Once upon a time, the measure of a quality all-rounder was somebody who had scored 1000 runs and taken 100 wickets at Test level.
Essentially, it was somebody who could single-handedly win the match by bowling the team to victory and also bringing up a big score with the willow.
Another unit of measurement is their batting average must be higher than that of their bowling.
Let’s go through some undisputed all-rounders
Jacques Kallis
Played 166 Tests for 13,289 runs at the average of 55, plus he took 292 wickets at over 32, as well as 200 Test catches.
He won countless Test matches for his country.
Sir Ian Botham
Played 102 Tests for 5200 runs at over 33, and took 383 wickets at over 28, with 120 catches.
Who could forget Headingley, where he single-handedly won the match for England despite the follow on?
Sir Richard Hadlee
A great bowling allrounder with over 3000 runs at over 27 and 431 wickets at over 22. Hadlee famously took 33 wickets over three Tests in Australia during the summer of 1985-1986.
Fast forward to now and the current top all-rounder goes to Shakib Al Hasan, who scored over 3800 runs at over 39 and taken 205 wickets at over 31.
Ravindra Jadeja of India has scored more than 1400 runs at slightly over 31 and has 190 wickets at over 23.
Ben Stokes of England has qualified with over 1000 runs and 100 wickets, and has a higher batting average than bowling. Vernon Philander is another in this category.
Jason Holder of the West Indies has currently scored over 1500 runs and taken 86 wickets.
What about Patrick Cummins? He has the grit to bat long innings, clearly values his wicket highly, and has taken nearly 80 wickets. He will qualify for all-rounder status once he plays another eight to ten Tests.
Does anyone else qualify as an all-rounder?
Targa
Guest
Actually I hope Rachin Ravindra debuts for NZ this year (probably on the tour of Sri Lanka). As a batting allrounder I think he could be an absolute star.
Watcher
Guest
I am a Kiwi but have to say CDG is very average. Santer a better candidate from NZ but unsure of his qualification for this discussion.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
True all rounders are a rare breed lately. Stokes maybe , but no one really stands up as someone who can hold his position in the team as batsman or bowler alone. For me the greatest of all was Jaques Kallis . No knighthood for him so we will just call him King Kallis.
Targa
Guest
Colin De Grandhomme - averages about 33 with the bat and 29 with the ball.
Pat Cummins is currently our best batsman, best fielder and our best bowler. He needs a serious payrise. Imagine if he'd been injured this series? The Indians would have scored a thousand runs each innings and bowled us out for one fifty each time.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Yes but that can’t be the only measure. For example you can have a batting average of 50 and bowling average of 45. Are you an all rounder or a batsman who bowls a bit? What if you average 40 with the bat and 30 with the ball, but in 50 tests you’ve taken 20 wickets?. How low can the batting average be? For example a gun bowler who has a bowling average of 21 and a batting average of 22? Alan Davidson averaged 24.6 with the bat and 20.5 with the ball. Also you have a player like Richie Benaud, widely considered to be an all rounder, with a batting average of 24.5 and a bowling average of 27. But Ray Lindwall with a batting average of 21.2 and a bowling average of 23 is not. Is Freddie Flintoff an All Rounder? Batting average of 31.8 and bowling average of 32.8. To me you need four criteria and have to meet at least two of them: 1. Batting average more than bowling average – note this would eliminate Benaud and Flintoff if it was the only measure. 2. You take at least 2 wickets per test – note this would eliminate Kallis if it was the only measure. This shows you are an important part of the bowling attack and not just a change bowler. 3. You average at least 25 – this would eliminate Benaud. 4. You bat top 7 for at least a significant portion of your career, otherwise you are just a bowler who bats pretty well and plays at 8 – like Shane Warne or Paul Reiffel. I don;t love the 1,000 runs and 100 wickets measure on its own. A player can get there by playing enough tests even though they are in no way an all rounder – e.g. Shane Warne.
James
Guest
When did the definition of an all rounder stop being a player whos batting average was more than their bowling average? Surely that should be the only measure, if thats not true bugger off and concentrate on one.
Paul
Roar Guru
They're a very scarce commodity, Test quality allrounders, which makes Australia's search for one in recent years seem even more ridiculous. Sam Curran from England shows early promise with a batting average of 36 and a bowling average of 25.