Talk:All-rounder

message: Not sure I've come to the right place, but is there any chance of having a table for all-rounders who have scored 3000 runs and taken 300 wickets. To my knowledge there are only 5 players to have achieved this feat - S. Pollock, I. Botham, K. Dev, I. Khan and R. Hadlee. Big Al 1984 11:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Collingwood's ODI and List A form would certainly qualify as an all-rounder. At test level though he can only be considered a batsman. In neither arena though would anyone in their right mind call him garbage. Since when was averaging about 45 with the bat in test cricket "garbage"? --LiamE 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By that reasoning would you discredit Garry Sobers as an all-rounder as his ODI batting average of zero is less than his bowling average of 31? Collingwood is regarding as a batting all-rounder at every source I've  ever seen - stating anything else would be OR. As ever figures don't always tell the whole story. Given favourable condition, which he has rarely if ever had in his few tests, he is a very effective bowler. His 6 for 31 vs New Zealand being a prime example - it stands as the best bowling figures by an Englishman in ODI matches. --LiamE 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional All-rounders table 

message: This table is as pointless as some of the pathetic arguments above and has been removed.  Apart from adding clutter to the article, it essentially duplicates information in the existing template because, obviously, anyone with 3000/300 must also be in the 2000/200 list.  In addition, it introduces the usual systemic bias in favour of recent players who have had the opportunity to make a huge number of appearances.  Are you seriously saying that Warne was a greater all-rounder than Grace, Hirst, Rhodes, Giffen, Noble, Woolley, etc. whose figures are limited by having made few Test appearances?
If anyone wants to produce an additional template that is useful, do one for first-class cricket overall.  ---BlackJack | talk page 07:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless table

message: I already wrote a lengthy comment above about the merits and categorisations of various players. I wish to add that the LG ICC Player Rankings I find to be a good measure. A batting all-rounder should be ranked higher for his batting than his bowling, the opposite is true for a bowling all-rounder. If a player is present on both lists (top 100 i mean not) then they have some capacity as an all-rounder although it favours bowlers as they bat whereas batsmen do not necessarily bowl.Also there are several retired or unselected players on that list and new players who haven't got onto the list so it isn't flawless but looking at them can give a good guide.Scratchdawg 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at how many test teams there are a place in the top 100 batting or bowling list doesn't denote much other than the fact the are a test player! Also the team needs to be taken into account. A player with a bowling ranking around 60 might bowl regularly in one of the poorer test teams but would be unlikely to often get a bowl for Australia for instance. Its not so much how good someone is, its more important to look at why they are in the side and how they are perceived. A guy that is picked as a bowling all-rounder that then fails with the bat is still an all-rounder, just not a successful one.--LiamE (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining All-rounders

message: Now, there are some debates about Stephen Fleming because for a non-wicketkeeper, he has taken many catches from 1st slip, and then given his number of test 50's, you can also argue that slips players are also some sort of an all rounder because this postilion also takes a lot of close catches.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardII (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fielder/batsman

message: In this: "The first player to perform the double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets in an English season was W G Grace in 1873. He scored 2139 runs at 71.30 and took 106 wickets at 12.94. Grace completed eight doubles to 1886 and it was not until 1882 that another player (C T Studd) accomplished the feat." - the 1882 Studd feat is actually the 1000/100 (not the eight doubles)? JennyOz (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing chronology 

message: All around 123.231.124.217 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  All around