Top 10 all rounders of all-time

[Vijy]

14 hours ago, Majestic said:

In Kapil's case, consider his runs per innings.

Also, Jadeja has been pretty good with bat since 2016 now.

 

While rating someone like Shakib, consider the oppositions in his case especially while comparing to Jadeja or Stokes. Shakib has never played in Australia. He plays for Bangladesh so he will get to play more games vs Windies or Zimbabwe than in Australia/England/South Africa.

I agree in general, but Jaddu and Kapil walked into the teams as bowlers and their primary role for majority of career was defined by their bowling

[Majestic]

All rounders by decades :

 

1970s - Mike Proctor, Tony Grieg

1980s - Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev

1990s - Chris Cairns, Shaun Pollock

2000s - Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, Daniel Vettori

2010s - Shakib, Stokes, Jadeja

[Majestic]

On 2/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, cricspirit said:

 

 

I have watched enough of Shaun pollock. He was a very good batter who did not do justice to his batting talent Just like Kapil did not use his batting talent to the full. Stokes get to bat more from the start compared to Jadeja who is getting more batting now. Agree that Stokes is a better batsman but Jadeja is a better bowler. Stokes despite his 12 hundreds has a lower average. The thing you need to see is Stokes bats no.5 and 6 for bulk of his runs which gives him more chances to score hundreds. He has batted double the amount of innings that Jadeja has. Jaddu got most of his runs lower at no.7 and no.8 often running out of partners. End of the day the 37 runs per Innings that Jadeja got are probably as important or more for India given our frequent top order collapse.  Stokes gets a bit over 2 wickets per match while Jadeja gets 4 wickets per match 8 point better average while adding same amount of runs. He is above Stokes as an allrounder in my book. Rarely for an Indian player, he is even a better fielder than most others even though Stokes and others are very good in their own right. 

 

 

Shaun was talented with bat but even Ashwin has got a lot of natural batting talent. But Ashwin doesn't really qualify as all rounder because of his average of 26-27.

 

Pollock has just two hundreds in 100+ tests, sometimes if you bat lower down the order, you might stay not out at 15-20 and that can inflate your average. Pollock's test batting average is inflated by not outs. He didn't really fully utilised his batting potential. Maybe should have batted a position higher. At the end of day, it's your impact which matters not the average you end up with.

[vvvslaxman]

8 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Shaun was talented with bat but even Ashwin has got a lot of natural batting talent. But Ashwin doesn't really qualify as all rounder because of his average of 26-27.

 

Pollock has just two hundreds in 100+ tests, sometimes if you bat lower down the order, you might stay not out at 15-20 and that can inflate your average. Pollock's test batting average is inflated by not outs. He didn't really fully utilised his batting potential. Maybe should have batted a position higher. At the end of day, it's your impact which matters not the average you end up with.

 

Pollock was part of an good batting unit most of the time. Kapil Dev on the other hand had aggressive attitude as a batsman. High risk player. so much so he was dropped for a lofted shot in a Test match.  Next match he buckled down at Chennai and scored 50s in both innings if i am right. If he had been a bit more selfish his record would have been far better. One of the best player against both genuine pace and spin. He lived and died by the sword. Finished his career with a strike rate of 80 in Tests.  Ashwin's all round has to be measured in terms of clutchness. He is second to none. He can bat like VVS Laxman on certain days.  Jadeja took a long time to develop into a good batsman. Originally when he started he was more a batsman. Over a period he started clicking in both departments.

[Lord]

SDP

9 other peasants

[Majestic]

13 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Pollock was part of an good batting unit most of the time. Kapil Dev on the other hand had aggressive attitude as a batsman. High risk player. so much so he was dropped for a lofted shot in a Test match.  Next match he buckled down at Chennai and scored 50s in both innings if i am right. If he had been a bit more selfish his record would have been far better. One of the best player against both genuine pace and spin. He lived and died by the sword. Finished his career with a strike rate of 80 in Tests.  Ashwin's all round has to be measured in terms of clutchness. He is second to none. He can bat like VVS Laxman on certain days.  Jadeja took a long time to develop into a good batsman. Originally when he started he was more a batsman. Over a period he started clicking in both departments.

It is about what suits the player. Kapil was an aggressive batsman, he scored fast, that's the style of batting that suited him. Yes, there will be occassional cases when he will grind out but naturally aggressive batsman. Just like a Sehwag, Pant or a Viv Richards for that matter. If they bat slowly they might be averaging higher too.

