We are going to see more all-rounders in cricket

"The future will doubtlessly see far more players attempting to develop their all-round skills" True, but T20 teams will take-on 3 all-rounders maximum. No point paying big bucks for too many all-rounders who are never required to bowl. Supply and demand will therefore ensure that we don't end up with a glut of "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" type players.

I'd argue that Gilly's 18 dismissals puts him squarely in the "won on allround" effort. Your point about Maxwell's fielding is good so he goes in "allround" too which gives 5 out of 8 (I've not counted Gayle as an allrounder) years its gone to a player who adds more than 1 skill.

I'd say the most recent all rounder obsession emerged precisely after the 2005 Ashes when the Aussie selectors wanted their own answer to Andrew Flintoff.

I don't know - I've frequently heard people airily saying an all rounder should be able to be selected for either of their batting or bowling alone. Not just their 'preferred discipline'. But as pointed out that's a ridiculously high bar.

I'd suggest, at one time or another, those players would all have qualified for Bob's definition of an all rounder (even if a brief period), but age and longevity get the better of you and they all would probably have settled back into a 'specialty' (eg Kallis for batting, Flintoff for bowling) while still occasionally dabbling successfully in the other discipline. But I agree that strict definition (qualifying as both) is a bit absurdly tough. People seem to throw it around without ever considering what it actually means.

Tons of tweets on watto's captaincy in the last 2 matches. But i choose to copy-paste comments of Pakistani guy on the cricinfo website. "Shane Watson's winning streak explained what is lacking in current Pakistan squad.... Leadership. Look, he took two matches, with the same non-performers, which sufficiently non-performed during national careers, as well. The difference is leadership. " "Shane Watson is an increible player. Make him captain of Pakistani team, and he will do wonders with the same lot of players, losing since ages. What a team man. What a performer. Shame that he did not get MOM award, yet adorable performance. Very consistent performer in PSL and all conditions.."

I suspect it is to some degree a result of the incredibly high standards they set in the field now. They'd spend so much time practicing fielding, they probably don't have as much time to work on bowling...

@Above Guys, they already a full set squad before the auction. '''There was absolutely no requirement of any foreign player.''' They just took some foreign players in the auction only because the auction should not come off as some cheap auction.

I wasn't trying to be a smart alec jamesb, just wondering, that's all.

Good luck to Watto. When he gets going with the bat he's pretty darned entertaining. He can smash it to all parts without ever appearing to exert too much effort. And they are usually as close to conventional cricket shots as you can get in a T20 slug-a-thon.

It is only recently that we have looked for an all rounder in the team. Watson handles this well earlier on when he was in form. Still too early to say a lot on Mitch Marsh. Over the years, test wise, we have been blessed with top order batsmen who are more than capapble with the ball. The like of Doug Walters, Greg Chappell, Graeme Watson, the Waugh brothers and more as all rounders Gary Gilmour and Greg Matthews. Sadly, players are much more likely to choose batting or bowling as their number one priority.

Hadlee averaged high 20's. He could have averaged more probably, but he didn't concentrate much on batting as he felt he didn't need to and that he was better served practising bowling more.

Trust me Glenn, There is absolutely no one who cares or is eager to see watson bowling. Yesterday, he blasted 79 (7 sixes) off 47 balls, as opener (& captain) in PSL. The tweet count when he was bowling is a meagre 20 tweets. The tweet count when he was batting is more than 2000. His wicket-taking ability is only a bonus. What everyone expects or wants to see from watson is runs & sixes.

That's not the definition of an allrounder at all. As The Barry sets out above, there's possibly only two players in the history of the game that would meet that qualification, Keith Miller and Sobers. Even then it's debatable (Miller only averaged 36 with the bat). The definition has always included the requirement that they be selectable on their preferred discipline alone (i.e. without consideration to their other skill), but I've never heard the requirement they be good enough at both.

I dunno about that. I see what you're saying with the fact that the top run score doesn't just get it automatically, but that's because there is always context to the runs - i.e. did they score centuries, did their team perform better, how many man of the matches did they get etc. Whilst we can argue that Gilly got it on all round performance, that's not part of the argument, as the expectation that a keeper is now also a specialist batsman has basically been confirmed for over a decade. So then you're left with Maxi, Russell, Watson and debatibly Gayle. As Maxi only got one wicket in the season he won it, doesn't seem like they really considered his overall performance. However no doubt Maxi put in a stellar fielding performance all tournament. I think it's pretty debatable that Gayle's an allrounder, sure he took some wickets that year, but really, he's just someone that rolls the arm over (to be fair to Gayle, I also think Maxwell is pretty borderline as an allrounder, though his bowling has had patches of real use). So really only Watto and Russell on that list have put in true all rounder performances.

I'm just stating the "player of the series" in previous IPL tournaments. Although I'm not sure how Maxwell became player of the IPL in 2014.

Oh the good old days of yore.

Bushie, In 2008 Shaun Marsh topped the run scoring with 616 and Sohail Tanvir the bowling with 22 wickets; 2009 Matt Hayden 572 runs; RP Singh 23 wickets 2010 Tendulkar topped the batting; P Ojha 21 wickets 2011 Gayle was top bat and Malinga took 28 wickets 2012 Gayle scored 733 runs (no wickets) while Morkel took 25 wickets @18 2013 Hussey scored 733 runs and D Bravo took 32 wickets 2014 Robin Uthappa scored 660 runs and M Sharma took 23 wickets 2015 Warner scored 562 runs and D Bravo took 24 wickets On my count Watson, Gilchrist and Russell got it based on allround performance. Not sure how Maxi got it in 2014 and I guess they didn't think they could give it to Gayle two years in a row if he didn't take a wicket in the second year? Sadly my keyboard skills will only give me the top performer of each year not a full list but it does look like Player of the Series is weighted towards allrounders.

Khawaja would be a very good IPL player but most teams had enough top order batting so i am sure khawaja will make a strong statement in the world cup and then be a big signing next IPL

I don't think that definition is true. If we define all-rounders as players who deserve their spots on their batting alone AND bowling alone then I suggest there would be very few all-rounders in the history of cricket. Botham, Hadlee, Dev, Imran, Miller and Flintoff all averaged in the 30s with the bat. While they may have all played tests as specialist bats, none would have carved out international careers as batsmen only. Kallis averaged in the 30s with the ball. He was an excellent bowler but wouldn't have made it on his "bowling alone". No one can doubt Sobers being called an all rounder yet his bowling average was also in the mid-30s suggesting that batting was definitely his dominant discipline and he may have struggled to hold down a spot as a specialist bowler. There's definitely a point where someone crosses from good bat and handy bowler to genuine all-rounder but that point isn't someone who could be picked on their batting AND their bowling alone.