A look at the top allrounders in ODIs August 17, 2013

Ryan ten Doeschate on the top!

A detailed look at the top allrounders in ODI cricket based on their batting and bowling skills
43

Ryan ten Doeschate has an impressive record as an allrounder in ODIs.
Ryan ten Doeschate has an impressive record as an allrounder in ODIs. © Getty Images

I started looking at the work I had done over the years and found out that I had never really done an article on ODI allrounders. Test allrounders, plenty, but almost nothing on ODI allrounders. So I decided to complete this gap in my bio-data.

There is no doubt that ODI allrounders analysis is a specialised area requiring a deeper level of analysis than the Test exercise. Wickets are paramount in Tests and a 6 for 75 is invariably considered to be better than 5 for 50. However in ODIs with the bowlers bowling for a limited number of overs, an analysis of 2 for 20 is almost always more effective than 3 for 40 or 4 for 60. Also a 50-ball 30 is more likely to win a match than 75 in 90 balls. These are true in most situations. I agree that defending a low total or chasing a middling score would promote the importance of wickets and runs. Hence it is essential to give due weight to all four facets of batting and bowling.

As normally happens, the first step is to draw up a minimum cut-off point. With lofty ideas I started with 100 wickets and 2500 runs to find that not many qualified. I progressively lowered the bar and finally decided on 50 wickets and 1500 runs. These numbers represent an average playing career of 40-50 matches and would allow the players from the 1980s and associate countries to be considered. There were 65 qualifying players, which is a fair number.

How does one measure the all-round ability of an ODI allrounder? I decided on the following measures.

1. A composite career-level ratings of the four measures: Batting RpI, Scoring rate, Bowling Strike rate and RpO.
3. The trusted AllRounder (A-R) ratio of Batting RpI / Bowling average.
2. A run-equalised delivery per match measure.
4. Run-equalised values for career. This is strictly a longevity measure and is meant to recognise the allrounders who played a huge number of matches.

I will also show a final table classifying allrounders into bowler-centric, balanced and batsman-centric groups.

Let us now move on to the tables.

Allrounder Rating Index
NameCtryODIsRpISc/RSt/RRpORpI-IdxSc/R-IdxSt/R-IdxRpO-IdxA/R-Index
RN ten DoeschateNed 3348.15 87.728.725.0424.0820.1026.1114.8885.17
A Flintoff Eng14127.81 88.833.274.4013.9020.3622.5417.0673.86
SR Watson Aus16034.25 88.536.344.7817.1220.2820.6415.6873.72
IVA Richards Win18740.24 90.247.834.4920.1220.6715.6816.6973.16
V Sehwag Ind25133.76104.345.755.2616.8823.9116.3914.2571.43
DS Lehmann Aus11730.47 81.334.484.8415.2318.6421.7515.5071.13
KJ O'Brien Ire 7228.89 83.334.134.9114.4419.1021.9715.2870.80
Shahid Afridi Pak35921.99114.643.864.6110.9926.2717.1016.2670.63
JH Kallis Saf32137.45 73.039.394.8318.7316.7219.0415.5470.03
GS Chappell Aus 7432.37 75.743.164.0516.1817.3517.3818.5369.44
CH Gayle Win25335.11 84.244.774.7417.5619.3116.7515.8269.44
L Klusener Saf17126.10 89.938.194.7013.0520.6119.6415.9469.24
SR Tendulkar Ind46340.76 86.252.335.1020.3819.7614.3314.7069.17
A Symonds Aus19831.60 92.444.625.0115.8021.1816.8114.9768.76
ME Waugh Aus24436.01 76.943.374.7818.0017.6217.2915.6968.61
Shakib Al Hasan Bng12929.74 78.240.854.3114.8717.9218.3617.3968.54
N Kapil Dev Ind22519.10 95.144.273.72 9.5521.7916.9420.1768.45
ST Jayasuriya Slk44431.01 91.246.034.7915.5120.9016.2915.6668.37
RJ Hadlee Nzl11517.86 75.539.123.31 8.9317.3019.1722.6968.09
SM Pollock Saf30317.16 86.739.973.68 8.5819.8718.7620.3967.60

