There's been a lot of talk on here recently about the merits of players as all rounders, true allrounders, bowling allrounders and the like. Many have talked about players getting places in their team for both disciplines.

Considering a great bowler (ie Lillee, McGrath etc) is seen to take on average about 5 wickets a test, and a great batsman scores about 75 runs a test, I decided to work out the number of times (as a percentage as well) the all rounders achieved this type of performance in test matches. As some batted quite low - and only batted once in a match I decided to take scoring 50 in their one innings of a test, or 75 runs in two innings as satisfying the achievement for that test. I compiled the number of times each player took five wickets in the test, scored 75 runs (or 50 in the only innings) and how many time they acheived this 'test' double. I think Wisden is slightly unfair in not listing these type of doubles, as many of the bowling all rounders do not have the opportunity to score a hundred (like Botham did) and many batting all-rounders really cannot take 10 wickets.

I then ranked the all rounders in the order of how often they achieved the double of 75 runs (50 in only innings) and 5 wickets per test.

Grieg 58 tests, 24 bat (51.8%) - 9 bowl (15.5%) - 7 both (12.1%)
Botham 102, 29 (28.4%) - 36 (35.3%) - 12 (11.7%)
Cairns 62, 19 (30.6%) - 18 (28.1%) - 7 (11.3%)
Sobers 93, 49 (52.7%) - 19 (20.4%) - 10 (10.8%)
Marshall 81, 10 (12.3%) - 43 (50.1%) - 8 (9.8%)
Benaud 63, 10 (15.9%) - 25 (39.7%) - 6 (9.5%)
Imran 88, 23 (26.1%) - 32 (36.3%) - 8 (9.1%)
Miller 55, 16 (29.1%) - 14 (25.4%) - 5 (9.1%)
Kallis 106, 55 (51.9%) - 10 (9.4%) - 7 (6.6%)
Hadlee 86, 11 (12.8%) - 41 (47.7%) - 5 (5.8%)
Pollock 107, 13 (12.1%) - 37 (34.6%) - 5 (4.7%)
Kapil Dev 131, 28 (21.4%) - 35 (26.7%) - 6 (4.6%)
Flintoff 67, 18 (26.9%) - 12 (18%) - 3 (4.5%)
Streak 65, 10 (15.4%) - 16 (24.6%) - 2 (3.1%)
Akram 104, 6 (5.7%) - 46 (44.2%) - 2 (1.9%)
Vaas 96, 7 (7.3%) - 27 (28.1%) - 1 (1%)

From this is it amazing to see that Grieg and Cairns (and Marshall for that matter) contributed with bat and ball (to a level expected of the best bowlers and batsmen) so often. Far more, than the more hpyed up allrounders who usually contriubted with bat OR ball (but rarely both).

Not sure why this thread never got the attention it deserved Milo But you are right - it is remarkable to see Greig, Cairns and Marshall in the list of Top 5 players who contributed significantly with both bat and ball in the same Test.

Another interesting variant on this would be to compute the number of Tests where a player contributed at thie level you have defined either with bat, or with ball - I have used the statistics in your post, and the analysis looks like this, for the same group of players (Player, Tests, Bat, Bat %, Bowl, Bowl %, Both, Either/Or, Either/Or %:

The results are more predictable this time - Imran and Hadlee are higher up, though Marshall is still pretty high, primarily because of his contributions with the ball.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

The top six (Sobers, Marshall, Kallis, Hadlee, Imran and Botham) are guys who have contributed either with the bat, or with the ball, in more than half the Tests they have played.

Thought it could also be argued that Kallis, Wasim and Vaas should not be on this list as all-rounders, as their contribution ratio in their weaker discipline is below 10%, almost in the 'fluke' or 'once every season' category.


EDIT: A further refinement could be to exclude anyone whose contribution in his weaker discipline is below 20%, to include only the 'consistent' all-rounders - that would strike out Marshall, Hadlee, Benaud, Greig, Pollock and Flintoff, leaving Sobers, Imran, Botham, Cairns and Miller as the top five.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Its interesting to see how unexpectedly high Chris Cairns finishes in these all-round lists regardless of which way you turn the stats. It really is a shame that his career was so interrupted by injury (and disciplinary issues) as otherwise he could have rivalled Richard Hadlee for the title of Best Kiwi All-Rounder.

