Test Allrounders - who makes the cut?

[taaveez]

Tests are usually described as the purist form of cricket. That is, an almost 1-on-1 duel of batting skill versus the bowling skill. The WI team of 80s was nearly that perfect test team: 6 specialist batsmen, 4 specialist bowlers, and 1 wikcetkeeper - all greats.

Although allrounders have existed in the entire history of cricket, it's logical to assume that they would number far and few. Mainly because it's not easy to develop specialist batting and bowling skillsets in the same body. At least in theory. Those who have done it in tests have been truly sublime.

Enter limited overs cicket. ODIs and T20Is. To some, ODIs could be described as one of the main drivers behind the rise of allrounders. In ODIs, bowling quotas require that there be a 5th or even 6th bowler available. But that means dropping a 6th batsman, which is a bit risky if batting is fragile. Still, as the sixth batsman may not need to spend a lot of time on the crease given limited overs, you could squeeze in a half batsman who can also be a half bowler. Your limited overs allrounder.

Doesn't quite work in tests though. If you have 4 good bowlers and no bowling quotas, you can get 10 batsmen out - easily. And as winning tests means you should bat at least 60% of the available time, you need to include as many batsmen - and good batsmen - as possible. India's test success is a case in point (besides other reasons).

So, what exactly should the grade sheet for tests allrounders look like? Who should make the cut? Should players like Afridi be in the test team as allrounders?

[taaveez]

My own analysis is presented here.

For starters, I think the batting average of the player should exceed his bowling average. The reason is simple. If you stuff a team 100% with this same player, that team should be able to beat its opponent on average. For example, if the player has a batting average of 35 and the bowling average of 25, his team should score 10 * 35 = 350 runs per inning, while bowling out the opponent for 10 * 25 = 250 runs per inning.

Let's use this test on the four greats: Imran, Botham, Hadlee, and Kapil.

Player BatAv BwlAv Ratio
Imran Khan 37.69 22.81 1.65
Richard Hadlee 27.16 22.29 1.22
Ian Botham 33.54 28.40 1.18
Kapil Dev 31.05 29.64 1.05

So far so good. Let's look at the complete list with the following constraints:

* Test debut: 1970 or later
* Runs scored: 1,000 or more
* Wickets taken: 50 or more

Player Mat Runs Wkts BatAv BwlAv Ratio
JH Kallis (SA) 140 11126 266 55.07 31.59 1.74
Imran Khan (Pak) 88 3807 362 37.69 22.81 1.65
SM Pollock (SA) 108 3781 421 32.31 23.11 1.40
SR Waugh (Aus) 168 10927 92 51.06 37.44 1.36
AW Greig (Eng) 58 3599 141 40.43 32.20 1.26
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 86 3124 431 27.16 22.29 1.22
IT Botham (Eng) 102 5200 383 33.54 28.40 1.18
ST Jayasuriya (SL) 110 6973 98 40.07 34.34 1.17
CL Cairns (NZ) 62 3320 218 33.53 29.40 1.14
N Kapil Dev (India) 131 5248 434 31.05 29.64 1.05
ME Waugh (Aus) 128 8029 59 41.81 41.16 1.02
Wasim Raja (Pak) 57 2821 51 36.16 35.80 1.01
Mudassar Nazar (Pak) 76 4114 66 38.09 38.36 0.99
CH Gayle (WI) 88 6007 72 40.31 41.55 0.97
A Flintoff (Eng) 79 3845 226 31.77 32.78 0.97
Wasim Akram (Pak) 104 2898 414 22.64 23.62 0.96
DL Vettori (NZ) 100 3962 325 30.71 33.86 0.91
NJ Astle (NZ) 81 4702 51 37.02 42.01 0.88
RJ Shastri (India) 80 3830 151 35.79 40.96 0.87
DJ Bravo (WI) 37 2175 83 32.46 39.39 0.82
WPUJC Vaas (SL) 111 3089 355 24.32 29.58 0.82
CL Hooper (WI) 102 5762 114 36.46 49.42 0.74
GJ Whittall (Zim) 46 2207 51 29.42 40.94 0.72

So, (1) as expected, not many allrounders reside in the test mansions, (2) Mudassar and below weren't quite able to add value to their teams as allrounders (they may have done so as batsmen or bowlers), and (3) the value added by allrounders seems to be limited - you have to be exceptional to be there in the first place.

Now, if the allrounder has averaged 40+ in batting, then for all practical purposes you could term him a batting allrounder. A bowling average below 30 could be associated with a bowling allrounder. There are all kinds of hybrids, and you can come up with your cutoffs.

Stay tuned for the current allrounders below.

[taaveez]

As for the current allrounders, I had to relax the constraints:

* Runs scored: 1,000 or more
* Wickets taken: 25 or more

Player Mat Runs Wkts BatAv BwlAv Ratio
JH Kallis (SA) 140 11126 266 55.07 31.59 1.74
V Sehwag (India) 76 6691 32 53.52 43.90 1.22
SR Watson (Aus) 18 1183 27 39.43 34.48 1.14
Shahid Afridi (Pak) 26 1683 47 37.40 34.89 1.07
SR Tendulkar (India) 166 13447 44 55.56 52.25 1.06
IK Pathan (India) 29 1105 100 31.57 32.26 0.98
CH Gayle (WI) 88 6007 72 40.31 41.55 0.97
A Flintoff (Eng) 79 3845 226 31.77 32.78 0.97
Shakib Hasan (Ban) 21 1179 75 31.02 32.13 0.97
DL Vettori (NZ) 100 3962 325 30.71 33.86 0.91
DJ Bravo (WI) 37 2175 83 32.46 39.39 0.82
Abdul Razzaq (Pak) 46 1946 100 28.61 36.94 0.77
B Lee (Aus) 76 1451 310 20.15 30.81 0.65

What's pretty clear is that the gap between Kallis and the rest is almost generational. Afridi does make the cut with the ratio being above 1.00. But, there's a high likelihood of it falling below 1 by the time he has scored 2,000 runs and taken 50+ wickets. Fingers crossed.

Thoughts?

[talha3]

My own analysis is presented here.

For starters, I think the batting average of the player should be more than his bowling average. The reason is simple. If you stuff a team 100% with this same player, that team should be able to beat its opponent. For example, if the player has a batting average of 35 and the bowling average of 25, his team should score 10 * 35 = 350 per inning, while bowling out the opponent for 10 * 25 = 250 per inning.

Let's apply this test on the four greats: Imran, Bothan, Hadlee, and Kapil.

Player BatAv BwlAv Ratio
Imran Khan 37.69 22.81 1.65
Richard Hadlee 27.16 22.29 1.22
Ian Botham 33.54 28.40 1.18
Kapil Dev 31.05 29.64 1.05

So far so good. Here is the complete list with the following constraints:

* Test debut: 1970 or later
* Runs scored: 1,000 or more
* Wickets taken: 50 or more

Player Mat Runs Wkts BatAv BwlAv Ratio
JH Kallis (SA) 140 11126 266 55.07 31.59 1.74
Imran Khan (Pak) 88 3807 362 37.69 22.81 1.65
SM Pollock (SA) 108 3781 421 32.31 23.11 1.40
SR Waugh (Aus) 168 10927 92 51.06 37.44 1.36
AW Greig (Eng) 58 3599 141 40.43 32.20 1.26
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 86 3124 431 27.16 22.29 1.22
IT Botham (Eng) 102 5200 383 33.54 28.40 1.18
ST Jayasuriya (SL) 110 6973 98 40.07 34.34 1.17
CL Cairns (NZ) 62 3320 218 33.53 29.40 1.14
N Kapil Dev (India) 131 5248 434 31.05 29.64 1.05
ME Waugh (Aus) 128 8029 59 41.81 41.16 1.02
Wasim Raja (Pak) 57 2821 51 36.16 35.80 1.01
Mudassar Nazar (Pak) 76 4114 66 38.09 38.36 0.99
CH Gayle (WI) 88 6007 72 40.31 41.55 0.97
A Flintoff (Eng) 79 3845 226 31.77 32.78 0.97
Wasim Akram (Pak) 104 2898 414 22.64 23.62 0.96
DL Vettori (NZ) 100 3962 325 30.71 33.86 0.91
NJ Astle (NZ) 81 4702 51 37.02 42.01 0.88
RJ Shastri (India) 80 3830 151 35.79 40.96 0.87
DJ Bravo (WI) 37 2175 83 32.46 39.39 0.82
WPUJC Vaas (SL) 111 3089 355 24.32 29.58 0.82
CL Hooper (WI) 102 5762 114 36.46 49.42 0.74
GJ Whittall (Zim) 46 2207 51 29.42 40.94 0.72

So, (1) as expected, not many allrounders reside in the tests mansions, (2) Mudassar and below weren't quite able to add value to their teams as allrounders (they may have done so as batsmens or bowlers)
, and (3) the value added by allrounders is fairly limited - you have to be exceptional to be there in the first place.


Now, if the allrounder has averaged 40+ in batting, then for all practical purposes you could term him a batting allrounder. A bowling average below 30 could be associated with a bowling allrounder. There are all kinds of hybrids, and you can come up with your cutoffs.

Stay tuned for the current allrounders below.

EXCELLENT!!
very good analysis
:14:

[izi]

I shall read it tomorrow...

[taaveez]

EXCELLENT!!
very good analysis
:14:
Thanks, mate. I may have rambled on a bit, but there's clearly a pattern here.

I'm still interested in hearing who others think of good test allrounders - and why.

[Random Aussie]

Thanks, mate. I may have rambled on a bit, but there's clearly a pattern here.

I'm still interested in hearing who others think of good test allrounders - and why.

Basically to answer your OP, nobody currently is really up to it.

Kallis of course but his bowling has significantly fallen away (no shame in that).

Watson has potential but it is with the bat, not as a strike bowler anymore.

For some reason I just don't rate off spinning batsmen as all rounders.

Oram I think you'll find has retired from Test cricket.

The only one on the list (who is still playing) who I would have called genuine all rounder would be Bravo and he doesn't stack up at all.