The first is the allrounder ratings table. I decided that the batting and bowling functions would get 50% weight each. I could not separate the importance of the two bowling measures. Hence those two get 25% each. However I realised that the Batting scoring rate should be valued marginally higher than the Batting RpI. Most followers would agree with this. The quantum of differential: a simple 10%, leading to an actual differential of just below 20%. So this was 27.5% and 22.5% for the two measures. Arbitrary: Of course, yes. I have no problems with this allocation. If any reader wants a different weight, the Excel sheet contains all measures and the readers can work out their own alternate tables.

It is very difficult to get a high A-R Index. The concerned player would have to be within the top-80% level in each of the four measures. That is what Ryan ten Doeschate has achieved. His numbers are, to say the least, Bradmanesque! In 33 matches, he has scored 1541 runs at an average of 67.00 and captured 55 wickets at an average of 24.13. Individually, these are figures which would put him at the top of the batting tables and the top-15 of the bowling tables. To the sceptics, let me say that he has played eight matches against Test-playing countries and 25 against very tough teams such as Ireland, Kenya and Afghanistan et al. He plays for an average team and does not get as much support as the other big-team players. If he has not played more matches, then that is the problem playing for an associate country. He does not seem to have played in the recent Netherlands-matches. Probably was trying to earn a living. But let us give credit to the best allrounder the world has ever seen: Ryan ten Doeschate of Netherlands.

ten Doeschate is a clear ten points ahead of Andrew Flintoff who has 73.32 points. He has been excellent: 3394 runs at 27.81 and 169 wickets at 24.83 indicate that he has every right to be called the best allrounder ever, only the freakish short-career numbers of ten Doeschate are better. I get the feeling that Flintoff's ODI skills are rather underrated and overshadowed by his Test exploits. Next in the list is Shane Watson. May not be everybody's favourite with his Test woes now but one of the greatest ODI allrounders ever. 4795 runs at 34.25 and 156 wickets at 28.98 illustrate that he is only marginally behind Flintoff. And both these wonderful allrounders have strike rates around 88+.

These are followed by two explosive batsmen but no mean bowlers. Viv Richards must be the most underrated ODI bowler ever. Coming as the fifth bowler, he plundered 118 wickets, albeit at a reasonably high average of 35.83, to go with his 1980s compilation of 6721 runs at 47.83 (and a strike rate of 90.2). A surprise at No.5 is Virender Sehwag. A very much underrated bowler like Richards, he still managed to capture 96 wickets (albeit at 40.14) to go with his 8273 runs at a strike rate exceeding 100. Shahid Afridi is in the eighth place confirming his status as one of the top allrounders ever. And nice to see Kevin O'Brien in the top ten.

Ratio of Batting RpI and Bowling average
NameCtryODIsRpIBow-AvgeA-R Ratio
RN ten DoeschateNed 3348.1524.131.9957
SR Watson Aus16034.2528.981.1818
JH Kallis Saf32137.4531.701.1815
A Flintoff Eng14127.8124.381.1405
IVA Richards Win18740.2435.831.1231
GS Chappell Aus 7432.3729.121.1114
DS Lehmann Aus11730.4727.811.0957
ME Waugh Aus24436.0134.561.0418
KJ O'Brien Ire 7228.8927.931.0343
Shakib Al Hasan Bng12929.7429.371.0125
CH Gayle Win25335.1135.380.9925
SC Ganguly Ind31137.8738.510.9834
MJ Clarke Aus22735.6237.540.9490
Imran Khan Pak17524.5626.620.9226
SR Tendulkar Ind46340.7644.510.9157
WJ Cronje Saf18831.8034.790.9141
AR Border Aus27325.8828.370.9122
L Klusener Saf17126.1029.950.8714
NJ Astle Nzl22332.6738.460.8494

This is a simpler measure. I divide the Batting RpI by Bowling average to get an Index value. This is my favourite measure and tells a lot about a player's all-round abilities. The ratio is superior to the difference. A player with values of 30 and 25, will have a difference of 5 and a ratio of 1.20. A player with values of 40 and 35 will have the same difference of 5 but a lower ratio of 1.14. It is obvious that the first player is a better allrounder since the lowering of 10 in bowling average is more valuable than the dropping of 10 in batting.

