All Out Cricket's Discussion of the Week - Who is the best all-rounder in the world?

Despite Pakistan's dramatic comeback, Stuart Broad showed once again in Abu Dhabi why he is rated as one of the world's best all-rounders:

http://www.alloutcricket.com/blogs/comment/game-changer-pakistan-v-england-stuart-broad

But who do you think is the best all-rounder in the world?

I guess it still has to be Jacques Kallis, though his bowling is very much a sideshow in recent times, lacking much of its past verve.

Broad is developing in to a fine bowling all-rounder, for sure, and as far as bowling all-rounders go I'd have to agree with Michael Vaughan and rate Broad as the very best.

Shane Watson is a very decent bat, with decent medium pace bowling, Shakib Al Hasan is a tricky slow left armer that has his moments with the bat, though is perhaps a tad inconsistent to be rated as the worlds best (despite what the ICC rankings may say!), and other than that there isn't a huge deal out there in terms of genuine all-rounders.

Mohammad Hafeez can now be considered an all-rounder, I'd say. His batting and bowling have come on leaps and bounds since Pakistan's last tour of England, so he is definitely worth considering.

So, in summary, my top 3 would be as follows:

1. Jacques Kallis (just, given his lesser bowling role these days)
2. Stuart Broad
3. Shane Watson

Shakib and Hafeez battling it out just behind those 3, for me.

The ICC test all-rounder rankings currently look llike:
(with their highest points rankings alongside)
1 404 Shakib Al Hasan 404 v Pakistan, 17/12/2011
2 395 J.H. Kallis 616 v Pakistan, 26/12/2002
3 382 S.C.J. Broad 382 v Pakistan, 25/01/2012
4 381 D.L. Vettori 412 v Pakistan, 11/12/2009
5 350 S.R. Watson 394 v South Africa, 17/11/2011
6 270 G.P. Swann 327 v Bangladesh, 12/03/2010
7 229 T.T. Bresnan 238 v India, 18/08/2011
8 228 D.W. Steyn 229 v Sri Lanka, 26/12/2011
9 218 P.M. Siddle 218 v India, 24/01/2012
10 185 M.G. Johnson 384 v England, 08/07/2009

Which rather tells you that the stocks of real quality all-rounders are a tad low at the moment.

I think Shakib is at the top as of right, while the decline of Kallis as a bowler is reflected by his points compared to his peak. Watson's injury layoff has knocked him down 2 or 3 spots, but I think overall the names in the top 5 are accurate, and there's not much between them.

There's a big gap between Watson at 5 and Swann at 6 which IMO is accurate - names 6-10 are all bowlers who chip in with the bat rather than out and out all-rounders.

Back in the 80's Botham, Imran, Kapil Dev and (to a lesser extent) Hadlee were great all rounders. Later in the 90's and noughties Kallis, Cairns, Pollock and Flintoff flourished. I'm not sure the modern class of all-rounders are quite there as yet.

For me it's
1. Shakib
2. Kallis
3. Watson
4. Vettori
5. Broad

Kiwi
I think now Id push Kallis further down your list - he's little more than a part timer as a Test bowler these days, unlike in his prime when he was seriously under-rated as a bowler.

I do wonder if the ever-increasing demands of professionalism have really seen the end of the genuine all rounder of the Botham / Imran / Dev ilk - players who could be legitimately selected for their performance with either bat or as a seam bowler (spinners are a slightly different matter) - currently there is no-one who is as good a seam bowler as Broad and as good a batsman as Watson. Perhaps it's now too difficult to perfect both skills to Test match level, and players have to work on their stronger aspect and let their natural talent look after the other side of the game.

dummy-half, you've got a couple of good points there. I may have kept Kallis up out of respect for his past deeds. Now he's being held at 2 on the all-rounders list by virtue of being 2nd on the batting list. Watson, Shakib and Vettori are 28th, 29th and 31st respectively in the batting rankings while Broad is 46th. Mohammed Hafeez is 30th and Dilshan 32nd to put a couple of other batsmen-who-bowl into the mix.

Broad, Steyn, Siddle and Swan are all currently in the top 10 bowlers which drives their all round ranking. Shakib, Vettori and Watson are all in the top 20 at least, while Kallis is down at 33rd, in between Doug Bracewell (who's played 4 tests) and Monty Panesaar (1 test in the last 30 months).

The other factor at play is fitness, given the amount of cricket played nowadays - had Watson been fit to play in Australia's last 5 (I think he played the 1st one vs NZ) tests he could well have earnt himself the #1 ranking, given the less than stellar form of his opposition. Angelo Mathews has also missed game time with injury.

