Talk:All-rounder

Qualification
Do we count Daniel Vettori in the current all rounders list, seeing as he has scored 2 test centuries and opens for nothern districts? -- HamedogTalk 05:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would now. He is batting very well at no.8 for the Black Caps and Northern Districts.TimHowardII (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should replace the whole list with one based on objective criteria (see WP:LISTS). I'm just not quite sure what those criteria should be. I don't like the lists at and  because they emphasise longevity as much as anything. How about some criteria in terms of Test averages (batting average > x and bowling average < y; or perhaps (batting average - bowling average) > z)? Does anyone have any suggestions what x, y and z should be? Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure what that criteria should be, but I'd like to advance this discussion. My hunch was that (batting average) - (bowling average) would favor the batting all-rounder. To that end, I analyzed the Test statistics of several players commonly considered to be outstanding Test all-rounders. Please excuse me if I haven't selected your favorite player, but this is a representative rather than exhaustive list. The list follows the format:
 * player name, batting average, bowling average, (batting average) - (bowling average), (batting average)/(bowling average):




 * Bowling All-rounders:
 * Miller || 36.97 || 22.97 || 14.0 || 1.61
 * Khan || 37.69 || 22.88 || 14.8 || 1.64
 * Pollock || 32.31 || 23.11 || 9.20 || 1.40
 * Batting All-rounders:
 * Sobers || 57.78 || 34.03 || 23.8 || 1.70
 * Kallis || 57.02 || 32.51 || 24.5 || 1.75
 * Hammond || 58.45 || 37.80 || 20.7 || 1.55
 * Bowl a bit, bat a bit All-Rounders
 * Watson || 38.12 || 28.01 || 10.1 || 1.36
 * }
 * Sobers || 57.78 || 34.03 || 23.8 || 1.70
 * Kallis || 57.02 || 32.51 || 24.5 || 1.75
 * Hammond || 58.45 || 37.80 || 20.7 || 1.55
 * Bowl a bit, bat a bit All-Rounders
 * Watson || 38.12 || 28.01 || 10.1 || 1.36
 * }
 * Bowl a bit, bat a bit All-Rounders
 * Watson || 38.12 || 28.01 || 10.1 || 1.36
 * }
 * }


 * The results: Sobers and Kallis top both lists, and I feel that this is reasonable - they probably belong at the top of any list of the best Test all-rounders.
 * Miller and Khan, the two best bowling all-rounders do considerably better with the a/b analysis than they do with a-b. In the a-b analysis they fall far behind Wally Hammond, but in the a/b they jump up the order. My personal feeling is that these two should not be far behind Sobers and Kallis, and so I prefer this a/b result.
 * (Pollock and Watson also switch places, and something inside me tells me this is right too.)
 * Perhaps someone with a deft hand at manipulating the wealth of information available on cricinfo (or some other database) might like to extend this idea? Robertgcain (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Howabout they have to be a regular bowler, who often bowls 10 overs in an ODI and has scored a test 100. -- HamedogTalk 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A single Test century doesn't seem enough to me. I know Warne hasn't done it, but he very nearly did on a couple of occasions. If he had, would he really be an all-rounder now? Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps two? Vettori counts then, and he is actually a great batsmen.
 * I don't think Vettori is a 'great' batsman by any measure but he is currently rated by the ICC as the 5th best test all-rounder.

Well, I think that averages are better than a fluky century. Gillespie has 201*, but Pathan has a regular habit of 70s and 80s, and averages 30 with the bat. I removed Lee and Vaas from the list as they average 20 and 15 roughly with the bat. If Vaas is on that list then Gillespie, Kumble, Harbhajan, Agarkar, Boje, Giles, etc would also make it. I also removed Healy as he averaged about 30 and that is about a par for G.Jones and Kamran Akmal, and they don't count. Seems like we want 40+ average now, like Gilchrist, Sangakkara, Dhoni.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't Vettori be counted as something as more than a bowling all-rounder seeing as he now bats number 5 in ODIs?-- HamedogTalk|@ 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What something more do you have in mind? His strong suit is his bowling so he will always be a bowling all-rounder, just like poor old Ian Botham or Imram Kahn. --LiamE 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I confess to being a big fan of stats (especially averages) because watching a good performance by someone on a given day doesn't qualify them as anything (viz. Gillespie's Test 201* or Michael Clarke's 6/9). With averages in mind is Justin Kemp a batting all-rounder? His test average batting average is 13 but bowling average under 25. However looking at ODIs his batting record is a lot better (average 32) which perhaps means the classification needs to differentiate ODI all-rounders such as Collingwood and Kemp from all-rounders in both forms such as Kallis and Pollock. Also partially based on statistics and the fact that he's become a regular opening BATSMAN I am changing Shoaib Malik from bowling to batting all-rounder. Additionally, Shane Watson has shown a lot more promise as a batsmen (especially during his occasional stints as opener) than as a bowler. His record backs this up. I'm moving him too. I question Chaminda Vaas' position on the list on the same grounds as someone above. Lee has a similar Test bat average and significantly better ODI average but in the end neither players are all-rounders. They are bowlers who are handy tail-ender batsmen. That's it. Incidentally looking at all-rounder definitions, Dwayne Bravo and Scott Styris in neither form of cricket have their batting average > bowling average. I'm not disputing their all-rounder status though, they just aren't as accomplished as some of the others on the list. Scratchdawg 07:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional All-rounders table
Not sure I've come to the right place, but is there any chance of having a table for all-rounders who have scored 3000 runs and taken 300 wickets. To my knowledge there are only 5 players to have achieved this feat - S. Pollock, I. Botham, K. Dev, I. Khan and R. Hadlee. Big Al 1984 11:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

