What is an allrounder?

[youngindia]

I have never seen WI express pace bowlers carted around like club bowlers except by Dev. His style of batting inherently carried more risk and hence he does not average 40. .

not true...if I never knew who kapil was and watched him bat today, I would not class him as a specialist batsman.As a bowling allrounder ,he had a subset of batting skills. he does not have the foundation to average more than 36. you would find that bowling allrounders do not typically cross 35 in 150 years of test cricket. the specialist batsmen are more refined and tighter in their defence ,positioning and shots. Imran does not average higher by accident. he was more solid and a better strategic thinker. Often weaker batsman go for their shots as they know its their best bet.hence kapil followed a strategy that suited him well on occasions. the only blip was he didn't have too many hundreds at the time of 1986. he could have scored a few more hundreds and maybe average 1 or 1.5 higher. other talk is pure hyperbole.

[youngindia]

Personally, I think it is a very elitist view to say all-rounders need to get into the team as purely a batsman or a bowler. .

unlikely in real life..sobers and kallis are a bit close. but their bowling is not very effective to be a part of top teams.

I'd much rather prefer that to be quantified as someone who can either be picked as a batsman who can bowl or a bowler he can bat,

that's usually more realistic. there are a few cases like razzaq,cairns who can qualify as 2/3 rd batsman and 2/3rd bowler

[Clarke]

Old school definition: Batting Avg > Bowling Avg is fine by me.

[Marut]

not true...if I never knew who kapil was and watched him bat today, I would not class him as a specialist batsman.As a bowling allrounder ,he had a subset of batting skills. he does not have the foundation to average more than 36. you would find that bowling allrounders do not typically cross 35 in 150 years of test cricket. the specialist batsmen are more refined and tighter in their defence ,positioning and shots. Imran does not average higher by accident. he was more solid and a better strategic thinker. Often weaker batsman go for their shots as they know its their best bet.hence kapil followed a strategy that suited him well on occasions. the only blip was he didn't have too many hundreds at the time of 1986. he could have scored a few more hundreds and maybe average 1 or 1.5 higher. other talk is pure hyperbole.

But weaker batsmen cannot maintain a 30+ test average after 130 tests. A predominantly slogger like batsman (like Kapil's S/R of 81 shows) cannot be expected to average more than 15-20 in tests in the 80s era. You may want to compare various Indian batsmen's record for the eighties. Kapil 31 @ 85 in 80 tests Srikkanth 32@67 in 39 tests Sandeep Patil 37@62 in 29 tests Vishy 30@48 in 25 tests Vengsarkar 47@46 in 71 tests Gavaskar 46@44 in 65 tests Azhar 46@52 in 34 tests Amarnath 47@42 in 43 tests Shastri 34@37 in 69 tests Yashpal Sharma 31@32 in 24 tests As you can see Kapil's averages were similar to Srikkanth, Sandeep patil, Vishy and Shastri during the 80s. (Vishy and SP did not play much in the 80s though). But Kapil could score the runs much faster - easily proving that he was a better bat compared to Srikkanth, Shastri, Yashpal and even Vishy and Sandeep Patil, as far as the 80s was concerned. Botham averaged just a bit higher than Kapil (at 34) but with only a S/R of 64 compared to Kapil's 85. This shows Kapil was vastly superior to Botham in the 80s. Accomplished batsmen like Kim Hughes averaged 36@45 in the 80s. Rameez Raja averaged 32@44. A good batting performance in the 80s was to average 40@45, but Kapil was so far ahead in the strike rate department that he must be considered equivalent to 40@60 on the basis of his batting ability. For a #6-#8 batsman in the 80s, a good stat was 25@50, but Kapil did 31@86!! A weak batsman who slogged his way to some runs would have just made 20@60 in the 80s.