Since this is a performance oriented measure there are some juxtaposition of players at the top from the previous table. Ten Doeschate is at the top with an index value of nearly 2.0, more Bradmanesque than the previous table, since the next value is Watson's 1.18. Jacques Kallis, Flintoff and Richards complete the top-five positions with index values just over 1.12. Watson and Kallis are separated only at the fourth decimal.

Average Run-equalised delivery per match
NameCtryODIsRunsWicketsEqualised valuePer Match
RN ten DoeschateNed 33 1541 55 3301100.0
Shakib Al Hasan Bng129 3688161 8840 68.5
JH Kallis Saf3211149827020138 62.7
GS Chappell Aus 74 2331 72 4635 62.6
A Flintoff Eng141 3394169 8802 62.4
SR Watson Aus160 4795156 9787 61.2
RJ Hadlee Nzl115 1751158 6807 59.2
IK Pathan Ind120 1544173 7080 59.0
IT Botham Eng116 2113145 6753 58.2
L Klusener Saf171 3576192 9720 56.8
IVA Richards Win187 672111810497 56.1
HH Streak Zim189 294323910591 56.0
Wasim Akram Pak356 371750219781 55.6
DJ Bravo Win146 2495173 8031 55.0
Imran Khan Pak175 3709182 9533 54.5
CH Gayle Win253 874315713767 54.4
ST Jayasuriya Slk4441343032323766 53.5
SM Pollock Saf303 351939316095 53.1
CL Cairns Nzl215 495020111382 52.9
M Prabhakar Ind130 1858157 6882 52.9

This is a measure of the actual performance delivered per match. For this, I valued a bowler wicket at 32 runs. Arbitrary? No way. In the 3403 matches played until 3 August 2013, 42832 wickets were captured by bowlers at a total cost of 1372875 runs. This works to 32.05 RpW. I rounded this to 32. So no one can say this is arbitrary. Of course it has changed over the years. However let me give the readers the following summary.

 
	1971-1984 281 3469 99425 28.66 
	1985-2013 3122 39363 1273450 32.35 
	

So this confirms that for 29 years and for 92% of matches, the average wicket value has been slightly above 32. Just to firm up this number, let me say that, for the period 1985-1989, the average was 32.09.

Ten Doeschate has delivered an equivalent of 100 runs per match. I feel this is one of the most significant figures in the ODI game. A player from an Associate country walked in and delivered the equivalent of a hundred in every match he played. I checked his match performances. He has failed to deliver in either batting or bowling in just two matches out of 33. That means he has delivered in 94% of the matches. I am glad to see the equally talented Shakib Al Hasan in the second position, delivering the equivalent of 68 runs per match. Imagine what these two would have achieved with better support. Then comes the giant, Kallis, with 62.7 runs. Greg Chappell is placed next just behind and then come Flintoff and Watson. Imagine these players guaranteed 60+ runs each time they took the field.

Career Run-equalised delivery
NameCtryODIsRunsWicketsEqualised value
ST Jayasuriya Slk4441343032323766
SR Tendulkar Ind4631842615423354
JH Kallis Saf3211149827020138
Wasim Akram Pak356 371750219781
Shahid Afridi Pak359 730335818759
SM Pollock Saf303 351939316095
WPUJC Vaas Slk324 202540014825
SC Ganguly Ind3111136310014563
SR Waugh Aus325 756919513809
CH Gayle Win253 874315713767
Abdul Razzaq Pak265 508026913688
PA de Silva Slk308 928410612676
CL Hooper Win227 576119311937
N Kapil Dev Ind225 378325311879
Yuvraj Singh Ind282 821111211795
CL Cairns Nzl215 495020111382
V Sehwag Ind251 8273 9611345
ME Waugh Aus244 8500 8511220
DL Vettori Nzl275 211028411198
CZ Harris Nzl250 437920310875

