A recent article on The Roar discussed the notion that all-rounders have deteriorated in quality over time, held Andrew Symonds up as an example of one of the best, and defined an all-rounder as one who has a batting average higher than their bowling average.
To explore some of those ideas, I’ve taken a look at Australian Test all-rounders down the years.
To rate the all-rounders, I subtracted their bowling average from their batting average. So if a player has a batting average higher than their bowling average, they will have a positive rating. If their bowling average is higher, they will have a negative rating.
I set myself a few basic rules:
• Only Test cricket averages would be considered.
• Players must have been picked as an all-rounder, so players who have been considered ‘almost an all-rounder’ weren’t included (sorry Shane Warne, Mitchell Johnson, Brett Lee and so on).
• A benchmark of 50 wickets was considered for men (there goes Symonds, both Waughs and every other all-rounder picked in the 1980s and 1990s). I know most people would think 100 wickets, but I chose to take a broader view. As women play about a fifth the Test cricket men do, I set a limit of 25 wickets.
Australia’s top ten all-rounders
| Name | Tests | Runs | Batting average | Wickets | Wickets per Test | Bowling average | Rating |
| Betty Wilson | 11 | 862 | 57.46 | 68 | 6.2 | 11.8 | 45.66 |
| Ellyse Perry | 6 | 219 | 31.28 | 27 | 4.5 | 16.11 | 15.17 |
| Keith Miller | 55 | 2958 | 36.97 | 170 | 3.1 | 22.97 | 14 |
| Jack Gregory | 24 | 1146 | 36.96 | 85 | 3.5 | 31.15 | 5.81 |
| Monty Noble | 42 | 1997 | 30.25 | 121 | 2.9 | 25 | 5.25 |
| Warwick Armstrong | 50 | 2863 | 38.68 | 87 | 1.7 | 33.59 | 5.09 |
| Alan Davidson | 44 | 1328 | 24.59 | 186 | 4.2 | 20.53 | 4.06 |
| Shane Watson | 59 | 3731 | 35.2 | 75 | 1.3 | 33.68 | 1.52 |
| Ray Lindwall | 61 | 1502 | 21.15 | 228 | 3.7 | 23.03 | -1.88 |
| Richie Benaud | 63 | 2201 | 24.45 | 248 | 3.9 | 27.03 | -2.58 |
With a batting average of 57.46 and 68 wickets at 6.2 per Test at an average of 11.8, Betty Wilson is well in front. Her rating of +45.66 is three times as good as the next best.
Ellyse Perry may only have six Tests to her name, but her averages and rating are top class. It will be interesting to see if she can maintain that kind of impact.
There may have been other quality female all-rounders, but the limited player stats on women’s Test cricket make comparisons difficult.
Of the men, Keith Miller stands out, with his all-round rating again approximately three times as good as the next best.
There are some stellar names on that list, including Jack Gregory, Monty Noble, Warwick Armstrong and Alan Davidson.
It is only down in eighth position that you see a male player who has featured since the turn of the millennium – Shane Watson’s rating of +1.52. This outstrips legends Ray Lindwall and Richie Benaud, despite the perception that Watson never lived up to his potential as a Test cricketer.
That Lindwall and Benaud turned in a negative rating is a surprise.
So, it appears that the quality of Australian Test all-rounders, at least, has declined, with only one male and one female player post the 1960s to make the top ten. However, Ellyse Perry may end up as one of the best ever.
As for Andrew Symonds? Well, maybe a look at his one-day contribution would tell a different story.
stephen wright
Guest
Waugh, great batsman no, good, yes. Great batsmen are the top in world at any one time. We've had a few: Bannerman first up, Trumper, Macartney maybe, Bradman, Harvey was up there.....then a big gap. Chappell, G, Ponting for a while and Smith for a while. We all like to have our favourites. Mine was Douggie, good batsman, yes, great, no.
stephen wright
Guest
Jack Gregory: He scored one of the fastest ever test centuries and he was a significant reason Armstrong's tally as a captain was 8-0 PLUS was an excellent slip fielder. H'mmm that'll do me!
stephen wright
Guest
Tommy Our greatest ever: Olympic athlete Tennis Player Squash Player Swimmer Marathon Runner All-round cricketer We're so pleased that you have noticed men and women are different. Hope it didn't take too long. Stats don't lie. These women were our BEST! LOL
Correct sometimes
Guest
He never batted 8
Gazza565
Guest
Old article but I have just found it. It is good but I think you put too much value in batting averages over bowling ones, as an example of recent all rounders I would rank Pollock higher than Kallis. In Test cricket a quality bowler is preferred over a quality batsman by most people.
Ritesh Misra
Roar Guru
wonderfully written. I am elated that it was my article mentioning symonds and deteriorating quality of all rounders that has sparked this interesting and thought provoking piece. a request. using your criteria, can u give us the list of top 10 male all rounders. ( and ladies too, as u are perfectly justified in your request for the game of ladies cricket )
Bearfax
Guest
Agreed Johnno. But so was Steve Smith. Thing is after 1989, except for one test series against South Africa, he either didnt bowl, or he bowled just a little more frequently than Alan Border, and Borders final test averages were not much worse than Waugh's
Johnno
Guest
Mark Waugh everyone, was a very handy pace bowler when he started. He was quite quick too, and had a good bouncer then had back problems. He was a handy partnership breaker. I remember as do many that ODI day night game at the MCG in the world series cricket days in 1992/93 where he got 5 wickets vs the windies when they were still good, his bowling won the aussies the match. His off-spinning was more than useful too.
Johnno
Guest
Steve Waugh was just as much a bowler if not more a bowler when he started out.
Bearfax
Guest
Cant speak to your figures but Steve Waugh was a great batsman and in his early years a more than competent bowler. But he did little bowling in his last 10 years so I would be rating him up with the top group as an all rounder, more a batsmen and part time bowler..
Dutski
Roar Guru
Hey Bearfax. I ran the numbers on a number of well known all-rounders and here's what it came up with: Garfield Sobers 23.75 Jacques Kallis 19.72 Imran Khan 14.88 Shaun Pollock 9.2 Ian Botham 5.14 Richard Hadlee 4.87 Chris Cairns 4.13 Kapil Dev 1.41 Andrew Flintoff -1.01 If you slot Miller in at 14.00 he is certainly top echelon in that company. Does the presence of Sobers and Kallis at the top of the list suggest that this method favours batting all-rounders? Steve Waugh owuld be up the top too, which does tend to make me think the method may be questionable as his career as a batsman skews his figures considerably. I have no idea whether Betty Wilson was considered a batting or bowling all-rounder.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Thanks for reading Jarijari. The method was an attempt to quantify something that is otherwise a bit nebulous. Didn't work for you? I'm open to suggestion if you have another method.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Interesting point Aransan. I hadn't considered wickets per test until I did this - it isn;t really the kind of stat that is routinely reported. I agree that 2 wickets per test would be a good contribution from someone who is more often than not your 4th or 5th bowler.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Given the amount of misses I managed in my first take I think I'm the last person you'd pick to do this! But anyway... Here's the men's list including the suggestions from fellow Roarers. Keith Miller 14.00 Steve Waugh 13.62 Jack Gregory 5.81 Monty Noble 5.25 Warwick Armstrong 5.09 Charlie Kellaway 5.06 Bob Simpson 4.55 Alan Davidson 4.06 Shane Watson 1.52 Mark Waugh 0.65 However as others have pointed out Steve Waugh played the vast majority of his career as a batsman, so I have a question mark on that one. The difficulty with women's top 10 is finding all-rounders who have taken 25 wickets given the low number of tests. Lisa Sthalekar with 23 is the next best performing that I could find. Since I haven't had a lot of suggestions on women I've missed I suspect that there aren't many. Which does tend to make Wilson and Perry stand out I guess.
Aransan
Guest
Bearfax, it is interesting how Mitch Marsh seems to bat well in T20 while still bowling well. Perhaps he just needs some improvement in his defence, especially early in his innings, to succeed as a genuine all rounder in test cricket.
Bearfax
Guest
A reasonable thought there Aransan. It seems harder for a player to handle both bowling and batting consistently at the highest level. Waugh, Watson, the problems they had physically. And now Mitch Marsh's struggle with the bat while he performs well with the ball are good examples. Smith virtually sacrificed bowling to become the champion batsman he is today.
Aransan
Guest
Perhaps test cricket has been played at a higher level in recent decades and players have had to specialise more, the game has become more professional. Test cricket will have trouble maintaining its level given the greater emphasis on shorter forms of the game and some of the best players will retire from test cricket so they can focus more on where the money is.
Jarijari
Guest
Seems like a really silly way to rate allrounders. I don't get the method at all. Don't think we've had an allrounder worth talking about in recent years. Miller, Jack Gregory, McCartney, Giffen measure up but none of the more recent examples.
Johnno
Guest
Steve Waugh batted as low as No 8 in his career early on, his batting and bowling were on par when he started. He was a very good ODI bowler him and Simon O'Donnell got over 100 wickets from memory.
JohnB
Guest
That's not an unreasonable point, although arguably (and especially for players with long careers) it indicates that what you should do is separate the different phases in their careers - phases when they played as an all-rounder and phases when they were a batsmen who occasionally bowled. As with many things, because of the length and success of his career, Steve Waugh is an example here - to the end of the 88/89 season he'd taken 40 wickets in his first 26 tests to be a very handy bowler. As late as 91 he was picked to bat as low as 7 in test sides - as if he was a bowling allrounder. Having taken 40 in 26, he then very symmetrically took 26 in his next 40 tests - and only another 26 in his remaining 102. So, to me, if you're assessing him (or any other player with a comparable career arc) as an allrounder, you should look at performances when playing as an allrounder, and not confuse the issue by counting performances when the player was really only playing as a batsman. I haven't done the calculations but while I'm sure Steve Waugh's batting numbers in the first part of his career would have been well down on his overall career figures - his bowling figures would also no doubt have been better then than they ended up being. That lets you form a better view of how such a player actually was as an allrounder.