Sometimes, an allrounder's statistics can be misleading because he is underused in his "weaker" discipline, especially if he is very good in the "strong" one. This is particularly true with genuine "batting" all-rounders who are often under-bowled. A classic example is Wally Hammond, who only had modest bowling figures at both test and county level, but was generally considered as a very good medium pace bowler. The problem was that his batting was so vital to England and Gloucetershire that his captains (and Hammond himself, when he was in charge), significantly underbowled him, thus affecting the overall figures.

Compare Sobers and Kallis. Both have made great batting contributions to their respective countries, but Kallis' bowling record is not as good as that of Sobers....or so it would seem. But if you look at this a bit more deeply, you will see the anomaly. Sobers bowled 21,599 balls in his 93 Tests with a strike rate of 91.9, whereas Kallis, in his 109 tests to date, has only bowled 14,519 balls but has a much better strike rate at 67.2. This is because many of Kallis' captains before Smith consistently underbowled him as his batting became more and more vital to the SA innings.

This phenomenon can be seen at a slightly "middling" level as well. Michael Vaughan for example, is more than a useful off-spin bowler, but for one reason or another has never bowled long enough to show it. There are plenty of such examples in international cricket where good batsmen have not had enough chance to prove their bowling talent.

Bowling all rounders like Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev etc whose bowling is vital to their teams do not suffer from this problem for obvious reasons and so their records are more genuinely comparable. Bowling being their stronger discipline, they will have to do that to full effect anyway. Batting does not give anyone a choice in a completed innings and so they will have to do their best with the bat as well, when their turn comes.

So, statistics can be very misleading when it comes to allrounders.

Oh, statistics can be misleading in all* cases Nostromo In a cricket context, they are often no more than a bit of fun, something to keep the anoraks occupied and fuel friendly discussion.



* just ask the Rt. Hon. Broon

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Sobers
Kallis
Imran Khan


then a massive gap between the rest

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

I agree with that order, but not sure of the "massive gap". Beefy and Keith Miller would be close behind Imran Khan IMO and Kapil Dev not all that far behind. Then yes, a massive gap before you start thinking about the likes of Flintoff.

The batting all rounders will always be viewed favourably when discussing the statistics of each player. The bowling all rounder usually comes into bat late and is usually unable to put together a proper innings (often running out of partners and throwing the bat). They do not bat as they would do if they had come up the order to 5 or 6. A batting all rounder like Kallis and Sobers do not have anywhere near as many constraints in their bowling. OK, they do not use the new ball (nor did Garner for half his tests for that matter) but when they get it in about the 20th/30th over they are still able to bowl as if they had opened the bowling. As a result, their bowling returns truly reflect their ability (as opposed to the batting of the likes of Imran, whose batting improved immensely once he went up the order). One would never know how good the likes of Pollock, Kapil and Hadlee would have been had they batted at 5 (we do know that Botham was England's best player in 1982 when he batted at 5) but we have a pretty good idea of the bowling merits of the batting all-rounder (regardless of how underbowled they have been).

I think it is probably fair to say that most all rounders can win tests with bat and ball if they are allowed to concentrate on just one discipline, and that is why we really MUST look at when they perform with BOTH AT THE SAME. Kallis' batting is testament to how good he can bat when he does not have to bowl. How good would have Miller's batting been had he not bowled a ball?

I've often thought that the best measure of a specialist is the extent to which the side depends on him: it's tough to rate a batsman routinely hidden away at 6 or 7 as highly as someone given the responsibility of batting in the top 4... and with someone playing at 7-8, it's important to rate their ability to support the top order and help with partnerships as much (if not more) as their ability to make an individual contribution to totals - and then there's the eternal conundrum of how significant wicket-taking ability is for a 5th bowler... as we should not dismiss the value to his side of something like Giles' rarely-matchwinning bowling (which was relied on heavily and would have merited a mention for him in an all time list had his batting been that of a top no 6).

Sure.. the very best (like Sobers and Imran) were relied on AND made routinely matchwinning contributions with bat and ball... but that's not the be all and end all of making an all-round contribution... and we need to be wary of over-rating any bowler who gets a passable strike rate and average because he's reserved, in the main, for optimal conditions (say swing for Kallis, or a turning, two-spinner track for Jayasuria) when others (like Vaas) have never had anywhere to hide.

ps. Though perhaps not a "great" all-rounder.. Trevor Bailey actually offered a huge amount to England in his prime: opening the batting and opening the bowling... and doing both reliably... never won him a huge following - but he's as worthy of a mention as some others in the lists.