Now the final table. This is the same table as previous one but ordered on the total match deliveries, in terms of run-equivalence. Sanath Jayasuriya stands on top with 23766 "runs". When we talk of Jayasuriya the destroyer we forget the fact that he also captured 323 wickets. A very canny bowler who averaged 0.75 wickets per match. Sachin Tendulkar, again the 18000+ runs over-shadowing the fact that he also captured over 150 wickets, is close behind. He has 23354 "runs". Then comes Kallis, with 20138 "runs". Now we get two Pakistani giants, Wasim Akram, with 19781 "runs" and Shahid Afridi, with 18759 "runs". This is a tribute to the longevity of these outstanding allrounders.

Bowling-centric, Balanced and Batting-centric
NameCtryODIsRpI-IdxSc/R-IdxBatting IndexSt/R-IdxRpO-IdxBowling IndexRatio
WPUJC Vaas Slk324 4.6016.6221.219.0217.9036.90.57
RJ Hadlee Nzl115 8.9317.3026.219.1722.6941.90.63
M Prabhakar Ind130 9.4813.8523.318.5217.5436.10.65
Wasim Akram Pak356 6.6420.2426.920.7119.2540.00.67
Mudassar Nazar Pak12211.5312.0023.517.1517.6834.80.68
...
CL Hooper Win22713.9817.5631.515.1217.2032.30.98
SB Styris Nzl18813.9218.2032.116.7915.8132.60.99
Shoaib Malik Pak21614.2217.9432.215.6216.5032.11.00
GW Flower Zim22115.3515.4930.814.2916.1630.41.01
WJ Cronje Saf18815.9017.5333.415.9616.8832.81.02
...
A Symonds Aus19815.8021.1837.016.8114.9731.81.16
TM Dilshan Slk26715.7919.7435.512.9215.9728.91.23
IVA Richards Win18720.1220.6740.815.6816.6932.41.26
V Sehwag Ind25116.8823.9140.816.3914.2530.61.33
SR Tendulkar Ind46320.3819.7640.114.3314.7029.01.38

This is a quirky report. I have divided the batting rating total points by the bowling rating total points. This ratio reveals the nature of the player's all-round abilities: ranging from bowlers who could bat through genuine allrounders to the batsmen who could bowl. The first five belong to the bowling allrounders classification. One surprise there! Chaminda Vaas, Richard Hadlee, Manoj Prabhakar and Wasim Akram were top bowlers first and their batting skills were only add-ons. However Mudassar Nazar is a surprise. My conclusion is that, for a batsman, his batting numbers are quite average.

The middle five, either side of a ratio 0f 1.00, are here only because of the way the numbers fell. Shoaib Malik is the only allrounder whose batting total matches the bowling total exactly. The others are all good allrounders.

The third group is quite clear. All five were far superior batsmen than bowlers. Jayasuriya does not appear here because his bowling numbers are quite impressive.

Finally, who do I salute? I will doff my imaginary hat at ten Doeschate, Flintoff, Watson, Jayasuriya and Afridi, in that order. I will end with an additional salute to ten Doeschate.

I have created an Excel sheet with complete details for these 65 players. To download/view the document, please CLICK HERE.

One final comment on ten Doeschate. He can only play the cards dealt to him. Since he made his debut and got a permanent place, Netherlands have played 50-odd matches. As I have mentioned before, he missed playing the last few matches for his country. So 33 matches in six years is the limit for a player like him. Anyhow if any reader does not want to consider Tendo, he only has to take off the top entry in the relevant tables.

To round off the article I have given below what I feel, based on a number of relevant objective measures, the five greatest all-round performances ever in ODI matches.

