What Qualifies as a Test Allrounder?

[Bijed]

There's that bloke who just won his 12th Man of the Match Award..

For a second there I thought they'd started giving out awards for being the best twelth man

 

[h_hurricane]

Here are my criterias for allrounders.

1) Batting average of 40+ or bowling average of less than 30. ( This ensures that the player is good enough to be in the team on primary discipline alone)
2) At least 3 wickets or 60 runs per match. ( The depth of contribution in primary skill)
3) Batting average greater than bowling average. (Most important criteria)
4) At least 30 runs and 1.5 wickets per match. (The depth of contribution in secondary skill)
5) At least 40 test matches. ( Longevity)

For the above criteria, I can't think of any one else other than the below dozen among retired cricketers. All rounders are worth their weight in gold, aren't they ? Such a rare species.

Keith Miller
Alan Davidson
Trevor Goddard
Garry Sobers
Tony Greig
Richard Hadlee
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Chris Cairns
Shaun Pollock
Jaques Kallis

 

[trundler]

Aubrey Faulkner. Just realized he didn't play 40 tests. Monty Noble did, however.

 

[h_hurricane]

Aubrey Faulkner. Just realized he didn't play 40 tests. Monty Noble did, however.

Both mighty fine allrounders. Noble missed out because he did not take either 3 wickets or 60 runs per test match.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Does stats really matters here?

 

[h_hurricane]

Does stats really matters here?

I think they matter in the sense of meeting the bare minimum criteria. Beyond that it is all about of context, impact etc. Do agree that the criteria which I laid out is a bit unfair on Noble in the context of the era he played. May be Wilfred Rhodes as well.

 

[Stapel]

I think it's not the easiest question to be answered. If we would go by the idea that an all-rounder would be selected on both abilities alone, we have hardly any all-rounders!

I'm comfortable with the idea the OP's question does not have an answer we can agree on.

 

[trundler]

I think a workload measurement would be the best qualification since it directly indicates the role of the player in the side. Every other criteria judges quality more so.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Percentage of overs bowled per test.

# of balls faced per test

All in relation to the others in the team

 

[Days of Grace]

Has to be top 8 batting in the majority of innings and bowling 10% of team’s overs during a career.

Anyway, gone for 20.00+ adjusted batting average and 1.00+ wickets per match.

 

[Red]

Here are my criterias for allrounders.

1) Batting average of 40+ or bowling average of less than 30. ( This ensures that the player is good enough to be in the team on primary discipline alone)
2) At least 3 wickets or 60 runs per match. ( The depth of contribution in primary skill)
3) Batting average greater than bowling average. (Most important criteria)
4) At least 30 runs and 1.5 wickets per match. (The depth of contribution in secondary skill)
5) At least 40 test matches. ( Longevity)

This criteria excludes players like Trevor Bailey and Ken McKay from the past, and Shane Watson and Andrew Flintoff more recently, who were actually selected for their all round skills and the balance they brought to their teams.

Statistical criteria in this discussion is arbitrary imo. Each player needs to be looked at on the basis of how he performed and the balance his selection provided to his team.

 

[srbhkshk]

Yeah, imo instead of using % of overs etc. if you can just incorporate them in your rating formula you wouldn't need any cut-offs anyway.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Right. Makes much more sense. We'll see how good/bad some players were

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Can # of Man of the Matcc awards be factored into this as well?

 

[Migara]

I was actually surprised that Davo never scored a test century.

Wasim has a huge double century vs. Zimbabwe and not much else.

I think he has a century against Aussies and another on a square turner against Murali and co.

 

[Migara]

Davidson definitely an all rounder. Look at his FC stats

If FC stats are considered Thilan Samaraweera is one heck of an allrounder.

 

[Zinzan]

Davidson definitely an all rounder. Look at his FC stats

FC stats aren't relevant when judging a Test player though, otherwise Chris Harris would be one of NZ's all-time great Test bats.

 

[mr_mister]

Thilan literally didn't bowl in tests though

Davidson regularly batted at 7 in tests


And re Chris Harris, he only played a handful of tests bit he was definitely an all rounder in them just like Davidson

 

[h_hurricane]

This criteria excludes players like Trevor Bailey and Ken McKay from the past, and Shane Watson and Andrew Flintoff more recently, who were actually selected for their all round skills and the balance they brought to their teams.

Statistical criteria in this discussion is arbitrary imo. Each player needs to be looked at on the basis of how he performed and the balance his selection provided to his team.

I think in order to bring good value to the team, an all rounder should be good enough to be there on primary skill alone. Bailey and McKay hardly took 1-2 wickets per match and their batting was limited to 30-40 runs per match. I am not sure if this is down to the era they played where they got less opportunities to showcase their skills.

Flintoff is a good shout, especially at his peak, but over the course of his career, was a bit below par. Watson was under bowled through out his career and was not good enough to be in the team as a pure test batsman. Both Flintoff and Watson were gun ODI all rounders though. Two of the greatest of all time in that format.

 

[bagapath]

Thilan literally didn't bowl in tests though

Davidson regularly batted at 7 in tests


And re Chris Harris, he only played a handful of tests bit he was definitely an all rounder in them just like Davidson

Five half centuries in 44 tests is not good enough for an all rounder