Kallis, Shakib, Vettori, Watson, Broad for me

Kallis,Shakib,Watson,Vettori,Hafeez

Hafeez can't be ranked above Broad at the moment in my opinion, cricketfan. Broad is a better bowler than Hafeez is a batsman (though he is much improved), and there isn't much between their secondary roles i.e. Broad's batting and Hafeez's bowling. Close, but Broad for me.

at the moment i dont class broad as a true all-rounder...yh he has had a few good knocks with the bat, but he isnt consistent enough with the bat, to be classed as a genuine all-rounder.

For me, Kallis remains number one - he always bowls well when he does come on even if that workload is reduced and the quality of his batting means that any regular bowling makes him a leading all-rounder. Vettori, Hafeez, Bresnan, Broad, Shakib and Mathews behind.

What about Dwayne Bravo and Essex's finest ever All-Rounder Graham Napier?

I'll stick with my own definition of allrounder and if you wouldn't get in the side with just your weaker talent, you're not an allrounder.

By that definition, it's a toss up between Shakib and Vettori and possibly Bravo, as no other players I can think of would have much of a chance of playing international cricket based solely on the second string of their bow, but maybe that just shows how weak those particular nations are ATM.

I still think both Broad and Watson could make it as a batsman and a bowler respectively if they applied themselves 100%, but they're currently just handy at their weaker discipline, as for Kallis, he's still a world class batsman and has been for over a decade, but his bowling has been no more than a useful extra for SA for the last few years.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Back in the 80's Botham, Imran, Kapil Dev and (to a lesser extent) Hadlee were great all rounders. Later in the 90's and noughties Kallis, Cairns, Pollock and Flintoff flourished. I'm not sure the modern class of all-rounders are quite there as yet.

At risk of coming over more Victor Meldrewish than normal, my immediate thoughts were firmy along the lines of Kiwi's comments above. Off the top of my head from even earlier eras the likes of Procter, Greig, Barlow, Goddard, Benaud, Miller and Mankad come into the frame. I see few- if any - of today's players classed as all rounders competing with bat and ball with those of yesteryear. Any reasons? It would seem odd if we now concentrate too much on developing a player's best attribute but the current evidence makes me wonder.

And yes, I know I haven't mentioned Sir Garfield. Thought I was sufficiently ahead already ....

gboycottnut wrote:What about Dwayne Bravo and Essex's finest ever All-Rounder Graham Napier?

naps is defo up there

Trevor Bailey and Barry Knight set a pretty high standard for Essex all-rounders . . . . . never thought the England selectors were particularly generous to Knight.

Kwini - I don't remember Knight that well but believe the newly promoted Sarge has said similar.

Bailey or Napier? Well, Napier might win you one in ten but Bailey would save you nine out of ten.

guildfordbat wrote:Kwini - I don't remember Knight that well but believe the newly promoted Sarge has said similar.

Bailey or Napier? Well, Napier might win you one in ten but Bailey would save you nine out of ten.

Guildford is right - I have advocated Barry Knight as a useful all round performer. But to be fair I wouldn't suggest he was in the category of great all rounder. In 29 tests he scored two centuries and no half centuries at an average of 26; and took 70 wickets at a tidy economy rate, but never taking 5 wickets in an innings.

Napier: I think you have largely to discount fireworks in any innings against Surrey on the small Whitgift ground. He often seem to struggle to get in the Essex team. His overall stats are, frankly, rather poor.

ReallyReal wrote:I'll stick with my own definition of allrounder and if you wouldn't get in the side with just your weaker talent, you're not an allrounder.

That's not an unreasonable definition - but it could be a very tough one depending on how it's interpreted. Eg if your weaker talent is bowling you are only an all rounder if you would be selected ahead of other possible test class bowling candidates. I wonder how many players historically thought of as all rounders would be excluded from that category for most of their careers? Possibly a slightly softer definition would be - could you be regarded as a front line test batsman/bowler in your weaker talent

Hope this link works; great article about Barry Knight and very revealing about the Gentlemen/Players divide in the 60's.

If you ever wonder about some of us old pharts suggesting there's more to cricket than looking at 50-year old averages, read this:

http://sites.google.com/site/bodaciouscom/the-d-oliviera-affair-40-years-on/barry-knight

This link brings you to a bodacious page that features two articles which actually seem to be two rolled into one; click on either Barry Knight or D'Oliviera affair and enjoy!