1. Shahid Afridi's 76 and 7 for 12 against West Indies during 2013. That an all-round performance contains the second best bowling spell ever speaks volume of this superb effort. And not to forget that the 76, made out of a middling total of 224 for 9, and a recovery from 47 for 5, was itself a truly match-winning effort.
2. Scott Styris' 63 and 6 for 25 against West Indies during 2002. This was a low scoring and close match. New Zealand scored 212, mainly due to Styris lovely innings late in the order. Then he captured 6 for 25 to restrict West Indies to 202 for 9. I would say this performance is only bettered by Afridi's recent effort.
3. Richards' 119 and 5 for 41 against New Zealand during 1987. Until Paul Collingwood's effort this remained a unique effort. Richards' 119 comprised of more than 50% of his team total. The next highest score was 48. Four of his five wickets were of top order batsmen.
4. Paul Collingwood's 112 and 6 for 31 against Bangladesh during 2005. Granted that this was against Bangladesh but let us not forget that no one has scored a century and captured 6 wickets in a match.
5. Tendulkar's 141 and 4 for 38 against Australia during 1998. This was a big innings and the four late order wickets arrested Australia push towards a win. This was also the quarter-final of the Wills International Cup.

My next article will again be the first of a kind. I will apply the ball-by-ball data to a single event, in this case the Ashes series, and come out with the highlights of head-to-head confrontations.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • getsetgopk on August 19, 2013, 16:21 GMT

    I enjoyed this article, not too beefy on details but not any light either, no offence to Ryan and Shakib but being part of weaker teams, I assume they would be playing against weaker opposition most of the times and hence better stats? Personally I cant see how a Kallis or Afridi is any less talented than Ryan and Shakib in pure cricketing terms or maybe they are in which case i'm going to need another layer of proof. Performance with different weightage depending on the opposition is not going to be easy I imagine BUT it would certainly verify these allrounders and their standing far more clearly.
    [[
    In all these articles it is essential to lay down the methodology. I was clear that I would restrict myself to only the career level data. There is no point then in opening the door slightly for one match level data. I can then open the door completely. Quality of opposition, match situation, match importance, support received, task in front, resources available et al.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 19, 2013, 10:20 GMT

    Hi Ananth Excellent insights again. Just to confirm your conclusion on Ten Doeschate I checked up his stats in First Class and List A matches so as to have a bigger sample for the number of matches. His records match up with the best in business, First class and List A batting averages in the high 40s with around 30 tons at the rate of a ton every 10 innings. Bowling average around 30 with First class and A list combined with close to 20 4w hauls. International cricket is actually the poorer for this gem of an allrounder to have been denied the opportunities.Thanks for that. Cheers Santosh Sequeira

  • CricIndia208 on August 19, 2013, 9:14 GMT

    Hi Ananth, Very interesting analysis, thank you. I had just one point on an observation made by Cric_option and your response. I feel that there are no 'real all-rounders' - i.e. players who are equally strong in both the suits. Almost all these players categorised as all-rounders have one strong suit (Batting or bowling) and are reasonably ok in the other suit. There are either batting all-rounders or bowling all-rounders no 'true allrounder'.
    [[
    Basically by setting a tougher level of criteria I hope to differentiate between Jayasuriya and Lehmann. The first is a genuine all-rounder while the later is a batsman who could bowl well.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Engle on August 18, 2013, 12:42 GMT

