抖阴短视频

Over the last two weeks, consideration of triple centurions and hat-trick takers in Test cricket has raised the issue of who has been equally good at both batting and bowling.

Such players are termed all-rounders. Whilst there are clear criteria for recording a triple hundred and a hat trick, there is an element of subjectivity in determining the most successful all-rounders.

A common but numerically imperfect criterion is that the player must be good enough to be selected as either a standalone batter or bowler. Another definition proposes that players are considered all-rounders if their batting average exceeds their bowling average.

This needs to be qualified by stipulating a minimum number of wickets taken and/or a minimum number of Test matches played. There is no universal agreement on what these numbers should be. The International Cricket Council鈥檚 index ranks only those currently playing.

In the absence of official qualification criteria, analysts have applied both a minimum number of wickets taken and a minimum number of runs scored. One such combination is scoring 3,000 runs and taking 400 wickets.

This reveals six players 鈥� Richard Hadlee, Kapil Dev, Stuart Broad, Shaun Pollock, Shane Warne and Ravichandran Ashwin. If the criteria are relaxed to 3,000 runs and 300 wickets a further four players are revealed 鈥� Ian Botham, Daniel Vettori, Imran Khan and Ravindra Jadeja.

Those who are steeped in Test cricket will recognize that these arbitrary criteria have generated a group of players whose main strength is in bowling.

All but one, Vettori, average less than 30 runs per wicket with the ball. Hadlee has the best average at 22.21, followed by Khan with 22.81. However, Khan has a superior batting average of 37.69 compared with Hadlee鈥檚 27.16. Jadeja has the next best batting average of 35.16.

Is a batting average in the mid-to-late thirties sufficient on its own to earn a place in a Test team for a reasonable length of time? There have been many examples to suggest so.

Two will suffice. Derek Randall played 47 matches for England with a batting average of 33.37, whilst Mike Brearley played 39 matches at 22.88. In each case there was a reason for their selection. Brearley was an intelligent, empathetic, clear-thinking captain whilst Randall was a potential match-winner and brilliant fielder.

There will be similar examples from other countries. Selection at particular times will reflect the needs of the team, the style played, ground conditions and the depth of talent available.

Given the examples provided above, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that a player with a batting average of 35 could be regarded as worthy of a place in that team for batting alone. On this basis both Khan and Jadeja can be categorized as all-rounders.

A batting average between 30 and 35 becomes more contentious. Botham averaged 33.54, Pollock 32.31 and Dev 31.05. It would be a brave person who suggests that Botham was not an all-rounder. Apart from taking 120 catches, Botham鈥檚 galvanizing dynamism on and off the field would surely have seen him selected solely for his batting. Similar cases can be made for Dev and Pollock.

If a batting average of 30 is accepted, then what is the equivalent for bowling? Since the first Test match in 1877, there have been 101 bowlers who have a career average below 30 runs conceded for every wicket taken. The top six all played between the end of the 19th and the early 20th centuries. Their averages were in a range of 10.7 and 18.6. Over the last 60 years, the top 10 bowling averages have been in the early 20s.

A broader assessment of what constitutes a 鈥済ood鈥� bowling average can be based on those achieved by the 39 bowlers who have taken over 300 Test match wickets. All bar six of them have averages below 30, whilst the group has an overall average of 30.28. Hence, it may be assumed that a bowling average below 30 is a mark of success.

This assumption is challenged by returning to an earlier criterion used for defining an all-rounder, where the batting average exceeds the bowling average. A search for the highest differential 鈥� 20 鈥� reveals two names, Jacques Kallis of South Africa and Gary Sobers of the West Indies.

In 166 matches between 1995 and 2013, Kallis scored 13,289 runs at an average of 55.37, took 292 wickets and claimed 200 catches. Sobers scored 8,032 runs at 57.78, took 235 wickets and 109 catches between 1954 and 1974. These statistics speak of glittering all-round careers.

Sobers added extra spice by being able to bowl both seam and spin, had outstanding charisma and was captain for seven years. Kallis was a much more reserved player but his quick bowling was often delivered as first change, which placed huge physical demands upon him.

Yet, neither fit other criteria. They did not reach 300 wickets or achieve a bowling average below 30, Kallis recording 32.65 and Sobers 34.03. Should that disqualify them from being genuine all-rounders? Their cases do illustrate the dangers of adopting only statistical criteria. There are many other examples.

In July 2024, Ben Stokes joined Sobers and Kallis as only the third player to reach 6,000 runs, at 35.27, and take 200 wickets, at 32.21. In 79 Tests, Andrew Flintoff averaged 32 with the bat and 33 with the ball. His modest returns did not do justice to the effect that his uplifting presence and charisma had on crowds and team-mates.

Keith Miller of Australia had a similar iconic status post-1945. In 55 Tests, he scored almost 3,000 runs at 37 and took 170 wickets at 23, an all-round performance to rank with the best. Shakib Al-Hasan scored 4,609 runs at 37.77 and took 246 wickets at 31.72 in an outstanding career for Bangladesh.

Attempts to instill statistical criteria eliminate the galvanizing effects which all-round performance can have on crowds and on the outcome of a match. Whilst a batting average of 35 or more and a bowling average of below 30 seem to be sound criteria, notable exceptions exist.

On this basis, my partly subjective choice for top all-rounders embraces Sobers, Kallis, Miller, Botham, Stokes and Khan. In their respective ways, each has a celebrated place in sport beyond mere statistics.