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

[bagapath]

That is the definition of a no-rounder.

it is a made up term - so any definition is ok for a person who is not needed in the xi

I am sticking to the all-rounder discussion
Types of all-rounders
1) batsman who can bowl - sobers, kallis, hammond, jayasuriya
2) bowler who can bat - benaud, akram, hadlee, s pollock
3) all rounder who can perform in both disciplines at roughly equal measures
a) players who could play for their teams either as batsman or bowler - Imran, Botham, Miller, Kapil, Shakib
b) players who could not play as specialist bat or bowler but are very useful as sixth batsman and fourth/ fifth bowler - Shastri, Ali, McMillan

 

[bagapath]

To define we may say...

1) Batsmen who could bowl: 2000 runs @40+ average and 50+ wickets: 12 players qualify

2) Bowlers who could bat: 100+ wickets @under 32 and batting avg between 20 and 30: 25 players qualify

3) All rounders:
a) good enough to be specialists - 2000 runs @30-40 and 100 wicket@under 30: 9 players qualify
b) good with the combo of both skills - 100+ wickets bowling avg 32+ batting avg between 20 - 40: 16 players qualify

 

[ataraxia]

One argument used to be that a good allrounder would get picked in any team for either his batting or bowling alone. That would be the explanation for the superstardom accorded to Kapil/ Imran/ Botham and Miller

But Richard Hadlee and Shaun Pollock can make it to any team with a batting average of zero, purely as bowling spearheads.
Sobers and Kallis are all time great bats and certainties in any team whose bowling was just an added advantage to their teams.

So if I flip that argument, then an answer might emerge.

I think a functional allrounder - what the OP wants definition for - is someone who cannot be picked for one skill alone; but with a combination of his batting and bowling abilities, he becomes a more useful member of the playing XI.

by this definition, it possible to justify the selections of

Ravi Shastri
Moen Ali
Brian McMillan
Greg Matthews
Warwick Armstrong

None of those could have had long careers for their batting or bowling alone.

Within this set comprising of dual skilled cricketers are individual players with varying abilities who are more, or less, useful in one role or the other.
With a little more success in one of the primary skills, in this case bowling, the following became superior allrounders compared to the earlier set of players.

Vinoo Mankad
Andrew Flintoff
Wilfred Rhodes
Daniel Vettori

These all rounders fulfil some minimum criteria as test cricketers without possessing the killer bowling skills of Hadlee or the batsmanship of Sobers.

So I would say that for an allrounder the sum their batting or bowling skills mean more together than individually.

"It can't be true that the requirement for a good all-rounder is to make their team both as a batter and a bowler, as there are some very good all-rounders who only make their team in one discipline. Therefore a good all-rounder cannot be able to make their team as neither a batter nor a bowler."

Still a better take than calling Flintoff a no-rounder tho