I've never read this account before but none of this is any surprise to anyone who was paying attention at the time.

on the shakib thing , for me it just shows how flawed some of the ICC rankings are

here is a guy who is ranked as the #1 all-rounder in test cricket and i doubt he would even get a game for any of the top 5 or 6 teams

he scores alot of points in the forumla purely because the rest of the bangladesh team are so bad he bowls a helluva lot of overs and hes at best a decent #6 or #7

kwinigolfer wrote:Hope this link works; great article about Barry Knight and very revealing about the Gentlemen/Players divide in the 60's.

If you ever wonder about some of us old pharts suggesting there's more to cricket than looking at 50-year old averages, read this:

http://sites.google.com/site/bodaciouscom/the-d-oliviera-affair-40-years-on/barry-knight

This link brings you to a bodacious page that features two articles which actually seem to be two rolled into one; click on either Barry Knight or D'Oliviera affair and enjoy!

I've never read this account before but none of this is any surprise to anyone who was paying attention at the time.

Cracking link, Kwini.

More than forty years on the quiet dignity of D'Oliveira continues to shine through.

Meanwhile, Barry Knight - what a lad!

guildford,
Certainly very reflective of the way things were in the first 15-odd years of my cricket watching. Love the image of Oakman, the Player, receiving a call from Dexter, the "Gentleman" and determined to stay that way! Somehow, I never classified May as anything other than a cricketer even though he had all the Bailey, Warr, Carr, Insole, Ingleby-Mackenzie trappings in terms of privileged upbringing. Love the contrast of the two Knights!

Very interesting his commentary on those players who ducked overseas tours; we certainly knew it was happening, but never saw anything in the press about it. Not really sure when that changed.

Anyway, by hook or by crook, Barry Knight was a top all-rounder.

rich1uk wrote:on the shakib thing , for me it just shows how flawed some of the ICC rankings are

here is a guy who is ranked as the #1 all-rounder in test cricket and i doubt he would even get a game for any of the top 5 or 6 teams

he scores alot of points in the forumla purely because the rest of the bangladesh team are so bad he bowls a helluva lot of overs and hes at best a decent #6 or #7

Possibly. Though he's a fairly handy 6, especially on the sub-continent. If you put him at 6 for England instead of Morgan (or 7 with Prior promoted) the England side would be quite a bit stronger. South Africa would love to have his bowling, and with Boucher's batting declining he'd make a difference to their mid-late order batting.

Vettori would probably keep him out of the NZ side unless they wanted 2 spinners, and he'd have to bat at 8 for Australia, if he could beat out Lyon for a spinner's berth.

Another, looser definition (I'd call it the minimum qualification) of all-round status is having a batting average significantly higher than your bowling one. But you'd have to be making the team as of right on at least one of your disciplines.

rich1uk wrote:on the shakib thing , for me it just shows how flawed some of the ICC rankings are

here is a guy who is ranked as the #1 all-rounder in test cricket and i doubt he would even get a game for any of the top 5 or 6 teams

he scores alot of points in the forumla purely because the rest of the bangladesh team are so bad he bowls a helluva lot of overs and hes at best a decent #6 or #7

I disagree entirely. I think if he played for one of the top teams, he'd receive coaching and back-up which would allow him to do his considerable talent far greater justice. He is easily good enough to average 45 or so with the bat, and high 20s with the ball (based on talent alone). However playing for Bangladesh:
1) puts a huge amount of pressure on his performance: he is their best bat and their best bowler, and for a while had to captain the side as well.
2) means he doesn't have to fight for his place, no he doesn't knuckle down enough with the bat.

Make no mistake about it, he is quite possibly the 2nd best spinner around at the moment in world cricket. Most test sides would love him in their team.

Mike Selig wrote:

rich1uk wrote:on the shakib thing , for me it just shows how flawed some of the ICC rankings are

here is a guy who is ranked as the #1 all-rounder in test cricket and i doubt he would even get a game for any of the top 5 or 6 teams

he scores alot of points in the forumla purely because the rest of the bangladesh team are so bad he bowls a helluva lot of overs and hes at best a decent #6 or #7

I disagree entirely. I think if he played for one of the top teams, he'd receive coaching and back-up which would allow him to do his considerable talent far greater justice. He is easily good enough to average 45 or so with the bat, and high 20s with the ball (based on talent alone). However playing for Bangladesh:
1) puts a huge amount of pressure on his performance: he is their best bat and their best bowler, and for a while had to captain the side as well.
2) means he doesn't have to fight for his place, no he doesn't knuckle down enough with the bat.

Make no mistake about it, he is quite possibly the 2nd best spinner around at the moment in world cricket. Most test sides would love him in their team.

