Who is the best all-rounder in world cricket?

[Zinzan]

Interesting discussion on Aus TV yesterday.

Kerry O'Keefe and Geoff Lawson both rated KP far higher as a batsman than Flintoff.

Whilst admitting that KP is unproven at test level, they claimed that Flintoff still had the same technical deficiences evident early in his career.

Yes South African KP is a real talent. England should thank their lucky stars for nabbing him. He does appear a more naturally talented cricketer than Flintoff. Early days for KP though

 

[Scaly piscine]

If that were the case, name one all-rounder that meets the criteria.

Flintoff - no, batting not good enough

Kallis - no, bowling not good enough

Vettori - no, batting not good enough

Afridi - no, batting and bowling not consistent enough

etc, etc, etc

Look at Flintoff's last 2 years and tell me his batting alone isn't good enough in Test cricket. In ODIs there can be no argument whatsoever, he's one of the best bowlers and best batsmen.

 

[marc71178]

Whilst his all-round figures are starting to look good, his batting and bowling, when taken in isolation, are still relatively unimpressive.

It depends if you look at the whole picture or what he's done (and is continuing to do consistently) in the last 12-18 months.

On that basis, he is definitely deserving of a place on either discipline.

 

[marc71178]

I doubt any wicketkeeper-batsmen would be in a team for their 'keeping alone.

Unfortunately not any more, hence we have to put up with Geraint Jones

 

[deeps]

what the heck, Nehra might be the only specialist playing the game

i thought specialists were meant to be good at wat they did?

 

[deeps]

Because you don't need slips every ball. But you need a keeper every ball. A keeper's work is hard as that of any batting allrounder or bowling all rounder. Try doing 540 - 600 sit ups every day, and add about 30 yards of running for about 90 times a day. So, even if no ball actually came to the keeper's hands, he still does a lot of hard work. And then he has to bat at 7 or 6 (with Flower and Sangakkara, they batted at 5) and is expected to score runs. Certainly, there is more than one reason why keepers should be considered all rounders.

i don't think keepers should be considered "all rounders" as such. Essentially, they are batting, and fielding. Any fielder on the field is also fielding, and hence every player bar nehra would be an all rounder.

Keeping is hard, but taht doesnt make him an all rounder. since when do wicket keepers do sit ups? i've never seen it. 30 yards of running? what about the fielders that field at deep mid wicket etc. everyone has to do alot of running...

it's comparing apples with oranges, and as SJS said, for this particular discussion it's better leaving the discussion amongst batting and bowling all rounders.

When we say"who is the best wicket keeper" it usually means "who is the best at keeping and batting".. a whole different topic

 

[Slats4ever]

If that were the case, name one all-rounder that meets the criteria.

Flintoff - no, batting not good enough

Kallis - no, bowling not good enough

Vettori - no, batting not good enough

Afridi - no, batting and bowling not consistent enough

etc, etc, etc

word

 

[shaka]

Vettori is starting to be considered as a world class allrounder.

 

[age_master]

for me an all rounder would be someone whos bowling is as valuable for the team as his/her batting, or can bowl as well as he can bat. Vettori for mine has the potential to be, his batting certainly has been quite good of late.

Afridi depends which day of the week it is as to what happens

Flintoff & Kallis are both all rounders for mine. Kallis certainly was anyway, not so much anymore as he doesn't bowl as much but Flintoff certainly is.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Frankly, I think the best definition of an all-rounder is someone whos bowling average is close to or better than their batting average, and who both bats and bowls in every game (or at least very close to every game). Saying someone who is equally good at both sort of excludes people like Pollock, who is certainly an all-rounder. An all-rounder should also average at least say 15 overs a match, which is what differentiates a handy part-timer like say Jayasuria (12.62 overs per match) or Gayle (5.92) from the likes of Kallis (21.75) or Flintoff (28.98).

 

[deeps]

my defintion of an all rounder in test match cricket

bowling average of less than 40.

batting average of more than 30.

my definition of a good all rounder in test cricket

bowling average of less than 35

batting average of more than 35

excellent all rounder

bowling average of less than 30
batting average of more than 40


are there any excellent all rounders in test cricket?

 

[Top_Cat]

Vettori is starting to be considered as a world class allrounder.

