subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
So being selected automatically makes you test standard. Doesn't matter how good you actually are. Got it.
Yeah it's my criteria. I think it makes sense since it suggests a consistent batting role.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
What are the minimum record requirements for secondary disciplines to qualify someone as an all-rounder?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Sure I am talking about your average test side.
Coronis
International Coach
And what is an average test side? I’m sure there are quite a few test teams in history where Marshall or Warne might’ve batted 7th.
kyear2
International Coach
Noted.
Coronis
International Coach
I mean, you’re playing tests. You might be a **** test player but you’re still playing at a test level
kyear2
International Coach
It would. But as usual there's always an agenda, so...
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah this is where our own subjective judgment comes in. Any frankly if they batted that position in their careers somewhat it would make more of a case.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Again, you might be a test cricketer but that doesn't make you test standard. History is littered with cricketers who failed abysmally.
Stop whining.
Coronis
International Coach
Were Hick and Ramprakash test standard cricketers? How about Crawley?
kyear2
International Coach
To try to apply arbitrary standards to this argument is pointless. I saw one today that stated a genuine all rounder was one who averaged over 49 with the bat and over two wickets a test with the ball.
Think the statistical model decided that was what was "test standard" for both roles.
While I would disagree, nothing makes that less right than any other random standard.
Think the statistical model decided that was what was "test standard" for both roles.
While I would disagree, nothing makes that less right than any other random standard.
Coronis
International Coach
An ideal AR would probably be closer to Miller’s performance in FC for me.
Something like 45/25 whilst still bowling a nice amount.
Since Miller has such a big difference in test and FC batting performance I took a look at his bowling load vs batting average.
(unfortunately there aren’t innings stats for his FC games but)
in Tests: 31.7 overs per match vs 36.97
in non Tests: 17.2 overs per match vs 53.45
Something like 45/25 whilst still bowling a nice amount.
Since Miller has such a big difference in test and FC batting performance I took a look at his bowling load vs batting average.
(unfortunately there aren’t innings stats for his FC games but)
in Tests: 31.7 overs per match vs 36.97
in non Tests: 17.2 overs per match vs 53.45
kyear2
International Coach
On the premise that I'm reading these correctly
This is why Kallis was protected and makes one wonder how much better guys like Miller and Sobers would have been of handled better in tests.
Coronis
International Coach
for comparison:
Sobers
Tests: 38.7 overs per match vs 57.78
Non Tests: 28.2 overs per match vs 54.87
Kallis
Tests: 20.3 overs per match vs 55.37
Non Tests: 16.1 overs per match vs 54.10
Isn't this increase in overs mostly explained by there being 90 more overs required in a Test than a 4 day FC game (180 overs more than a 3 day FC game)?
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yes.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I could call your rankings arbitrary. That's just another word for your opinion which is what I am asking.
Coronis
International Coach
I mean, you still have to bowl the other team out twice, whilst usually this will take a shorter time in FC matches, they’re generally bowling a noticeably lower percentage of the overs.
Yeah, but I would hope it takes many more overs to bowl out a Test side than a FC side, therefore each Test bowler would likely bowl more overs per Test than what they do in FC?
bagapath
International Captain
Obviously there is no hard and fast rule to it. In my mind....
someone who takes 3+ wkts/ test and scores 40+ runs per test is a bowling allrounder
someone with 3+ wickets per test and 30+ runs per match is a bowler who can bat
someone with 60+ runs per test and 2+ wickets per test is a batting allrounder
someone with 60+ runs/ test and 1+ wickets per match is a batsman who can bowl
If a 4+wkts/ match player also scores 50+ runs per test or a 70+ runs per match player takes 2+ wickets per match, then you have the great all rounders like Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Miller, Botham, Kapil etc.
by that definition, I am also stating that anyone with the ability to grab 3+ wickets can be in the team for their bowling skill and anyone with 60+ runs per test can stay in the team for their batting alone
someone who takes 3+ wkts/ test and scores 40+ runs per test is a bowling allrounder
someone with 3+ wickets per test and 30+ runs per match is a bowler who can bat
someone with 60+ runs per test and 2+ wickets per test is a batting allrounder
someone with 60+ runs/ test and 1+ wickets per match is a batsman who can bowl
If a 4+wkts/ match player also scores 50+ runs per test or a 70+ runs per match player takes 2+ wickets per match, then you have the great all rounders like Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Miller, Botham, Kapil etc.
by that definition, I am also stating that anyone with the ability to grab 3+ wickets can be in the team for their bowling skill and anyone with 60+ runs per test can stay in the team for their batting alone
Last edited: