Is this the era of the all-rounders in Test cricket?

[Bilal7]

Stokes, Ashwin, Philander, Moeen, Woakes, Jadeja, Shakib, J. Yadav, Santner and even Shah, Rashid and Starc are all players who have recently made invaluable contributions for their respective teams with both bat and ball. Not all of these players are genuine all-rounders and not all would make their respective teams on either one of their skills but each and every one of them is an important asset throughout a test match. Also interesting to note that the current #1 and #2 test teams in the world have the Lyon's share of these all-rounders.

Do you believe that the modern players who will be around post-2020 should have at least some skill in both the batting and bowling departments? Is the specialist batsman who averages 40 but can't roll his arm and the bowler who averages 30 but can't buy a run now made redundant? Is the all-rounder who averages 35 with bat and ball the more useful player?

Will Pakistan supporters pick Stokes over Shafiq?

 

[JaDed]

All rounder that averages 35 with bat and 25-28 with ball is good enough but 35 with bat and 30 with the bowl is just not good enough imo.

30 with the bat and below 25 with the bowl is good too.

40 with the bat and 30 with bowl is ok if he is opening.

As an Indian supporter would pick current Stokes over most Indian batsmen/bowler except Kohli/Shami/Ash.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Shah ?

 

[street cricketer]

It's a stretch to call Yasir as an all rounder.

 

[Sachin136]

Stokes, Ashwin, Shakib and maybe Moenn are the only genuine all-rounders going around. The rest are just bowlers who are decent #9s or vice versa.

 

[Ab Fan]

Anyone will pick Stokes over the mediocre Shafiq..

 

[Buffet]

Tail can bat is a known issue. With older era tail, Steyn may have averaged in low teens. Older era bowlers got many cheap wickets.

There are not more than 3-4 all rounders even now.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Anybody who cannot bat in top 7 is not an all-rounder.

Yes, it is expected from bowlers to be able to bat a bit. However, it is extremely unfair that batsmen are not expected to improve their bowling and be able to bowl few overs when needed.

 

[Adil_94]

Yasir is no where near an all rounder he is a decent night watchman and thats it. you cant rely on him to get consistently 30s and 40s like an Ashwin.

 

[Adil_94]

But yeah you do need one solid all rounder in the team who averages a minimum of 30 with the bat and maximum 30-33 with the ball.

 

[Kakar]

Taking it too far. Kohli is a specialist batsman. So is Amla. They are not redundant and won't be in 2020 or 2040 or 2120 for that matter. Not all players need to be all-rounders.

 

[Bilal7]

Like I said in the opening post, not all the players listed are geniune all-rounders so please stop assuming that I believe Shah is an all-rounder. He has however, had some handy innings with the bat recently and has some batting skill of note.

 

[Bilal7]

Taking it too far. Kohli is a specialist batsman. So is Amla. They are not redundant and won't be in 2020 or 2040 or 2120 for that matter. Not all players need to be all-rounders.

Would you pick a 40 averaging batsman like Shafiq over a 35 average with the bat and 35 average with the ball all-rounder like Stokes?

Of course, world-class batsmen and bowlers won't be going anywhere but teams may start picking players who have multiple skills over ones that are only skilled in one aspect of the game.

 

[Chrish]

Shah all-rounder.. Amla better than Ponting..

Where is this world heading to ?

 

[Bilal7]

Shah all-rounder.. Amla better than Ponting..

Where is this world heading to ?

Obviously down a path devoid of basic comprehension skills.

and even Shah, Rashid and Starc are all players who have recently made invaluable contributions for their respective teams with both bat and ball. Not all of these players are genuine all-rounders and not all would make their respective teams on either one of their skills but each and every one of them is an important asset throughout a test match.

 

[Napa]

Stokes, Ashwin, Shakib and maybe Moenn are the only genuine all-rounders going around. The rest are just bowlers who are decent #9s or vice versa.

I would categorize Jadeja as an all-rounder too. His batting average may not seem great, but the thing is that he delivers when needed. At 206/6 it appeared England would have a first innings lead, then Jadeja (along with Ashwin and Yadav) came in and took the game away from England.

 

[Napa]

I would categorize Jadeja as an all-rounder too. His batting average may not seem great, but the thing is that he delivers when needed. At 206/6 it appeared England would have a first innings lead, then Jadeja (along with Ashwin and Yadav) came in and took the game away from England.

I should also add that Jadeja's 32 not out was critical in preventing India from losing the first Test. So in 2 out of 3 Tests played in this series, Jadeja's batting has been invaluable to India.

 

[Ahson8]

Lol at Shah being an allrounder.

 

[King Kong]

I should also add that Jadeja's 32 not out was critical in preventing India from losing the first Test. So in 2 out of 3 Tests played in this series, Jadeja's batting has been invaluable to India.

That Lords knock is some special. His best batting performance in international matches.

 

[Napa]

<b>That Lords knock is some special.</b> His best batting performance in international matches.

Totally! At 235/7 the match was looking lost for India then he got together with BK and delivered. His batting is super clutch. Not many batsmen (let alone bowlers) have delivered so many decisive batting performances.

 

[jusarrived]

Would you pick a 40 averaging batsman like Shafiq over a 35 average with the bat and 35 average with the ball all-rounder like Stokes?

Of course, world-class batsmen and bowlers won't be going anywhere but teams may start picking players who have multiple skills over ones that are only skilled in one aspect of the game.

It's pretty straight forward to pick a player with 35 avg bat/ball all rounder over a batsmen averaging 40 . This would have been true even 20 years back . If the batsmen is averaging 50 or closer to 50 and the all rounder is averaging 30 , that would make an interesting choice . For a team like India who are batsmen heavy I would be inclined to pick the AR .

 

[Bilal7]

It's pretty straight forward to pick a player with 35 avg bat/ball all rounder over a batsmen averaging 40 . This would have been true even 20 years back . If the batsmen is averaging 50 or closer to 50 and the all rounder is averaging 30 , that would make an interesting choice . For a team like India who are batsmen heavy I would be inclined to pick the AR .

Interesting. We didn't see as many all-rounders/players who were skilled in both departments 20 years ago and the winning formula was six specialist batsmen, one keeper and four bowlers. A world-class all-rounder was possessed by the best teams. Nowadays, teams like India and England are only playing four specialist batsmen.

 

[troodon]

Its a pre-requisite now a days that bowlers have to bat well too to warrant a place in the playing XI.

Gone are the days when the likes of Maninder Singh or Venkatesh Prasad or Venkatapathy Raju played in the team as pure bowlers. One trick ponies are not acceptable anymore unless the bowler is of McGrath or Ambrose or Wasim Akram caliber.

 

[jusarrived]

Interesting. We didn't see as many all-rounders/players who were skilled in both departments 20 years ago and the winning formula was six specialist batsmen, one keeper and four bowlers. A world-class all-rounder was possessed by the best teams. Nowadays, teams like India and England are only playing four specialist batsmen.

I am not a big fan of current Indian team combination . I think We are playing a batsmen short and we will be found out away from home . You need all rounders , but not 3 4 of them .

5 bat + batting AR + wk bat + bowling AR + 3 bowlers . This should be the ideal combination imo . The WK-bat makes all the difference , and at this point we don't have a good one so the additional cushion by picking likes of Yadav .

 

[Mamoon]

Yasir Shah is a tail-ender. Just because he can bat better than a genuine number 11 like Imran Khan or Chris Martin does not mean that he can be classified as an non-genuine all-rounder.

If that is so, than almost every tail-ender can be classified as 'not a genuine all-rounder', since proper number 11s are rare to find.

Anyhow, I do agree that currently we have some good all-rounders. Stokes is comfortably better than anyone else out there right now though. He hast the potential to become a legendary all-rounder.

 

[Justcrazy]

There was a time when was projected as all rounder !

 

[Napa]

I am not a big fan of current Indian team combination . I think We are playing a batsmen short and we will be found out away from home . You need all rounders , but not 3 4 of them .

5 bat + batting AR + wk bat + bowling AR + 3 bowlers . This should be the ideal combination imo . The WK-bat makes all the difference , and at this point we don't have a good one so the additional cushion by picking likes of Yadav .

Having Ashwin and Jadeja as clutch batsmen, and now also Jayanta Yadav showing promising signs, gives India the luxury to experiment with having more bowlers.

 

[Chrish]

Jadeja to me is not an all rounder

Yadav on the other hand seems solid like Ashwin

 

[ExplicitAI]

The closest thing we have to an allrounder is Sohail Khan and that's saying something about the quality we currently have.

 

[Napa]

Jadeja to me is not an all rounder

Yadav on the other hand seems solid like Ashwin

Jadeja's critical contributions with the bat in winning at Lords, avoiding defeat at Rajkot and Visakhapatnam, and he is not an all-rounder? Okay!

 

[kingusama92]

I wouldn't say it's the era of allrounders instead It's the era of stronger tails.

2000s: Kallis, Flintoff, Razzaq, Pollock, Cairns, Symonds, Gayle (for a bit), Watson, Klusener, Wasim

There have always been great all-rounders in test cricket. However, the tailenders have never been as good as they're now. The best teams bat down to 10/11. They can all swing a bit and put up runs.

Doesn't mean they're allrounders though. They're just not mugs with the bat.

 

[Chrish]

Jadeja's critical contributions with the bat in winning at Lords, avoiding defeat at Rajkot and Visakhapatnam, and he is not an all-rounder? Okay!

He is a clean striker of the ball but that alone doesn't make him all-rounder. You can't count on Jadeja unlike Ashwin to make consistent contributions

 

[Napa]

He is a clean striker of the ball but that alone doesn't make him all-rounder. You can't count on Jadeja unlike Ashwin to make consistent contributions

He makes clutch batting contributions. It makes me think that he doesn't really care that much about batting except when he feels his team needs him.

He already has 2 decisive batting contributions in the 3 test matches in the current series. Not many players (batsmen or bowlers) can claim that.

 

[Chrish]

He makes clutch batting contributions. It makes me think that he doesn't really care that much about batting except when he feels his team needs him.

He already has 2 decisive batting contributions in the 3 test matches in the current series. Not many players (batsmen or bowlers) can claim that.

It wasn't meant to be criticism.. All-rounder or not he is valuable to the team

 

[Sin Nombre]

What has changed in this era is what is an acceptable batting average for your #8, #9, even #10 especially for the best teams.

India and England both expect players with batting averages around 30 at #8 and #9; with first class centuries and doubles and the ability to hit 50s in test matches especially against tired bowlers with an old ball.

Historically, they would be classified as ARs.

To me, it is meeting the basic criteria of inclusion for a bowler unless you are your team's main frontline strike bowler (Anderson, Shami, Amir, Boult, Hazlewood).

 

[Kakar]

Would you pick a 40 averaging batsman like Shafiq over a 35 average with the bat and 35 average with the ball all-rounder like Stokes?

Of course, world-class batsmen and bowlers won't be going anywhere but teams may start picking players who have multiple skills over ones that are only skilled in one aspect of the game.

Depends on the balance of my team. There is no need for all the batsmen to be able to bowl. If I have just four bowling options in the team, I would select the 35 bat/35 bowl guy to be my fifth option. But if I already have five bowling options, then I would select the 40 avg batsman. Some might want a sixth option too but that would be it.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Yasir Shah as some sort of all rounder

If that's the case , even Bhuvnesh Kumar is an all rounder !

 

[Statsman]

England is really at the forefront with Stokes, Woakes, Ali and Rashid (potentially).

 

[Napa]

England is really at the forefront with Stokes, Woakes, Ali and Rashid (potentially).

I would rather take Ashwin, Jadeja and more recently Jayant Patel. The English attack was quite toothless against these three.

 

[Bilal7]

Yasir Shah is a tail-ender. Just because he can bat better than a genuine number 11 like Imran Khan or Chris Martin does not mean that he can be classified as an non-genuine all-rounder.

If that is so, than almost every tail-ender can be classified as 'not a genuine all-rounder', since proper number 11s are rare to find.

Anyhow, I do agree that currently we have some good all-rounders. Stokes is comfortably better than anyone else out there right now though. He hast the potential to become a legendary all-rounder.

Shah is a tail-ender who has made crucial contributions with the bat in recent times, showing how even specialist bowlers have some sort of batting ability these days. Same goes for Starc and Rashid.

I would rather take Ashwin, Jadeja and more recently Jayant Patel. The English attack was quite toothless against these three.

The Indians were pretty toothless in England too so it balances out. Stokes is a better all-rounder than Ashwin, Moeen is comfortably better than Jadeja and Jayant is unlikely to get a game overseas. England have the better all-rounders.

 

[HateKiller]

There will be a time - at most 15 years from now - when all players in a team will be all-rounders.
That is the only logical target of natural progression.

 

[Sidilicious]

Anybody who cannot bat in top 7 is not an all-rounder.

Yes, it is expected from bowlers to be able to bat a bit. However, it is extremely unfair that batsmen are not expected to improve their bowling and be able to bowl few overs when needed.

Generally, even a bowler will bat in a match at some point. Over a career a bowler will bat a good number of innings, so its useful if they can contribute a bit with the bat.

On the other hand, if a team has 5 good bowlers, the other part timers will rarely be called into play. So they are not required to bowl, or even work on their bowling. But batsmen should be expected to be excellent fielders.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The Indians were pretty toothless in England too so it balances out. Stokes is a better all-rounder than Ashwin, Moeen is comfortably better than Jadeja and Jayant is unlikely to get a game overseas. England have the better all-rounders.

Don't think Indian ARs were toothless in England.

Ash and Bhuvi scored in Eng. Especially Bhuvi. Jayant will score too but he may not get a game. Jaddu scored too but he is unpredictable (even more so in swing conditions) so won't count him in.

But England's AR combo of Stokes-Woakes-Moeen looks very strong. Too much firepower.

Ash-Jayant-Jaddu-Bhuvi may do very well (even outperform them across various countries) but they may not play together overseas.

 

[Bilal7]

Don't think Indian ARs were toothless in England.

Ash and Bhuvi scored in Eng. Especially Bhuvi. Jayant will score too but he may not get a game. Jaddu scored too but he is unpredictable (even more so in swing conditions) so won't count him in.

But England's AR combo of Stokes-Woakes-Moeen looks very strong. Too much firepower.

Ash-Jayant-Jaddu-Bhuvi may do very well (even outperform them across various countries) but they may not play together overseas.

I was talking about the three that were mentioned by that poster. You listed off how many runs Bhuvi scored but by "toothless", we are all referring to bowling not batting. Moeen and Stokes both have centuries in this series.

 

[Napa]

The Indians were pretty toothless in England too so it balances out. Stokes is a better all-rounder than Ashwin, Moeen is comfortably better than Jadeja and Jayant is unlikely to get a game overseas. England have the better all-rounders.

Please don't compare Sir Jadeja to a lullo like Ali. I have already pointed out 3 matches where Jadeja made a critical contribution to the team with his batting. All Ali has to show from recent times is minnow bashing the Bongs, and that too he would have been out if they had sense to review.

As for Ali's century in India it was a pretty lullo century in a game where there were 5 centuries scored. Even if he had not scored it, it would not have made any difference. Compare that with Jadeja's clutch batting.

To say nothing of the fact that Jadeja is ranked #6 in the world in bowling and Ali doesn't even figure in the top 10.

 

[rollingstoned]

I was talking about the three that were mentioned by that poster. You listed off how many runs Bhuvi scored but by "toothless", we are all referring to bowling not batting. Moeen and Stokes both have centuries in this series.

Bhuvi had a very good series in England, the conditions there suit his bowling down to a tee.

 

[Indiafan]

All rounder that averages 35 with bat and 25-28 with ball is good enough but 35 with bat and 30 with the bowl is just not good enough imo.

30 with the bat and below 25 with the bowl is good too.

40 with the bat and 30 with bowl is ok if he is opening.

As an Indian supporter would pick current Stokes over most Indian batsmen/bowler except Kohli/Shami/Ash.

Are you serious about the bowling average? In the history of Indian cricket I think only Kumble before and now
Ashwin and BK are the only bowlers (proper bowlers not even all rounders) who averaged below 30 or even 30. A 30 averaging bowler would be great for India. For context Yadav, a pure bowler is averaging 48 this year

 

[Indiafan]

I was talking about the three that were mentioned by that poster. You listed off how many runs Bhuvi scored but by "toothless", we are all referring to bowling not batting. Moeen and Stokes both have centuries in this series.

Bhuvi took 19 wickets that series, what are you talking about?

 

[Bilal7]

Please don't compare Sir Jadeja to a lullo like Ali. I have already pointed out 3 matches where Jadeja made a critical contribution to the team with his batting. All Ali has to show from recent times is minnow bashing the Bongs, and that too he would have been out if they had sense to review.

As for Ali's century in India it was a pretty lullo century in a game where there were 5 centuries scored. Even if he had not scored it, it would not have made any difference. Compare that with Jadeja's clutch batting.

To say nothing of the fact that Jadeja is ranked #6 in the world in bowling and Ali doesn't even figure in the top 10.

Moeen Ali saved England from a series defeat at home by scoring a clutch century against Pakistan. Moeen and Root were instrumental in putting England in a position of power in the first test, quite silly to say it would not have made a difference to England's cause had he not played that brilliant innings. Moeen Ali is quite comfortably superior to Jadeja. Compare Jadeja with Woakes and it will be a more fairer comparison, actually.

Bhuvi took 19 wickets that series, what are you talking about?

Bhuvi had a very good series in England, the conditions there suit his bowling down to a tee.

I seem to have forgotten that. Apologies. I was pointing more towards Ashwin and Jadeja though.

 

[Robbie]

Lol @ Moeen Ali being better than Jadeja.

Jadeja is twice the allrounder Moeen could ever be.

 

[Executioner]

Shakib and Stokes are genuine all-rounders in all formats. Ashwin in tests.

Genuine all-rounders are those who can enter a team on batting or bowling alone. But let's be honest. Shakib is not a world class batsman neither is Ashwin. Stokes is not a world class bowler

I think mehedi hasan Miraz is potentially a genuine all-rounder who will be world class in both disciplines. His bowling is classical and his batting in junior level was good enough to bat in the middle order. Man of the tournament in u-19 world cup.

Tbh I don't think there really has been any all-rounder who was world class in both disciplines across all formats. Remember I said world class not just quality

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Shakib and Stokes are genuine all-rounders in all formats. Ashwin in tests.

Genuine all-rounders are those who can enter a team on batting or bowling alone. But let's be honest. Shakib is not a world class batsman neither is Ashwin. Stokes is not a world class bowler

I think mehedi hasan Miraz is potentially a genuine all-rounder who will be world class in both disciplines. His bowling is classical and his batting in junior level was good enough to bat in the middle order. Man of the tournament in u-19 world cup.

Tbh I don't think there really has been any all-rounder who was world class in both disciplines across all formats. Remember I said world class not just quality

Even Ravindra Jadeja has a triple ton in Ranji, Mehedi's batting is pathetic. He doesn't have it in him.

Sohag Gazi and Abul Hasan are better batsman than Mehedi.

 

[Napa]

Moeen and Root were instrumental in putting England in a position of power in the first test, quite silly to say it would not have made a difference to England's cause had he not played that brilliant innings.

Take away Moeen's performance and England would still be level with India at the end of the game. However take away Jadeja's performance and India likely loses the match on the 5th day.

Moeen Ali is quite comfortably superior to Jadeja.

Moeen's average in the last 4 innings against India is a single digit 6. Both matches which England has lost. Jadeja is clutch

The problem with wishful thinking like yours and others is that these fantasies are comforting till reality hits. Then you are left wondering what happened and who should be blamed.

 

[SandyB]

There will be a time - at most 15 years from now - when all players in a team will be all-rounders.
That is the only logical target of natural progression.

Nah. Won't happen .Other sports have tried that and failed.
Remember the "TOTAL FOOTBALL" phenomenon adopted by Netherlands in the 1974 FIFA World Cup ? Every player could play at any position. This bought such an incredible fluidity to their game that most of the opponents were blown away by them. But they lost to Germany in the finals. And that defeat was specifically attributed to the fact that there were no Specialists in certain KEY positions .
Having a team full of allrounders will not work out unless they are of the Kallis/Sobers/Botham caliber. Each player needs a primary strength and he should make the team on that strength alone. The other skills are just bonuses.

 

[Mamoon]

Shah is a tail-ender who has made crucial contributions with the bat in recent times, showing how even specialist bowlers have some sort of batting ability these days. Same goes for Starc and Rashid.

The batting skills of Rashid/Starc and Yasir are not even comparable. The former two are much better.

Yasir is a tail-ender like Waqar, Saqlain or Shoaib, who also made good contributions from time to time, but they were still tail-enders.

Rashid and Starc are around Wasim's level, as far as batting is concerned.

 

[Executioner]

Even Ravindra Jadeja has a triple ton in Ranji, Mehedi's batting is pathetic. He doesn't have it in him.

Sohag Gazi and Abul Hasan are better batsman than Mehedi.

Miraz is capable I tell you

 

[Jan Sher]

Going forward in Test cricket, we should look to deepen our batting line up, so in this context we should select two bowling all rounders in place of two specialist bowlers, at 8 and 9;

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8. Bowling all rounder
9. Bowling all rounder
10. Specialist bowler
11. Specialist bowler

 

[Bilal7]

Take away Moeen's performance and England would still be level with India at the end of the game. However take away Jadeja's performance and India likely loses the match on the 5th day.



Moeen's average in the last 4 innings against India is a single digit 6. Both matches which England has lost. Jadeja is clutch

The problem with wishful thinking like yours and others is that these fantasies are comforting till reality hits. Then you are left wondering what happened and who should be blamed.

Cricket does not work this way. Take away that first innings hundred and the rest of the English batting may have collapsed under the pressure of another quick wicket. Jadeja has played good innings down at #8-#9 but you can't compare 30s down the order with a century by a batsman in the top order. One only saves you from defeat, the other puts you in a position to win.

It's not wishful thinking, it is a fact. Jadeja can have his moment in the sun as long as he continues playing at home. The moment he steps on a plane, then the reality will hit you pretty hard. Hope you don't get hurt when it does.

Enough debating this non-issue. There is already a thread about this comparison and the vast majority of PP'ers picked Moeen Ali ahead of Jadeja. If you want to continue this discussion, go search for that thread and bump it.

 

[JaDed]

Are you serious about the bowling average? In the history of Indian cricket I think only Kumble before and now
Ashwin and BK are the only bowlers (proper bowlers not even all rounders) who averaged below 30 or even 30. A 30 averaging bowler would be great for India. For context Yadav, a pure bowler is averaging 48 this year

And that's why were never a top team for long duration but i get that we have to chose from what's available to us.
Also Indian bowlers are not consistent so the data provided cannot be taken ideally,for example Ishant sometimes has very good season and averages around 25 and sometimes around 35 similar to Bhuvi and Shami.
From an Indian POV we cannot rely on data but if there was someone who was consistent with data and not getting injured those numbers would be idea with a +-2,imho.

 

[Napa]

It's not wishful thinking, it is a fact. Jadeja can have his moment in the sun as long as he continues playing at home. The moment he steps on a plane, then the reality will hit you pretty hard. Hope you don't get hurt when it does.

Reality hit Indians so very hard when Jadeja scored the late 68 in Lords and put the game out of reach of England. It is always a good idea to match beliefs to reality.

 

[anindo]

Jadeja has underperformed massively with the bat in Tests over the years. However, he seems to have improved his defense significantly and if he continues to bat as patiently as he did in Mohali, the big runs would surely follow. He is a clutch player both in Tests and ODIs (averages 32 in ODIs) but at present Moeen Ali is a better batsman.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It is about bowlers consciously trying to be good with bat for many reasons.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

1. Bhuvi performed with the ball in Eng as others pointed out. Don't see how you can call Ash toothless in England when he did well in the limited chances he got to bowl.