The sad thing as well is he would have been much more effective if he had bowlers who could build pressure from the other side as well.

And the fact that he may go down as Bangladesh' greatest ever test player and yet won't make a dent on the greatest ever international list.

I'd be disappointed if Bangladesh don't eventually improve and produce a better player than Saqib though. Zimbabwe managed Flower....

True, hopefully it will happen, but for that to become reality they need to play more test cricket to benefit financially and develop their grass roots.

sorry but i'll stick with my original opinion of shakib , hes an average player in a below average side and therefore is made to look alot better than he is

saying that you think he has talent and with the right coaching and opportunities he could become a better player if anything supports my view that atm he cant be considered the #1 ranked all-rounder in tests as that is meant to be based on what players have achieved rather than what they could

Rich, irrespective of the fact that he plays for a poor team, he still takes those wickets and makes those runs.

And it isn't against bangladesh.

his batting average is nothing special and he takes wickets because he usually ends up bowling alot more overs than he probably should because the rest of the bowlers are so bad

and as i said even if i was to agree with the views about his talent and potential it still doesn't change my view of how flawed the ICC rankings are if he is meant to be the best all-rounder in test cricket as thats meant to be based on achievement not potential

off-topic but when i was looking at his stats in more detail i noticed he has never played a test, home or away, against australia, thats a disgrace imo that CA haven't played bangladesh at all in the 5 years shakib has been in their team

Mate he has a similar strike rate to a certain player by the name of Kapil Dev and he has a better batting average.

just shows how flawed numbers can be sometimes

we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, i dont think he is a bad player, but i dont think he is the number all-rounder in test cricket either

"Who is the best all-rounder in the world?"

Ravi Bopara

gboycottnut wrote:"Who is the best all-rounder in the world?"

Ravi Bopara

so bascially everyone is in agreement that Kallis is the best all-rounder

ReallyReal wrote:I'll stick with my own definition of allrounder and if you wouldn't get in the side with just your weaker talent, you're not an allrounder.

By that definition, it's a toss up between Shakib and Vettori and possibly Bravo, as no other players I can think of would have much of a chance of playing international cricket based solely on the second string of their bow, but maybe that just shows how weak those particular nations are ATM.

I still think both Broad and Watson could make it as a batsman and a bowler respectively if they applied themselves 100%, but they're currently just handy at their weaker discipline, as for Kallis, he's still a world class batsman and has been for over a decade, but his bowling has been no more than a useful extra for SA for the last few years.

Vettori wouldn't get nowhere near the Kiwi side if he couldn't bowl.

Stella wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:I'll stick with my own definition of allrounder and if you wouldn't get in the side with just your weaker talent, you're not an allrounder.

By that definition, it's a toss up between Shakib and Vettori and possibly Bravo, as no other players I can think of would have much of a chance of playing international cricket based solely on the second string of their bow, but maybe that just shows how weak those particular nations are ATM.

I still think both Broad and Watson could make it as a batsman and a bowler respectively if they applied themselves 100%, but they're currently just handy at their weaker discipline, as for Kallis, he's still a world class batsman and has been for over a decade, but his bowling has been no more than a useful extra for SA for the last few years.

Vettori wouldn't get nowhere near the Kiwi side if he couldn't bowl.

Over the last few years Vettori has actually been one of NZs best batsman, with an average of over 40 since the start of 2009 and he only averaged 11.5 in his 1 Test against Bangladesh.

ReallyReal wrote:

Stella wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:I'll stick with my own definition of allrounder and if you wouldn't get in the side with just your weaker talent, you're not an allrounder.

By that definition, it's a toss up between Shakib and Vettori and possibly Bravo, as no other players I can think of would have much of a chance of playing international cricket based solely on the second string of their bow, but maybe that just shows how weak those particular nations are ATM.

I still think both Broad and Watson could make it as a batsman and a bowler respectively if they applied themselves 100%, but they're currently just handy at their weaker discipline, as for Kallis, he's still a world class batsman and has been for over a decade, but his bowling has been no more than a useful extra for SA for the last few years.

Vettori wouldn't get nowhere near the Kiwi side if he couldn't bowl.

Over the last few years Vettori has actually been one of NZs best batsman, with an average of over 40 since the start of 2009 and he only averaged 11.5 in his 1 Test against Bangladesh.

That may be so but he would still not be in the test team if he couldn't bowl. If he that was that good at batting, he would be higher than 8.
B

Stella wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:I'll stick with my own definition of allrounder and if you wouldn't get in the side with just your weaker talent, you're not an allrounder.

