What are the minimum record requirements for secondary disciplines to qualify someone as an all-rounder?

[honestbharani]

PEWS to run software and spit out results on CW front page.

Allrounder or Norounder...


@James has a hit on his hands, I am sure..

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS to run software and spit out results on CW front page.

Allrounder or Norounder...


@James has a hit on his hands, I am sure..

Garner - allrounder
Thakur - norounder

#punishhim

 

[subshakerz]

Obviously there is no hard and fast rule to it. In my mind....

someone with 3+ wkts/ per test and 40+ runs per test is a bowling allrounder
someone with more than 3+ wickets per test and with 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/ per 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 match 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

Thanks for actually attempting to answer the question rather than all this gishgalloping.

 

[kyear2]

From going through a list of articles on Kallis alone in this regard one will see a divergence of opinions ranging from was he an all rounder to he's one of the top 3 players of all time and it's not questionable.

So yes, it's ridiculously subjective

 

[subshakerz]

From going through a list of articles on Kallis alone in this regard one will see a divergence of opinions ranging from was he an all rounder to he's one of the top 3 players of all time and it's not questionable.

So yes, it's ridiculously subjective

You definition is 1 wicket per game minimum for bowling ability. I agree with that.

What about for bats?

 

[Qlder]

You definition is 1 wicket per game minimum for bowling ability. I agree with that.

What about for bats?

1 wkt per Test is a part-time bowler, not an allrounder

 

[subshakerz]

1 wkt per Test is a part-time bowler, not an allrounder

Nah. 1 wicket per test suggests a minimum workload of bowling around 10 overs an innings nearly every test. Part timers aren't regularly bowling.

 

[Qlder]

Nah. 1 wicket per test suggests a minimum workload of bowling around 10 overs an innings nearly every test. Part timers aren't regularly bowling.

1 wkt per test with you saying that's 20 overs bowled over 2 innings is a SR of 120.00. Any bowler with that SR is definitely a part-timer, and not a very good one

 

[subshakerz]

1 wkt per test with you saying that's 20 overs bowled over 2 innings is a SR of 120.00. Any bowler with that SR is definitely a part-timer, and not a very good one

I don't think even that SR is a disqualifier, it's more about average test load and output.

A part-timer essentially is an add-on to an attack whereas a part timer is a regular feature in the first 4 or 5 bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

Well yeah I think how often they’re bowling is a deciding factor between AR vs part timer. How many of their available matches/innings are they bowling in? Not sure what an actual numerical cut off would be.

 

[subshakerz]

Well yeah I think how often they’re bowling is a deciding factor between AR vs part timer. How many of their available matches/innings are they bowling in? Not sure what an actual numerical cut off would be.

Agreed. My counterpart to batting would be how often they bat in the top 7, since I consider beyond that to be tailender roles.

Of course there are exceptions like regular no.8s like Pollock and Vettori who had long batting lineups they batted in.

 

[Qlder]

Agreed. My counterpart to batting would be how often they bat in the top 7, since I consider beyond that to be tailender roles.

Of course there are exceptions like regular no.8s like Pollock and Vettori who had long batting lineups they batted in.

For over 100 years cricket has had batting allrounders batting in top 6 and/or bowling allrounders batting 8. You make it sound like this basic concept is all new to you?

 

[subshakerz]

For over 100 years cricket has had batting allrounders batting in top 6 and/or bowling allrounders batting 8 being the main strike bowler. You make it sound like this basic concept is all new to you?

Don't think this is the standard.

 

[_00_deathscar]

For over 100 years cricket has had batting allrounders batting in top 6 and/or bowling allrounders batting 8. You make it sound like this basic concept is all new to you?

Cricket is a new concept to him

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

From going through a list of articles on Kallis alone in this regard one will see a divergence of opinions ranging from was he an all rounder to he's one of the top 3 players of all time and it's not questionable.

So yes, it's ridiculously subjective

Part time bowler can't have 500+ wickets and ability to bowl 140+

 

[number11]

As the title suggests. Based on average and output, what would get them over the line?

Strictly speaking you should be world class in one discipline and good enough to make your team in the other alone.

More generously: a consistent contributer with bat and ball. WPM has to be over 1, batting and bowling averages have to be close if batting average is not better than bowling (which is the typical mathematical guide used).

There are only a handful of true AR.

Hadlee was a bowler who could bat for instance. Ave 28 or something like that is not a truly front-line batsman in that era. Sobers, Imran, Miller, Botham etc are true AR in the strict sense.

 

[kyear2]

Part time bowler can't have 500+ wickets and ability to bowl 140+

I have never disagreed. As I've said, there's an argument that he's one of the 3 most valuable players in the history of the game.

 

[kyear2]

Strictly speaking you should be world class in one discipline and good enough to make your team in the other alone.

More generously: a consistent contributer with bat and ball. WPM has to be over 1, batting and bowling averages have to be close if batting average is not better than bowling (which is the typical mathematical guide used).