2. As anindo rightly put it, Jaddu has under-achieved with the bat. Even though he has some clutch knocks (Lord's, Mohali 2015, Mohali 2016), he has been super shaky otherwise and resorts to slogging cos he has no trust in himself. Even Lord's was blind slogging to be honest and a fluke knock (Bhuvi was the one who looked assured in England in general). The latest Mohali 92 was pure quality where he batted like a real bat. If he starts trusting his defense and works on his batting, he may do well. Against pace, bounce and swing, he will always have issues so we have to manage our expectations.

3. Right now, Moeen Ali is the better AR (in tests) for sure but if Jaddu bats responsibly like in Mohali and starts putting a price on his wicket, he would overtake him (cos he is a much much better bowler).

4. I am kinda very excited to see how our lower order shapes up in Asia and outside Asia. Kuldeep should be drafted in too. Spinner with a high ceiling and a good lower order bat too.

 

[Buffet]

All rounders who contributed with ball and bat at the same time for a long periods are very rare. Look at the peak ratings for all rounders and only 3 have 600+ rating. Only 4 have peak rating of 550. Only 10 have crossed 500.

1. Sobers 669
3. Botham 646
5. Jacques Kallis 616
7. Miller 573
9. Benaud 532
11. Imran Khan 518
13. Tony Greig 509
15. Flintoff 501
17. Faulkner 501
19. Chris Cairns 500

Doing it with bat and ball at same time for an extended period is extremely rare. Look at the current ratings for the top 3 ranked of all rounders ,

1. Ashwin - 493
3. Shakib - 405
5. Stokes - 351

Others have even less ratings than 350. So there are not many all rounders to be honest. It's just that tail of most teams have gotten better.

 

[DW44]

All rounder that averages 35 with bat and 25-28 with ball is good enough but 35 with bat and 30 with the bowl is just not good enough imo.

30 with the bat and below 25 with the bowl is good too.

40 with the bat and 30 with bowl is ok if he is opening.

As an Indian supporter would pick current Stokes over most Indian batsmen/bowler except Kohli/Shami/Ash.

Lol, most genuine bowlers don't average that much in tests. Most teams would kill for someone who averages 30-31 with the ball even if they average 10 with the bat, that's how rare decent bowlers are unless you're Australia or South Africa.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Generally, even a bowler will bat in a match at some point. Over a career a bowler will bat a good number of innings, so its useful if they can contribute a bit with the bat.

On the other hand, if a team has 5 good bowlers, the other part timers will rarely be called into play. So they are not required to bowl, or even work on their bowling. But batsmen should be expected to be excellent fielders.

The thing is most teams can't afford to play 5 specialist bowlers. I think 4 bowlers and then 2 solid part-timers is the way to go.

 

[Chrish]

Can Yasir the all-rounder save Pakistan?

 

[transitional]

A genuine all rounder is the one who can get into a team based on only one skill. I think very few players qualify for such high criterion. So we should relax it a bit. With relaxed condition, we can compare 2016 to 2006, by picking 5 random names

Stokes
Ashwin
Shakib
Moeen
Jadeja

Kallis
Flintoff
Razzaq
Klusner
Jaysurya

I dont know about you, but 2006 list looks superior

 

[Adil_94]

i think if u want to be a top test team u need one quality all rounder nowadays

 

[Sidilicious]

A genuine all rounder is the one who can get into a team based on only one skill. I think very few players qualify for such high criterion. So we should relax it a bit. With relaxed condition, we can compare 2016 to 2006, by picking 5 random names

Stokes
Ashwin
Shakib
Moeen
Jadeja

Kallis
Flintoff
Razzaq
Klusner
Jaysurya

I dont know about you, but 2006 list looks superior

Stokes and Ash could become ATG all rounders.

The more I watch Stokes in the series, the more impressed I get. The guy has a huge heart and bowls well even on flat pitches. If Stokes continues like this, he will become a better all rounder than Kallis. In fact, he could become the first cricketer who get into a test with either bat and ball at the same time in the post war era (Miller comes close).

Ash could overtake Benaud as the greatest spin all rounder.

These two could overtake Kallis and Flintoff as all rounders.

Klusener in 06, was not the same in 99. Nor was he that great a test all rounder, as he was an ODI all rounder. razzaq was never a quality test all rounder. Jayasuriya was good only in asian conditions.