What is an allrounder?

[MCGGG]

With all the talk of who's the best ODI AR of all time, what does a player have to do to be classed as an AR? Does he need to bowl 10 overs more often than not and bat in the top 7? I ask this because many are saying guys like Richards-Maxwell-Watson are allrounders, but are they really? Seems to me they are all batsmen who bowl a bit, Watson may have been a genuine AR years ago when his pace was up, but he rarely bowls more than 5 overs a game now days. In tests it's always been the old 30/30 rule, average 30 with bat and ball and you're an allrounder, but what is the pass mark for ODI cricket? and remember SR needs to be factored in as well.

[G_B_]

the players you mention are more like utility players in one dimension of cricket (batting or bowling)

[MCGGG]

the players you mention are more like utility players in one dimension of cricket (batting or bowling)

Maxwell is considered an AR by the Australian media, same as Watson.

[BlueBee]

Faulkner.

[sensible-indian]

There are ARs and there are genuine allrounders. SRT, Maxwell are allrounders in ODI. But they ain't genuine allrounders like Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Flintoff, Pollock, etc. Any person who can give important contributions with EITHER the bat or ball (at a decent frequency) is an allrounder. I didn't say game changing. Important contributions are enough. Guys like SRT, Maxwell may give a once in a bluemoon great performance with the ball but not consistently, hence they ain't genuine allrounders. Sehwag started off as a genuine ODI allrounder who later turned into a namesake allrounder in his career.

[MCGGG]

There are ARs and there are genuine allrounders. SRT, Maxwell are allrounders in ODI. But they ain't genuine allrounders like Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Flintoff, Pollock, etc. Any person who can give important contributions with EITHER the bat or ball (at a decent frequency) is an allrounder. I didn't say game changing. Important contributions are enough. Guys like SRT, Maxwell may give a once in a bluemoon great performance with the ball but not consistently, hence they ain't genuine allrounders. Sehwag started off as a genuine ODI allrounder who later turned into a namesake allrounder in his career.

I think this about covers it, great response.

[Marut]

There are ARs and there are genuine allrounders. SRT, Maxwell are allrounders in ODI. But they ain't genuine allrounders like Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Flintoff, Pollock, etc. Any person who can give important contributions with EITHER the bat or ball (at a decent frequency) is an allrounder. I didn't say game changing. Important contributions are enough. Guys like SRT, Maxwell may give a once in a bluemoon great performance with the ball but not consistently, hence they ain't genuine allrounders. Sehwag started off as a genuine ODI allrounder who later turned into a namesake allrounder in his career.

An all rounder must surely make game changing contributions with bat and ball, and on the field as well. Not frequently, but at least once in a while. Genuine ARs do this more frequently. For eg, take Ashwin in ODIs. He has delivered with the ball, but is yet to prove that he can play crucial knocks with the bat. So he is only a borderline AR.

[tweaker]

Stuart Binny Ben Stokes Chris Woakes Corey Anderson Kieron Pollard Andre Russell Dwayne Smith Anjello Mathews I don't think anyone of them has shown consistency in both department

[brendan07]

The quick answer....' a person that if you took out one discipline would still be picked'. It is why in my view there have been very few of them, you are talking Sobers, Kallis, Dev, Imran Khan, etc. All the one you have listed are either batsmen who can bowl or bowlers who can hit a long ball. If Maxwell is an AR I'm the Pope. The bloke is a pie thrower with the ball!

[brendan07]

Faulkner.

In 4 years maybe at this stage has 1 ODI century and None at FC level. He is a bowler who can finish an innings with the bat. Would you want him coming in at 4/50?

[vvvslaxman]

Mohammad Hafeez. not good at anything hehe

[govinda]

:giggle:

Mohammad Hafeez. not good at anything hehe

[govinda]

somebody who can bowl and bat like imran bthom and dev

[tweaker]

Nowadays no one fulfill the criteria,is good only in 1 department

[Temujin Khaghan]

my criteria for a perfect allrounder is that the player should be chosen for his secondary/weaker skill alone. so that way, ian botham is the no.1 allrounder to have played test cricket. only player who would have played a lot of games just with his weaker skill - batting. 102 test games and 14 100s is damn good for a lower middle order batsman. imran would have played a few games as a test batsman. kapil would have played as a batsman in ODIs rest of them wont get chosen on their weaker skill alone - sobers (medium pace/spin), kallis (medium pace), hadlee (batting)

[gazza]

my criteria for a perfect allrounder is that the player should be chosen for his secondary/weaker skill alone. so that way, ian botham is the no.1 allrounder to have played test cricket. only player who would have played a lot of games just with his weaker skill - batting. 102 test games and 14 100s is damn good for a lower middle order batsman. imran would have played a few games as a test batsman. kapil would have played as a batsman in ODIs rest of them wont get chosen on their weaker skill alone - sobers (medium pace/spin), kallis (medium pace), hadlee (batting)

Miller would, procter possibly as well (not that he played much international cricket), Clive rice but he barely played internationals, Faulkner.

[Marut]

my criteria for a perfect allrounder is that the player should be chosen for his secondary/weaker skill alone. so that way, ian botham is the no.1 allrounder to have played test cricket. only player who would have played a lot of games just with his weaker skill - batting. 102 test games and 14 100s is damn good for a lower middle order batsman. imran would have played a few games as a test batsman. kapil would have played as a batsman in ODIs rest of them wont get chosen on their weaker skill alone - sobers (medium pace/spin), kallis (medium pace), hadlee (batting)

Botham's hundreds were mostly at home and most of them came against weak/average bowling units. He was not able to score a single hundred or even a fifty in Pakistan or WI, which were arguably the two strongest bowling sides of the era. Kapil on the other hand had a hundred (and a 98) and four fifties in WI and Pakistan. Imran too could not make a single fifty or hundred in the WI. Kapil made three hundreds and four fifties against the WI - something even proper batsmen would be proud to make against the WI team of that era. (only seven batsmen had four hundreds against the WI of that era and Kapil had three).

[sensible-indian]

An all rounder must surely make game changing contributions with bat and ball, and on the field as well. Not frequently, but at least once in a while. Genuine ARs do this more frequently. For eg, take Ashwin in ODIs. He has delivered with the ball, but is yet to prove that he can play crucial knocks with the bat. So he is only a borderline AR.

I said important contributions as a criteria for declaring someone as an AR. Game changing contributions (at a decent frequency) elevates one to a great AR. Ashwin is no AR in ODIs. Namesake only. His batting has been too sub par (overall) to be called an AR.

[adi B]

needs to be good/genuinely good in at least one department while doing decently or complementing well in the other department,cant be a bits and pieces of a cricketer

[sweetaskandy]

Regular telling contributions with bat and ball. Or Can be picked for either aspect.