 

Ashwin is a curious case for all rounder. He has batting talent and a clutch batting gene as well(showed it in Mirpur and Sydney) but this gets converted into performance by working on your game in different circumstances and in different conditions. Ashwin probably didn't worked on his batting as much and that's why he has an average of 27 which not necessarily falls in an all rounder category.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Majestic

[vvvslaxman]

10 minutes ago, Majestic said:

It is about what suits the player. Kapil was an aggressive batsman, he scored fast, that's the style of batting that suited him. Yes, there will be occassional cases when he will grind out but naturally aggressive batsman. Just like a Sehwag, Pant or a Viv Richards for that matter. If they bat slowly they might be averaging higher too.

 

Ashwin is a curious case for all rounder. He has batting talent and a clutch batting gene as well(showed it in Mirpur and Sydney) but this gets converted into performance by working on your game in different circumstances and in different conditions. Ashwin probably didn't worked on his batting as much and that's why he has an average of 27 which not necessarily falls in an all rounder category.

 

Agreed. Ashwin could have been half of smith. After all Smith started his career as a bowler. Ashwin started his career as a batsman.

[waga]

On 2/22/2023 at 5:36 AM, Mariyam said:

I see a lot of alphanumeric khichdi on this thread but no one has been able to refute my post above^.

 

 

Safe to say that MSD is the greatest all rounder of all time.

 

 

i mean if you extend it to include wicketkeeper batsmen than gilchrist is but nobodies done that for 30 years

[Zero_Unit]

On 3/24/2023 at 10:44 AM, Majestic said:

All rounders by decades :

 

1970s - Mike Proctor, Tony Grieg

1980s - Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev

1990s - Chris Cairns, Shaun Pollock

2000s - Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, Daniel Vettori

2010s - Shakib, Stokes, Jadeja

 

I keep seeing this name pop up over and over again. To be quite frank, a TRUE allrounder is someone who you would throw the bowl or bat at and expect to win you the game. Jadeja is someone I definitely would not throw the bat and expect to win the game. Neither is Flintoff, Pollock or Vettori (more bowlers than anything). Before 1990, I can't talk about much because I can only judge from numbers since I was not around.

2010 and onward, there are only 2 real all-rounders that are still around and those are the first 2 names you mentioned. Shakib and Stokes, that's it that's all. 
 

[Lord]

On 3/29/2023 at 8:33 AM, Zero_Unit said:

I keep seeing this name pop up over and over again. To be quite frank, a TRUE allrounder is someone who you would throw the bowl or bat at and expect to win you the game. Jadeja is someone I definitely would not throw the bat and expect to win the game. Neither is Flintoff, Pollock or Vettori (more bowlers than anything). Before 1990, I can't talk about much because I can only judge from numbers since I was not around.

2010 and onward, there are only 2 real all-rounders that are still around and those are the first 2 names you mentioned. Shakib and Stokes, that's it that's all. 
 

 

Which game has Stokes won with the ball?

[Vijy]

18 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Which game has Stokes won with the ball?

what about 6/36 vs Aus and 6/22 vs WI? stokes was erratically used as bowler - either too much or too little.

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, Vijy said:

what about 6/36 vs Aus and 6/22 vs WI? stokes was erratically used as bowler - either too much or too little.

 

WI is poor batting lineup. Against Aus, Eng was already leading by 300 runs or so. So won't call both much impactful.

 

Jaddu has many such contributions with both bat and ball

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

WI is poor batting lineup. Against Aus, Eng was already leading by 300 runs or so. So won't call both much impactful.

 

Jaddu has many such contributions with both bat and ball

those were just 2 of them. I think there are quite a few more. and WI is usually pretty good vs Eng - they overperform against them

[Lord]

6 minutes ago, Vijy said:

those were just 2 of them. I think there are quite a few more. and WI is usually pretty good vs Eng - they overperform against them

 

There will be support acts, but I don't remember him being the main guy who won the game with ball. However I haven't followed him too closely.

 

This was in response to the earlier post I quoted.

 

Nowadays he doesn't even bowl regularly

[Vijy]

5 hours ago, Lord said:

 

There will be support acts, but I don't remember him being the main guy who won the game with ball. However I haven't followed him too closely.

 

This was in response to the earlier post I quoted.

