Cricket All rounders

Ben Stokes's exploits in the last test against the West Indies has raised interest in all rounders so I thought I might write about them.

I have a very strict test on whether a person is an all rounder in test cricket. they must have 'won' tests with both bat and ball. This involves both quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Allan border took 10 wickets on a doctored Sydney pitch but he most definitely was never an all rounder.   Gary Sobers never won a test with his bowling and Keith Miller never won a test with his batting.

Thus most people who are said to be allrounders are either batsmen who can bowl somewhat or bowlers who can bat somewhat. Think Imran Khan or Kapil Dev or even Richard Hadlee.

England are said to have has three allrounders  over that last 40 years.

They are Ian Botham, Andrew Flintoff and now Ben Stokes.

Stokes is a matchwinning batsman ( who can forget the last ashes contest who is a very useful bowler but would never be an opening bowler. He has never won a test with the ball.

Flintoff could and should have opened the bowling for England and was a more than useful batsman. He has never won a test with the bat.

Botham was an opening bowler who could swing the ball late at fast medium. He has won matches with both bat and ball and on one memorable occasion in India hit a ton and took 10 wickets.

Botham was an all rounder but b neither Flintoff or Stakes were or are.

An Allrounder or even a batsman who can bowl or vica versa will almost always have averages that are not too flash. The reason is the effort needed both physical and mental.

The best example of this is Keith Miller. He was a wonderful opening bowler yet batted at no.4. An inane place in the batting lineup for someone who opened the bowling.

If I can finish by simply saying too many countries like Australia select players because they are allrounders when they are not test bowlers nor test batsman. Mitchell Marsh comes immediately to mind.