There are only a handful of true AR.

Hadlee was a bowler who could bat for instance. Ave 28 or something like that is not a truly front-line batsman in that era. Sobers, Imran, Miller, Botham etc are true AR in the strict sense.

Which is why I think that the all rounder rankings are disproportionate to value.

While Imran is the better "all rounder", there's not doubt in my mind that Hadlee is, for me at least the more valuable cricketer.

So yeah, the all rounder issues is kinda over played.

 

[Brook's side]

This is a really good question.

In my all rounders paper I did this:

"
The all rounder deductions are potentially controversial so I will explain the thinking here as well as the calculations.

High scoring can be achieved with exceptional performance in 1 discipline (batting or bowling), and poor (or even no) performance in the other discipline. I demonstrate this, by hypothetically running some other players through the system who aren’t regarded as all-rounders:
• Ricky Ponting 77.24 points 6th place
• Brian Lara 74.45 points 8th place
• Glenn McGrath 62.12 points 17th place
• Muralitharan 88.25 points 3rd place...

Indeed, if Kallis had never bowled, he would have scored 78.87 points and come 5th.

I have therefore introduced a points deduction for players whose batting and bowling performances don’t balance. Where the higher of their points scores for batting or bowling exceeds the other by more than 50% than I deduct 20% of the remaining portion above that threshold of the higher score.

Where some portion exceeds 100% of the lower score, then I deduct another 30% for the remaining portion of the higher score above that threshold. For any portion above 200%, a further 25% is deducted meaning that 75% of the score above 300% of the lower score is deducted.

Deductions in the lower category were made from Kallis, Ashwin, Sobers, Wasim, Stokes, Greig, Macartney, Benaud, Davidson and Flintoff. Deductions in the middle category were made for Kallis, Ashwin, Sobers, Wasim, Stokes, and Davidson. Deductions in the highest category were made for Kallis and Sobers. Sobers lost 14.77 points and Kallis 23.19 points.

You might say well that’s just a comparison of how they did on your scoring system. Fine, but show me the scoring system which does not give points to Murali, Ponting, Lara and a wicketless Kallis, but has Kallis and Sobers as the top all-rounders, and we can compare!

So….in this all-rounder section, the best performers were Botham, Imran, Jadeja, Greig, Macartney, Miller. Sobers also did pretty well due to his excellent catching record. Those who really lost out were Flintoff, Ashwin, Davidson and Vettori (all low catches and low averages difference, Davidson was also low on man of the match awards, and Davidson and Ashwin had a small imbalance deduction). Kallis and Sobers largely survived their large deductions, due to high scoring in other areas of this section*."

*catches and MOM/POM awards

 

[Coronis]

This is a really good question.

In my all rounders paper I did this:

"
The all rounder deductions are potentially controversial so I will explain the thinking here as well as the calculations.

High scoring can be achieved with exceptional performance in 1 discipline (batting or bowling), and poor (or even no) performance in the other discipline. I demonstrate this, by hypothetically running some other players through the system who aren’t regarded as all-rounders:
• Ricky Ponting 77.24 points 6th place
• Brian Lara 74.45 points 8th place
• Glenn McGrath 62.12 points 17th place
• Muralitharan 88.25 points 3rd place...

Indeed, if Kallis had never bowled, he would have scored 78.87 points and come 5th.

I have therefore introduced a points deduction for players whose batting and bowling performances don’t balance. Where the higher of their points scores for batting or bowling exceeds the other by more than 50% than I deduct 20% of the remaining portion above that threshold of the higher score.

Where some portion exceeds 100% of the lower score, then I deduct another 30% for the remaining portion of the higher score above that threshold. For any portion above 200%, a further 25% is deducted meaning that 75% of the score above 300% of the lower score is deducted.

Deductions in the lower category were made from Kallis, Ashwin, Sobers, Wasim, Stokes, Greig, Macartney, Benaud, Davidson and Flintoff. Deductions in the middle category were made for Kallis, Ashwin, Sobers, Wasim, Stokes, and Davidson. Deductions in the highest category were made for Kallis and Sobers. Sobers lost 14.77 points and Kallis 23.19 points.

You might say well that’s just a comparison of how they did on your scoring system. Fine, but show me the scoring system which does not give points to Murali, Ponting, Lara and a wicketless Kallis, but has Kallis and Sobers as the top all-rounders, and we can compare!

So….in this all-rounder section, the best performers were Botham, Imran, Jadeja, Greig, Macartney, Miller. Sobers also did pretty well due to his excellent catching record. Those who really lost out were Flintoff, Ashwin, Davidson and Vettori (all low catches and low averages difference, Davidson was also low on man of the match awards, and Davidson and Ashwin had a small imbalance deduction). Kallis and Sobers largely survived their large deductions, due to high scoring in other areas of this section*."

*catches and MOM/POM awards

You do realise they weren’t giving out Man of the Match awards in the 50’s right? They didn’t start doing it til the mid 80’s