 

Nowadays he doesn't even bowl regularly

nowadays, he is mostly a captain first and a player second. however, he has played 90 tests. I'd say he was genuine matchwinner with both bat and ball (less so with ball) for about 60 tests

[Zero_Unit]

7 hours ago, Lord said:

 

Which game has Stokes won with the ball?

It's not about which game he has won. The fact that they gave him the ball to bowl to win the WC final (where Carlos B. won it for WI), regardless of if he succeeded or not. Would you give Jadeja the bat to win the game if you had that option? Highly unlikely. I would however trust him to win the game with the ball, not the bat.

This is different for Shakib and Stokes. Shakib can win you games single-handedly with either the bat or the ball or both in the same game and so can Stokes ( his batting > bowling - still a true allrounder). These 2 are the only real all-rounders playing the game at the moment (if we discount WK - then the likes of Buttler, Bairstow, Pant, etc can also be included but we are just talking about bowlers/batsmen). The rest are either Bowlers who can bat or batsmen who can bowl but a team would not trust them to win the game in both departments if they had the options. 

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Zero_Unit

[Lord]

7 hours ago, Zero_Unit said:

It's not about which game he has won. The fact that they gave him the ball to bowl to win the WC final (where Carlos B. won it for WI), regardless of if he succeeded or not. Would you give Jadeja the bat to win the game if you had that option? Highly unlikely. I would however trust him to win the game with the ball, not the bat.

This is different for Shakib and Stokes. Shakib can win you games single-handedly with either the bat or the ball or both in the same game and so can Stokes ( his batting > bowling - still a true allrounder). These 2 are the only real all-rounders playing the game at the moment (if we discount WK - then the likes of Buttler, Bairstow, Pant, etc can also be included but we are just talking about bowlers/batsmen). The rest are either Bowlers who can bat or batsmen who can bowl but a team would not trust them to win the game in both departments if they had the options. 

 

 

this thread is about Tests.

 

Anyway they gave Stokes the ball there because other bowlers were bowled out earlier in a view to close the game early,not because he was any good.  It cost them the title despite the main bowlers leaving 24 in last over IIRC.

[Majestic]

On 3/29/2023 at 8:33 AM, Zero_Unit said:

I keep seeing this name pop up over and over again. To be quite frank, a TRUE allrounder is someone who you would throw the bowl or bat at and expect to win you the game. Jadeja is someone I definitely would not throw the bat and expect to win the game. Neither is Flintoff, Pollock or Vettori (more bowlers than anything). Before 1990, I can't talk about much because I can only judge from numbers since I was not around.

2010 and onward, there are only 2 real all-rounders that are still around and those are the first 2 names you mentioned. Shakib and Stokes, that's it that's all. 
 

Jadeja averages 35-36 with bat. He has always been selected for his all rounders skills. In LOIs, he was average for a long time but played a terrific knock in that semi final with bat.

 

Flintoff again was genuine game changer with bat on his day. He has hundreds in ODIs to his name.

 

Pollock or Vettori maybe, but I have included the borderline cases as well. Vettori has 6 test hundreds by the way. Pollock was very capable with bat too in both formats.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Majestic

[Majestic]

On 3/24/2023 at 8:14 PM, Majestic said:

All rounders by decades :

 

1970s - Mike Proctor, Tony Grieg

1980s - Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev

1990s - Chris Cairns, Shaun Pollock

2000s - Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, Daniel Vettori

2010s - Shakib, Stokes, Jadeja

 

Hadlee and Ashwin are excluded. Their average is below 30 in weaker suit. Otherwise 13 names stands out for A/R category in last 50 years.

[Zero_Unit]

14 hours ago, Majestic said:

Jadeja averages 35-36 with bat. He has always been selected for his all rounders skills. In LOIs, he was average for a long time but played a terrific knock in that semi final with bat.

 

Flintoff again was genuine game changer with bat on his day. He has hundreds in ODIs to his name.

 

Pollock or Vettori maybe, but I have included the borderline cases as well. Vettori has 6 test hundreds by the way. Pollock was very capable with bat too in both formats.

every single player on that list is more than capable but the question I am trying to raise is would you bet your money on a specific player to win you the game with both bat and ball. I would say yes for Shakib (unfortunate for him, he plays for a weak team) and Stokes to a certain extent (with the ball). But Jadeja, I would bet all my money on him with the ball, not so much with the bat. 

Again, had all these players played for a weaker test nation or an associate nation, we would have seen a better picture if you ask me. It would have truly showed their capability on a regular basis since they would have had to do more with both bat and ball (like Shakib).