[Vilander]

But weaker batsmen cannot maintain a 30+ test average after 130 tests. A predominantly slogger like batsman (like Kapil's S/R of 81 shows) cannot be expected to average more than 15-20 in tests in the 80s era. You may want to compare various Indian batsmen's record for the eighties. Kapil 31 @ 85 in 80 tests Srikkanth 32@67 in 39 tests Sandeep Patil 37@62 in 29 tests Vishy 30@48 in 25 tests Vengsarkar 47@46 in 71 tests Gavaskar 46@44 in 65 tests Azhar 46@52 in 34 tests Amarnath 47@42 in 43 tests Shastri 34@37 in 69 tests Yashpal Sharma 31@32 in 24 tests As you can see Kapil's averages were similar to Srikkanth, Sandeep patil, Vishy and Shastri during the 80s. (Vishy and SP did not play much in the 80s though). But Kapil could score the runs much faster - easily proving that he was a better bat compared to Srikkanth, Shastri, Yashpal and even Vishy and Sandeep Patil, as far as the 80s was concerned. Botham averaged just a bit higher than Kapil (at 34) but with only a S/R of 64 compared to Kapil's 85. This shows Kapil was vastly superior to Botham in the 80s. Accomplished batsmen like Kim Hughes averaged 36@45 in the 80s. Rameez Raja averaged 32@44. A good batting performance in the 80s was to average 40@45, but Kapil was so far ahead in the strike rate department that he must be considered equivalent to 40@60 on the basis of his batting ability. For a #6-#8 batsman in the 80s, a good stat was 25@50, but Kapil did 31@86!! A weak batsman who slogged his way to some runs would have just made 20@60 in the 80s.

Good post, shows how good Sunny and Vensarkar were, they had ability to almost play in present time skill levels, usually good batters from past like Botham/Kapil etc were very skilled for that time, but in present day terms they would be around zim/scotland batsmen level.

[youngindia]

But weaker batsmen cannot maintain a 30+ test average after 130 tests. A predominantly slogger like batsman (like Kapil's S/R of 81 shows) cannot be expected to average more than 15-20 in tests in the 80s era.

The point is bowling allrounders are unlikely to cross 35 barring exceptions like Imran and miller. In ODI's, they are unlikely to cross 27 it does not mean they don't have batting gifts , they do..but they have a subset...they are just not a full fledged specialist. he cannot last as consistently as a successful specialist.. In one of my previous posts on this topic I had clearly showed how specialists typically cross 30 around 40% -55% of the time...a bowling allrounder cross 30's around 30-37% of the time.. that's difference between vengsarkar and a kapil/botham what i am saying is have realistic expectations ..when the entire history of test cricket shows even top bowling allrounders struggle to cross 35, it is absurd to argue kapil will touch 40. let me come to the second topic.specialists who ended up in the 30's when I saw murali Vijay the first time, I felt that he could average 40 provided he adapts to international cricket(since we cannot quantify intelligence as rohit shows)). he could average 36 and get booted out like wasim jaffer for ashwin/irfan, i am giving no chance of averaging 40. you see the difference in expectations? people who have played cricket any decent standard are conditioned to observe the quality of a batsman's defensive game. it won't take more than a few deliveries for me to observe if that guy is a specialist or allroudner or tailender

Srikkanth 32@67 in 39 tests

weak technique for a specialist...would not have been given chances with a better talent pool sidhu was poor in footwork and liability in nz/eng. throughout the 90's , we could not find a decent opener that's because our talented pool was more limited in those days countries like nz did have batsmen who average in the 30-40's and that's precisely why they were weaker. even ranatunga averaged in the 30's.These days their better batsmen average more KS was a regular only around 4 years and played only 39 tests

Sandeep Patil 37@62 in 29 tests

test discard...indiscipline led to his downfall. still averages better than the best bowling allrounders if he was a bowling allrounder, he would be one of the best. see the difference?

Vishy 30@48 in 25 tests Vengsarkar 47@46 in 71 tests Gavaskar 46@44 in 65 tests Azhar 46@52 in 34 tests Amarnath 47@42 in 43 tests

all with 40+ test averages as expected from a successful specialist.. I don't like the stripped down stats..i am quoting career averages for a reason(> 60-70 test sample and all forms of correction-good form,bad form,beginning,peak phase)

Shastri 34@37 in 69 tests

batting allrounder with limited gifts players who have played more than 60 tests have averaged 40+...or they are allroudners like kapil or shastri guys like Yashpal and sandeep were discarded. sandeep could averaged 40+ if he proved successful as a specialist ...kapil was undoubtedly a successful international but had no chance of averaging 38+ that's the difference strike rate is more your playing style ..the reliability of your defensive game primarily plays a crucial role in how long you last.. kapil knew he cannot weather out a storm like amaranth or gavaskar..he went out for allout attack..it suited him.. but he was never going to average anywhere near high as decent specialist