Surprised to see the Waugh's so high up there.

I know this is a series of rambling observations but good op and thread.

I think LOI cricket wears the all rounders out these days.

[LG]

Why isn't Sobers in that first list?

[Blitz]

Why isn't Sobers in that first list?
Post 1970....for some bizzare reason considering its a test list.

[dinakar]

Irfan Pathan was a promising one.. unfortunately it just didn't happen. I still possess hopes on him to be a handy alrounder although not spectacular.

[Paradox]

Irfan Pathan was a promising one.. unfortunately it just didn't happen. I still possess hopes on him to be a handy alrounder although not spectacular.

India already have a few decent spin-bowling allrounder prospects (Yuvraj, etc.)

[taaveez]

Post 1970....for some bizzare reason considering its a test list.
:D Basically, to compare apples with apples - i.e. those who played ODIs and thus got an opportunity to become full-time allrounders. Not to mention, to manage the list (which would have been double the size with names most folks don't even recognize).

You are right though - an artificial cutoff nevertheless.

[kingusama92]

Superb analysis on the wonders of test all-rounders.

The list of past allrounders is glorious. During that time, the all-rounders that were selected had to be of pure class to even be considered. The constant onslaught of ODI cricket on the fans has resulted in this false sense of NEEDING an all rounder in the test team.

Administrators/selectors are bound to include at least one all-rounder, regardless of him being mediocre or completely rubbish. The list of "current" all-rounders is a tad disappointing - most of them do not deserve to be classified as all-rounders.

Jacques Kallis is the best thing we have right now. Like Random Aussie stated, his bowling has started to deteriorate as well, but in all fairness he has done quite well.

We have to remember though, the likes of Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev are rare in nature. Pure all-rounders like them will be hard to find in any generation of cricketers especially this one. The cricketing world was blessed to have all of them in one era, but we will never get to see the likes of them, perhaps ever again.

At this point in time, the world lacks a proper all-rounder.

[Pakistan_Zindabaad]

Irfan Pathan was a promising one.. unfortunately it just didn't happen. I still possess hopes on him to be a handy alrounder although not spectacular.

OP is talking about test cricket not pyjama cricket.

[giri26]

Chris Cairns is so up in the list. The guy does not get enough credit for his exploits. Has a pretty useful test record as an all-rounder. Excellent analysis though :14:

[taaveez]

Basically to answer your OP, nobody currently is really up to it.

Kallis of course but his bowling has significantly fallen away (no shame in that).

Watson has potential but it is with the bat, not as a strike bowler anymore.

For some reason I just don't rate off spinning batsmen as all rounders.

Oram I think you'll find has retired from Test cricket.

The only one on the list (who is still playing) who I would have called genuine all rounder would be Bravo and he doesn't stack up at all.

Surprised to see the Waugh's so high up there.

I know this is a series of rambling observations but good op and thread.

I think LOI cricket wears the all rounders out these days.
Oram taken off the list accordingly. Gracias.

I would have liked to limit the bowling averages to 40 or below, but then that would have left out "Shastri the great".

Those with 50+ batting averages and 40+ bowling averages are mostly good batsmen with part-time wickets on the record. In fact, the second/current list is more of a watch list - most pretenders will have their numbers sorted out as they approach 2,000 runs and 50 wickets.

[mon858]

excellent analysis - as a follow-up would it be possible to present a focussed list of current all-rounders from Pakistan based on their first-class averages/runs/wkts to see what options we have in terms of playing an all-rounder in our line-up in addition to afridi. (preferably looking for a fast-bowling all-rounder to replace Razzaq and play at number 8.

[ShehryarK]

Excellent analysis. And a wonderful thread, kudos to the OP :14: :14:

Agreed with the suggestion that those with 40+ bowling averages or those with <30 batting averages definitely DO NOT qualify as all-rounders.


A classical all-rounder is someone who at some stage in his career was good enough in his weaker discipline to play as a specialist in that weaker discipline. The rest are not proper Test-class all-rounders; they are "bowlers who can bat a bit"; or "batsmen who can bowl a bit".


Was Hadlee EVER good enough as a batsman in Tests to play just as a batsman, even in the weak Kiwi side? No. Hence he's not a proper all-rounder - he's a great, great fast bowler who was a very useful bat.

On the other hand, Clive Rice was a great all-rounder but of course doesn't have a Test career.

[Easa]

Flintoff. Doesn't really have the statistics, but at his peak, he was worth a place for his batting alone. For a period of time, I think he averaged 50 in Test cricket. Poor form and injuries since then has meant that his average has deteriorated at an exponential rate, but at a time, he was an excellent, fluid batsman. His bowling, of course, is unquestionably good. I don't care about statistics - he took quite a lot of time to mature into international cricket, but once he did, he was constantly threatening. An average of 30 odd doesn't look too pretty, but ask the batsmen he bowled to, and I wouldn't be surprised if they rate him right up there.

Kallis isn't really an all rounder anymore, though, but who can blame him? If I could bat like that, I wouldn't even give a thought to the hard work that is bowling.