The world best current all rounder?

First topic message reminder :

Who would you say is the current best all rounder in the world at the moment? This is based on all formats. Mine would be Daniel Vettori leads his side well in both departments is one of the best spin-bowlers in the world and with a average of 30 and 6 centuries is also a very capable batsman aswell.

How many who've posted on here know anything about cricket, or at least, what on earth are the definitions of an 'all-rounder'?

I ask simply because there is no way Kallis is any kind of all-rounder any more, he's one of the best batsmen of his generation and WAS a true all-rounder (quite) a few years ago, but for the last few years he's been a bowler in name only, a decent 4th choice seamer at best at international level and in all honesty, that's being generous.

Angelo Mathews seems to have the talent to be a true all-ronder, but he's not quite there yet and Dwayne Bravo is at a similar level, but injuries have curtailed his career somewhat.
As for the rest of the field, Shakib Al Hasan seems to be the only player capable of making a full international side, in Tests or the shorter forms of the game, as either a bowler or a batsman, the rest are good-to-great batsmen who can bowl a bit, or good-to-great bowlers who can hold up an end or slog a few runs, but there is no way any could realistically be classed as good enough to play for their country just using their weaker 'talent', unless it was purely for teambuilding or as a confidence exercise

ReallyReal wrote:How many who've posted on here know anything about cricket, or at least, what on earth are the definitions of an 'all-rounder'?

I ask simply because there is no way Kallis is any kind of all-rounder any more, he's one of the best batsmen of his generation and WAS a true all-rounder (quite) a few years ago, but for the last few years he's been a bowler in name only, a decent 4th choice seamer at best at international level and in all honesty, that's being generous.

Angelo Mathews seems to have the talent to be a true all-ronder, but he's not quite there yet and Dwayne Bravo is at a similar level, but injuries have curtailed his career somewhat.
As for the rest of the field, Shakib Al Hasan seems to be the only player capable of making a full international side, in Tests or the shorter forms of the game, as either a bowler or a batsman, the rest are good-to-great batsmen who can bowl a bit, or good-to-great bowlers who can hold up an end or slog a few runs, but there is no way any could realistically be classed as good enough to play for their country just using their weaker 'talent', unless it was purely for teambuilding or as a confidence exercise

In my opinion...

All-rounder =/= Some who could be picked as both a specialist bowler or batsman. If that was the case, there would be very few all-rounders in the history of Test cricket.

An all-rounder is someone who makes a very good contribution with both bat and ball. In Test cricket, that may mean being good enough to bat at 6 and bowl a full quota of overs. A popular definition is having a batting average greater than your bowling average - although Kallis is recently bowling at nearly 50 runs a wicket which still qualifies thanks to his impressive batting average. Maybe you could change that definition to fit those who averaged >30 with the bat and <35 with the ball.

So by some defintions, Kallis is still an all-rounder in Tests, although he hasn't been very effective with the ball for the last couple of years. Last year he bowled 199 overs in 20 innings - so he was still used just as much as in previous years.

Well theres the thing. The only true all rounders, players who would get picked as specialist bowlers even if they couldnt bat and vice versa, currently around are those who are filling up spaces in rudey poo sides because they dont have enough proper bowlers or proper batsmen so they include guys with mid low 30's averages in batting and high 30's in bowling to offer big hitting and variety to the bowling.
Does that make their all round contribution great or does it paper over the cracks in a side lacking depth in talent? Its certainly a philosophy England have moved away from in tests and ODIs.
Just as much as being a legendary bowler who could get the odd 50 didnt make Warne a true all rounder, I wouldnt want to call someone a genuine all rounder because their batting is as bad as their bowling.

The all rounder rankings are posted there. It shows the guys who are contributing with bat and ball. None of them are at the top because they are equally brilliant with both, they are all more succesful with one than the other....but they give a better all round contribution than the number 1 pure batsman or bowler.

Add in things like leadership and fielding then you have a true assesment of an all round contribution. Anyone, like Vettori, who is up there in all formats dereves recognition as an all rounder even if hes not that great a batsman.

m@tt wrote:
In my opinion...

All-rounder =/= Some who could be picked as both a specialist bowler or batsman. If that was the case, there would be very few all-rounders in the history of Test cricket.

An all-rounder is someone who makes a very good contribution with both bat and ball

Agree with the above. One yardstick to measure all rounders is the difference between their batting and bowling averages. For example, Sobers, +23.75 Faulkner, +14.21 Miller, +14.00 Doesn't say everything that is there to be said, but still a better indicator than most others.

Among the current lot, by that yardstick, Kallis, +25.42 (+13.69 ODI) is a few light years ahead of the the rest of the pack in test cricket. Watson +10.14 (+14.69 ODI) just ahead of Kallis at the top in ODIs.

In some ways a side looking for an all-rounder can have a negative impact on their team. Many teams seem to search for an all-rounder to add "balance", to give them extra bowling options or to add depth to their batting. However, what often happens is that they weaken the side by picking someone who wouldn't get into the team in one discipline alone. One average batsmen + one average bowler > one average all-rounder.

Borges wrote:

m@tt wrote:
In my opinion...

All-rounder =/= Some who could be picked as both a specialist bowler or batsman. If that was the case, there would be very few all-rounders in the history of Test cricket.

An all-rounder is someone who makes a very good contribution with both bat and ball

Agree with the above. One yardstick to measure all rounders is the difference between their batting and bowling averages. For example, Sobers, +23.75 Faulkner, +14.21 Miller, +14.00 Doesn't say everything that is there to be said, but still a better indicator than most others.

Among the current lot, by that yardstick, Kallis, +25.42 (+13.69 ODI) is a few light years ahead of the the rest of the pack in test cricket. Watson +10.14 (+14.69 ODI) just ahead of Kallis at the top in ODIs.

Under this definition Geoff Boycott is one the greatest limited overs players in history. Bowling avergae of 21, batting average of 36 gives him a +15 rating.
That makes him a better ODI all rounder than Kallis.


Hmmmmm. Some may argue that a batting strike rate of 53 counst against that somewhat.

from the list Shakib is the most 'all round' player,