these standards based on fluctuating factorsThis is actually quite simple.
What is your absolute minimum to be an intl test class batsman in any side in the world?
What is your absolute minimum to be intl test class bowler in any side in the world?
An AR should meet both standards IMO.
Because it still is somewhat subjective.Why are these standards based on fluctuating factors
David Capel sadly didn't meet either. He was still an all-rounder though.This is actually quite simple.
What is your absolute minimum to be an intl test class batsman in any side in the world?
What is your absolute minimum to be intl test class bowler in any side in the world?
An AR should meet both standards IMO.
No, he was selected as an AR but wasn't good enough.David Capel sadly didn't meet either. He was still an all-rounder though.
Does that mean Zak Crawley isn't a batsman? Or Chris Woakes is only a bowler in England?No, he was selected as an AR but wasn't good enough.
The same way Steve Smith isn't a leg spinner.
Being selected to be an allrounder means he was, for those matches, an allrounder.No, he was selected as an AR but wasn't good enough.
The same way Steve Smith isn't a leg spinner.