By that definition, it's a toss up between Shakib and Vettori and possibly Bravo, as no other players I can think of would have much of a chance of playing international cricket based solely on the second string of their bow, but maybe that just shows how weak those particular nations are ATM.

I still think both Broad and Watson could make it as a batsman and a bowler respectively if they applied themselves 100%, but they're currently just handy at their weaker discipline, as for Kallis, he's still a world class batsman and has been for over a decade, but his bowling has been no more than a useful extra for SA for the last few years.

Vettori wouldn't get nowhere near the Kiwi side if he couldn't bowl.

Disagree. He's batted 6 for them in the past. If New Zealand think they have 6 better batsmen than Vettori they are deluded.

Stella wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

Stella wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:I'll stick with my own definition of allrounder and if you wouldn't get in the side with just your weaker talent, you're not an allrounder.

By that definition, it's a toss up between Shakib and Vettori and possibly Bravo, as no other players I can think of would have much of a chance of playing international cricket based solely on the second string of their bow, but maybe that just shows how weak those particular nations are ATM.

I still think both Broad and Watson could make it as a batsman and a bowler respectively if they applied themselves 100%, but they're currently just handy at their weaker discipline, as for Kallis, he's still a world class batsman and has been for over a decade, but his bowling has been no more than a useful extra for SA for the last few years.

Vettori wouldn't get nowhere near the Kiwi side if he couldn't bowl.

Over the last few years Vettori has actually been one of NZs best batsman, with an average of over 40 since the start of 2009 and he only averaged 11.5 in his 1 Test against Bangladesh.

That may be so but he would still not be in the test team if he couldn't bowl. If he that was that good at batting, he would be higher than 8.
B

He hasn't batted as low as 8 for a while (he was going in ahead of Rees Young at 7), and I understand his recent move up to 6 is probably permanent as NZ are keen to play 4 seamers, especially in home tests.

He also toured Bangladesh as a specialist batsman a couple of years back (he was "rested" as a bowler for the tour).

Vettori at six?

IMO he isn't as good as most number sevens (prior, haddin etc).

And tbh this is all relative to what team you play for.

A player like Shakib, Vettori MAY be good enough to play either role for their country but not for a good side.

Watson for instance may be first change for Bangladesh but not for the Aussies.

Stella wrote:Vettori at six?

IMO he isn't as good as most number sevens (prior, haddin etc).

He's perhaps not as good a batsman as Prior. But he averages 40 with the bat and 32 with the ball since the start of 2006 - and that's with around half his matches on seam bowlers' pitches in New Zealand. Stephen Fleming finished with a test average of 40 and Ross Taylor averages 43 for contrast, while McCullum's average before he gave up keeping was ~ 35.

He averages 30 in tests doesn't he and Fleming FINISHED with an average of 40. Best to work on the same criteria.

He is a fine allrounder, IMO but not a good number six also IMO.

Stella wrote:He averages 30 in tests doesn't he and Fleming FINISHED with an average of 40. Best to work on the same criteria.

He is a fine allrounder, IMO but not a good number six also IMO.

At the moment he's the best 6 NZ has. Especially with Ryder and now Taylor injured. 10 years ago he certainly wasn't a number 6. OTOH, 10 years ago Jacque Kallis bowled 20+ overs a day, he certainly doesn't now. Vettori's worked very hard at improving his batting (he was #11 back in 1997, and more recently he's opened in list-A 50-over matches for Northern Districts) and would have moved up the order sooner but for the McCullum holding down the 7 spot. His batting approach is similar to Mark Richardson's in philosophy - Vettori knows exactly what his strong shots are, and he uses them when the opportunity presents.

5-10 years ago he was a nervous starter (he scored a relatively high number of ducks and often gotten out straight after a break in play), more recently he's addressed that.

So, with everyone fit. Vettori would be batting at six?

IMO vettori is good enough to bat 7, but not 6.

7 yes, 6 no. Although he wouldn't do any worse than England's current 6

Stella wrote:So, with everyone fit. Vettori would be batting at six?

It will depend on the pitch, but if it looks like it'll seam around NZ are going to try and play 4 quicks, with Watling at 7. He may also bat there in the sub-continent with a 2nd spinner* in the team - John Wright got burned a few times as a captain with injuries to seamers so I can't see him ever opting for just 2 seamers.

In South Africa or Australia I expect they'll go with 4 bowlers (especially if Ryder is fit to bowl 10-15 overs an innings).

*Currently Guptill bowls too many 4-balls to be 2nd spinner, while Williamson is still "correcting" his bowling action.