3000/200 is generally considered to be a better balance as 3000/300 basically a list of bowling all-rounders with long careers. Hell even Sobers wouldn't make that list. --LiamE 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good point. I just liked the symmetry of 3000/300. Big Al 1984 11:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Warne can be added to that list of 3000/300 players. Also, Paul Collingwood is garbage, he isn't even close to an all rounder. Pottski
 * Paul Collingwood's ODI and List A form would certainly qualify as an all-rounder. At test level though he can only be considered a batsman. In neither arena though would anyone in their right mind call him garbage. Since when was averaging about 45 with the bat in test cricket "garbage"? --LiamE 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about Paul Collingwood as a batsman though, it was in reference to him being on the list as an allrounder. 268 rpw for tests. And seeing that his ODI batting average is lower than his ODI bowling average, that discredits his claim even further. Perhaps calling him a part timer is justifiable, but not an all rounder. - Pottski.


 * By that reasoning would you discredit Garry Sobers as an all-rounder as his ODI batting average of zero is less than his bowling average of 31? Collingwood is regarding as a batting all-rounder at every source I've ever seen - stating anything else would be OR. As ever figures don't always tell the whole story. Given favourable condition, which he has rarely if ever had in his few tests, he is a very effective bowler. His 6 for 31 vs New Zealand being a prime example - it stands as the best bowling figures by an Englishman in ODI matches. --LiamE 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It does make more sense to have 3000/200 because in 3000/300, Sobers and Kallis wouldn't make the cut. (Kallis 116 (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

Useless table
This table is as pointless as some of the pathetic arguments above and has been removed. Apart from adding clutter to the article, it essentially duplicates information in the existing template because, obviously, anyone with 3000/300 must also be in the 2000/200 list. In addition, it introduces the usual systemic bias in favour of recent players who have had the opportunity to make a huge number of appearances. Are you seriously saying that Warne was a greater all-rounder than Grace, Hirst, Rhodes, Giffen, Noble, Woolley, etc. whose figures are limited by having made few Test appearances?

If anyone wants to produce an additional template that is useful, do one for first-class cricket overall. ---BlackJack | talk page 07:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Defining All-rounders
I already wrote a lengthy comment above about the merits and categorisations of various players. I wish to add that the LG ICC Player Rankings I find to be a good measure. A batting all-rounder should be ranked higher for his batting than his bowling, the opposite is true for a bowling all-rounder. If a player is present on both lists (top 100 i mean not) then they have some capacity as an all-rounder although it favours bowlers as they bat whereas batsmen do not necessarily bowl.Also there are several retired or unselected players on that list and new players who haven't got onto the list so it isn't flawless but looking at them can give a good guide.Scratchdawg 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at how many test teams there are a place in the top 100 batting or bowling list doesn't denote much other than the fact the are a test player! Also the team needs to be taken into account. A player with a bowling ranking around 60 might bowl regularly in one of the poorer test teams but would be unlikely to often get a bowl for Australia for instance. Its not so much how good someone is, its more important to look at why they are in the side and how they are perceived. A guy that is picked as a bowling all-rounder that then fails with the bat is still an all-rounder, just not a successful one.--LiamE (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fielder/batsman
Now, there are some debates about Stephen Fleming because for a non-wicketkeeper, he has taken many catches from 1st slip, and then given his number of test 50's, you can also argue that slips players are also some sort of an all rounder because this postilion also takes a lot of close catches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardII (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Utility player?
I removed the comment equating all-rounders with utility players in the introduction. For one thing, it should not be in the introduction if it is not discussed and developed in the main body of the article. More importantly, a utility player in sports is someone able to turn their hand to different roles when required. An all-rounder in cricket aspires, at least, to be someone fully qualified to play for their team as a batsman or a bowler (or wicket-keeper). A utility in-fielder in baseball, for example, is someone who can play short stop or second or third base... but he is not someone who would be first pick for his team in any of those positions. One could multiply examples. The WP article Utility player seems to have the distinction about right.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Made a few more changes, but unsupported claims like this are awful, and OR too:
 * "Essentially, an all-rounder is better at bowling than batting or vice-versa. Very few are equally good at both and hardly any have been outstanding at both."
 * There are countless cricketers at Test and first class level who have been outstanding at both, and the article is not restricted to those categories of cricket. This "concept" that an all-rounder must be equally good at batting and bowling, which would ludicrously disqualify Sobers, Rhodes and Grace, comes out of nowhere.  It's as if an editor came up with an OR definition of "great heavyweight boxer" which excluded Muhammad Ali.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Miller vs Imran
"For example, in Test cricket, Keith Miller had a good batting average of 36.97 (but a higher first class average of 48.90) and an outstanding bowling average of 22.97, so he would be termed a bowling all-rounder... The ideal of the genuine all-rounder is Imran Khan who had averages of 37 (batting) and 23 (bowling), which is very good as a batsman and outstanding as a bowler." These figures are almost exactly the same; indeed, if Miller's were rounded up, they'd be identical. So by what logic is Miller "a bowling all-rounder", while Imran is "the ideal of the genuine all-rounder"? Matthau (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also noticed this while reading the article. Even though I'm not one of the curators of this article, I went ahead and fixed it seeing as it's been more than 2 years since you pointed this out.
 * - Rav (15 Oct 2013)

Confusing chronology
In this: "The first player to perform the double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets in an English season was W G Grace in 1873. He scored 2139 runs at 71.30 and took 106 wickets at 12.94. Grace completed eight doubles to 1886 and it was not until 1882 that another player (C T Studd) accomplished the feat." - the 1882 Studd feat is actually the 1000/100 (not the eight doubles)? JennyOz (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

All around
All around 123.231.124.217 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)