Accomplished batsmen like Kim Hughes averaged 36@45 in the 80s. Rameez Raja averaged 32@44.

hughes record is shocking as he has played around 70 tests...usually it does not happen...rameez and srikkanth did not play 60 tests and just filing in for lack of alternatives. here is an explanation for hughes-" Yet, alongside these gems were long stretches of mediocrity, of luckless and run-less periods, when his propensity to step out to the fastest bowlers to bring a smile on the face of the spectators did not go down well with the trinity who defined the path of Australian cricket." underachievers/Interrupted careers(hooper/hughes),test discards(sandeep,yuvraj), batsmen selected for a limited talent pool(rameez,srikkanth) ,average to minnow sides(90's England,nz,current WI) do have batsmen averaging 30's... but if they were a bowling allrounder they would have been a great success..so don't let that fool you a successful specialist for a top test team or a good batting team typically would average 40 after 60 tests. Or you are from a middling to minnow side or a allrounder.

[rtmohanlal]

not true...if I never knew who kapil was and watched him bat today, I would not class him as a specialist batsman.As a bowling allrounder ,he had a subset of batting skills. he does not have the foundation to average more than 36. you would find that bowling allrounders do not typically cross 35 in 150 years of test cricket. the specialist batsmen are more refined and tighter in their defence ,positioning and shots. Imran does not average higher by accident. he was more solid and a better strategic thinker. Often weaker batsman go for their shots as they know its their best bet.hence kapil followed a strategy that suited him well on occasions. the only blip was he didn't have too many hundreds at the time of 1986. he could have scored a few more hundreds and maybe average 1 or 1.5 higher. other talk is pure hyperbole.

you are basically saying that batsmen like Kapil whose str: rate was 80.91 played aggressively just because he was a weaker batsman and hence went for his shots. i think this is senseless. I once heard Dravid saying he can't be a Virender Sehwag.If every batsman can play like Sehwag then why did Dravid say like this?Dravid should know more than you or me for sure. Also then why is Viv considered the best among a lot of +50 avg: batsmen? why a lot of his contemporary batsmen glorify Viv as the best? As per your logic Viv was a weaker batsman. Whether 'Kapil played aggressively because it suited him the best' is not the main thing. Kapil could play very aggressively and put even Viv to shade w.r.t dominating bowlers even against deadly attack is the main thing. Imran was a grafter whose avg: was boosted by notouts a lot. his better avg: was due to his style of play & role in the team batting from lower order position. More over the term 'weaker' is not at all suitable for a batsman like Kapil. To score 254 runs @ 42.33 avg: and around 100 str: rate across a 6 test series in WI against Marshall, Holding, Roberts & Garner requires loads of batting ability. He played 2 run a ball +98 inns too in the same series.Of these, his 100* was very instrumental in India drawing that test. If this was very easy, then why can't the so called 'more solid' Imran didn't score above 47 in a single inns in WI? why did he avg: only 21 in WI with his more solid technique than Kapil?

[Sooda]

Personally, I think it is a very elitist view to say all-rounders need to get into the team as purely a batsman or a bowler. I'd much rather prefer that to be quantified as someone who can either be picked as a batsman who can bowl or a bowler he can bat, and necessarily be picked in either categories throughout his career. It covers the former view of exclusivity vis-a-vis batsman and bowler given by the others but adds a more realistic caveat to it. Agree with Anarchy2day on this To expect all rounders to get picked on their weaker skill alone is too much to ask- I dont think Botham would have made it a just a test batsman (ignoring intangibles like if they were not bowling how much they could have focussed on batting etc). If a team is lucky they will have ARs who are world class in one aspect and very good in another like Kapil and Botham -world class bowlers who were good batsmen. Likewise Kallis and Sobers- ATG batsmen who were more than handy bowlers- neither would have been specialist bowlers in their sides I dont think. The kind of players who are once in a generation and That is a luxury. Ashwin is a good bowler who can bat and is the closest to an AR we have- he could not play as a pure batsman, but it dosent mean he can not play as a 5th bowler/7th batsman.

[rtmohanlal]

Good post' date=' shows how good Sunny and Vensarkar were, they had ability to almost play in present time skill levels, usually good batters from past like Botham/Kapil etc were very skilled for that time, but in present day terms they would be around zim/scotland batsmen level.[/quote'] Kapil/Botham @ zim/Scotland level ? /