Only by those inside NZ's borders.

Seriously, the term allrounder is thrown around a bit too loosely in NZ. I remember when NZ'ers were trumpting the fact that they had 9 allrounders in their test side, including guys like Andre Adams, Scott Styris, Nathan Astle, Kyle Mills and Dion Nash in the 'allrounder' category. They even tried to turn Craig McMillan into one. Errr, no...........

I've said it once and I'll say it again; trying to turn all of NZ's genuinely good players into allrounders has been the biggest impediment to their success. As soon as this counter-productive attitude subsides, NZ might enjoy success against the better teams.

 

[vic_orthdox]

my defintion of an all rounder in test match cricket

bowling average of less than 35.

batting average of more than 30.

my definition of a good all rounder in test cricket

bowling average of less than 30

batting average of more than 40

excellent all rounder

bowling average of less than 25
batting average of more than 45


are there any excellent all rounders in test cricket?

I'd be shifting that back a little bit. Excellent being averaging under 30 with ball and over 40 with bat. That's enough for someone to be picked with solely on either discipline, therefore making him an excellent all-rounder, not just "good".

 

[deeps]

I'd be shifting that back a little bit. Excellent being averaging under 30 with ball and over 40 with bat. That's enough for someone to be picked with solely on either discipline, therefore making him an excellent all-rounder, not just "good".

it's all relative

that's what i believe. Therefore there are no excellent all rounders in international test cricket...not that i know of anyway.

well, yes the bowling should be changed to 30 i guess, but batting should remain 45, for the pure fact that the bowling standards have decreased so much that there are far too many batsman with an average of over 40. having said that, i'll change it to 40 anyway

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

my defintion of an all rounder in test match cricket

bowling average of less than 35.

batting average of more than 30.

my definition of a good all rounder in test cricket

bowling average of less than 30

batting average of more than 40

excellent all rounder

bowling average of less than 25
batting average of more than 45


are there any excellent all rounders in test cricket?

That's insanely high standards. Nobody in the history of the game has EVER averaged under 25 with the ball and over 45 with the bat. Sobers is the greatest all-rounder ever seen and averaged high 50s with the bat and 30s with the ball, Imran Khan averaged mid 30s with the bat and low 20s with the ball, Botham was mid 30s with the bat and high 20s with the ball (low 20s at his best), Kapil was low 30s with the bat and high 20s with the ball, Hadlee was low 20s with the ball and high 20s with the bat, Pollock is low 20s with the ball and mid 30s with the bat, Keith Miller was low 20s with the ball and mid 30s with the bat... and so on. These are great all-rounders.

 

[deeps]

those standards were for over a small period of time btw... not an entire career.

it would be near impossible to have figures like that over a long period of time.


We are currently looking at the best all rounder in the world atm. so we look at say, the past 2 seasons of cricket.

it is more than likely someone matches these standards..

and yes they were probably too harsh, and duly changed.

I wasn't very clear earlier , my apologies

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd be shifting that back a little bit. Excellent being averaging under 30 with ball and over 40 with bat. That's enough for someone to be picked with solely on either discipline, therefore making him an excellent all-rounder, not just "good".

I'd say over 40 with the bat is a pretty stiff ask too, several decent specialist batters haven't managed that (Athers, Stewart & Hussain of recent vintage).

If one takes the great quartet of the 80s, none averaged over 40 with the bat (in fact only Imran Khan averaged over 35) & only Hadlee & Imran managed to average under 25 with the ball.

I'd be interested to know how many players have managed to average over 40 with the bat & under 30 with the ball whilst scoring, say, 1000 test runs & taking 50 test wickets. None immediately spring to mind.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd be interested to know how many players have managed to average over 40 with the bat & under 30 with the ball whilst scoring, say, 1000 test runs & taking 50 test wickets. None immediately spring to mind.

Over a whole career, none at all.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd say over 40 with the bat is a pretty stiff ask too, several decent specialist batters haven't managed that (Athers, Stewart & Hussain of recent vintage).

Yeah, I'm happy to cop that. I was just sort of taking deeps' figures and shifting them back one step.

 

[marc71178]

Vettori is starting to be considered as a world class allrounder.

He is?!