What is the best definition of an all-rounder?

[Magrat Garlick]

He's an interesting one because if he batted like Phil Tufnell he never would've been picked for England but when you look at his Test career it's his bowling that holds up on its own

even if he batted like Ashley Giles he'd have been unlikely to be picked i reckon

 

[Shady Slim]

Pick a better example. Root has bowled 2/3 of his balls as either the 6th or 7th bowler. Clearly not a fifth bowler in either the literal or substantive sense

i'm saying that you can still say root's not an allrounder when england have rolled with four seamers plus root even on the "fifth bowler" sense because there's a meaning to the composite phrase "fifth bowler" that's greater than the sum of the two words

 

[Starfighter]

this is the exact case in point why role only is what matters

And? I wasn't arguing against a role based definition. I pointed out the flaws in another definition, and you replied:

i feel the top seven bats and top five bowlers thing means in the xi not in the country though

Which is in fact not what was meant by the definition I was arguing against. What's said above isn't useful and isn't a role based definition.

I'm trying hard to understand what's produced this exchange aside from you thinking I made an argument I never made.

 

[Migara]

32 with bat, 33 with ball is an allrounder for me.

The relationship is not linear. So Bat Avg - Bowling average is nor suitable.

For example Bat average of 50 and bowling average of 40, vs bat average of 40 vs bowling average of 30 vs bat average of 30 vs bowling average of 20, these players are not similar.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Is there a thread in CW or in any cricket website,where someone has calculated how many MOM would greats of past have got if it existed?

 

[Shady Slim]

And? I wasn't arguing against a role based definition. I pointed out the flaws in another definition, and you replied:

Which is in fact not what was meant by the definition I was arguing against. What's said above isn't useful and isn't a role based definition.

I'm trying hard to understand what's produced this exchange aside from you thinking I made an argument I never made.

you agree with me i think. wonderful, means you are right

 

[CricAddict]

The relationship is not linear. So Bat Avg - Bowling average is nor suitable.

For example Bat average of 50 and bowling average of 40, vs bat average of 40 vs bowling average of 30 vs bat average of 30 vs bowling average of 20, these players are not similar.

The difficulty level for all 4 is similar. So I will classify them all as all-rounders.

Obviously, there is no one objective answer to this. Subjective opinions have to also be done once bat avg-bowl avg is imposed.

 

[CricAddict]

See this is a reasonable one but by this Joe Root qualifies. In fact he also qualifies by trundler’s as he’s nearly always in the top six bowlers.

I like the top 7/first 5 bowlers line myself

Which is why I said a minimum of both runs and wickets is required. For wickets, we can may be go with more than a wicket per match. But there is always outliers in any analysis.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Are wicketkeeper-batsmen all-rounders? Players like Gilchrist, Stewart, Buttler, Bairstow were arguably selected ahead of better specialist keepers because of their batting.

 

[subshakerz]

Are wicketkeeper-batsmen all-rounders? Players like Gilchrist, Stewart, Buttler, Bairstow were arguably selected ahead of better specialist keepers because of their batting.

Not in my view. Even before Gilchrist, most keepers were expected to have the batting chops to occupy 6/7 in the lineup and average in the 25 to 30 range. So it is part of their job. Actual tailender-level keepers were rare.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are wicketkeeper-batsmen all-rounders? Players like Gilchrist, Stewart, Buttler, Bairstow were arguably selected ahead of better specialist keepers because of their batting.

Stewart definitely was.

It was doubly wrong headed too, because it cost us a world class keeper in Jack Russell (who averaged more in tests than both our incumbent openers do currently) and the Gaffer with gloves averaged something like 31 versus 46 without, so we lost a world class opener too.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Tendulkar is a better bowler than Shane Warne a batsman. At least in ODIs

Offcourse he was, he won player of the match awards based on bowling performance iirc.

 

[Starfighter]

Are wicketkeeper-batsmen all-rounders? Players like Gilchrist, Stewart, Buttler, Bairstow were arguably selected ahead of better specialist keepers because of their batting.

Wicketkeeper-batsmen are, well, the term 'wicketkeeper-batsmen' might give it away.

 

[Chrish]

Don’t really consider Hadlee as an all-rounder tbh. He was a bowler who could bat a bit; like Ashwin.

May be I missed it, but has anyone mentioned Flintoff yet?

 

[GIMH]

May be I missed it, but has anyone mentioned Flintoff yet?

Hi

 

[mr_mister]

Was Jonty Rhodes an all rounder due to his best fielder ever status (whether that status is right or wrong, we've all seen the highlights reel)


I don't mind the batting average > bowling average definition because it helps seperate the all rounders from the no rounders, which is an awesome term and needs more exposure

 

[cnerd123]

All rounder is a role, not a title based on ability. Roston Chase is an all rounder, just not a very good one. Anyone who is part of the top 7/8 batsmen and 5/6 bowlers is an all rounder.

Trundler nailed it in the very first reply, why are people still discussing it

There are players whose overall career numbers don't suggest they're an allrounder, but who have played in the allrounder role for a period of time. Tendulkar in ODIs early in his career for example, or Irfan Pathan when he was briefly trialled at 3.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Someone who contributes to the team in 2 or more disciplines.

So if Chris Martin was a gun fielder would he qualify as an allrounder?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Jadeja still so underrated. Even by the most strictest definitions he's a genuine all-rounder. Would make the team as a specialist bat or a specialist bowler*

*depending on conditions I guess

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Talking of allrounders, there are a lot at the moment. More teams are going for ARs for balance instead of the 6-1-4 favoured by the great Windies and Aussie teams. Those teams still had 5th bowlers (Viv, Hooper, the Waughs etc) but they weren't allrounders per se except perhaps young SW at a pinch. It might be in order to reduce bowler workloads or to give captains more options. Of course in the 3rd test vs England NZ tried a revolutionary 6-1-0-3 which wasn't too smart especially as the 3 bowlers are all well into their 30s.