    Amongst top All-Round ODI performances, surely Gary Gilmour's performance in the 1975 World Cup semi-final vs England must merit a mention. He decimated England's batting with 6/14, all top-order batsmen. Then smacked their bowling with 28* at a run a ball - highest score and SR of the match. Upstaging such luminaries as Lillee, Chappell bros, Walters, Greig, Snow et al
    [[
    Pl refer to my response to Nadush. This went just under the bar.
    In fact this specific one is the greatest bowling performance in ODIs and the match nperformance is in the top-5 of my ratings. Surely deserves to be included. Similar to Bichel's except that it was in the WC SF.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • cric_options on August 18, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    Hi Ananth - This is Som, with a different screen name. Could not participate actively on your work the last few months, but have been perusing them from time to time. As usual great stuff. Regarding allrounders, something about the results that we see does not quite add up. And that takes me back to asking the question, who is an allrounder? An allrounder cannot be a player who performed as a batsmen and a bowler in separate matches more often than they did in the same match. Which means probably in more than 2/3 of the matches that they played, they should have bowled atleast 1/10 of the overs for which the match was played. This would separate the active allrounders from the passive ones. Sachin is no allrounder. Can he bowl well, you bet, sometimes even better than most front line bowlers, but that sometimes is such rare instances, he cannot be competing with the likes of Flintoff, Kapil, Kallis and Afridi. A column in the tables with a qualifier for active/passive will help.
    [[
    Som, welcome back. I have missed you. This is the first cut. What I want to do later is to look at the suggestions and comments and come out with a true all-rounder analysis. I would have no problems if I had only 20 players meeting the tougher criteria set. I agree that Batsmen who could bowl (SRT, Lehmann, Clarke, Sehwag, Chappell, Mark Waugh, Ranatunga, Dilshan) and bowlers who could bat (Vaas, Akram, Pathan, Prabhakar, Streak, Pollock, Vettori) cannot be classified as real all-rounders. Maybe I will weed out these "pretenders" (told in the nicest sense) and come out with a true all-rounder article in days to come. There I could give weight for even match level performances. The delivery per match will have a lot of relevance since it will reflect a true all-rounder delivery per match.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 20:28 GMT

    Wouldn't changing the weightages (percentages) completely alter the rankings ?
    [[
    Of course, yes. But none of these weights is arbitrary. In summary,
    50% weight for Batting and Bowling. Can anyone change or challenge that?
    Equal weight for the two bowling measures. Very difficult to challenge that although I can see merit in arguments relating to this.
    Batting strike rate gets 10% higher weight than RpI (10% on either side). You could challenge that. Let me add that I did my initial calculations at 25% each. Barring one or two player position shifts, these tables will remain the same. So there would not be a complete change of positions.
    Finally 32. 100% based on actual numbers.
    So I feel these weights have far more backing than some of my earlier Ratings analyses.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 14:00 GMT

    While ten Doeschate's numbers are amazing and it's sad that he couldn't display his clearly amazing skills to a larger audience, my contention is simply that Doeschate was an international class all-rounder, stuck playing against Associates. His skill is not in doubt, but he was clearly playing teams below his league. He would've walked into any international outfit. How he would've fared playing only against international teams would have, in my mind, established his status as an all-rounder. Teams like Kenya and Afghanistan can be termed tough for Netherlands in particular, but not for an international class all-rounder like ten Doeschate. I'd call him international class. My personal vote for best ODI all-rounder would go with Flintoff or Jayasuriya, simply because they played against oppositions worthy of their talent.
    [[
    Ireland, Afghanistan, Kenya and a few Test playing countries are not necessarily below the level of Holland, But I understand your reasoning in selecting others who have performed outstandingly over a number of years and many matches.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 13:11 GMT

    brilliant article, delivery per match is a great innovation. the batting index i believe is misleading, sehwagh having same value as richards and afridi having higher value than most greats ( even lara and ponting, far superior batsman than afridi wud have similar or worse indexes than him). the flow is that Sc/R-Idx is almost like duckward/lewis system as it is assumed that someone like sehwagh having scored his runs quickly will allow some other batsman to face more balls and score more runs. a much better system wud be taking rpi as it is and adding or removing points for strike rate wrt avg. eg taking base strike rate as 75 richards str= 90,exess str =15 improvement = 15 * rpi/100 = 15 * 40/100 = 6 richards value = 46 a similar method gets afridi = 31, sachin = 45, watson = 38.5, kallis = 37, sehwagh = 44 which is much close to there actual value (afridi and sehwagh are still slightly higher than their actual value imo) .
    [[
    Adding or subtracting is not correct. A 15 can be the difference between 75 & 90 and 60 & 75. Also this is not only batting. Bowling also has to be incorporated. But I will look at your suggestion carefully once I have a similar one for bowling.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Nadush on August 17, 2013, 11:06 GMT

    Best Allround performance is by Andy Bichel in World Cup 2003 against England:

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65269.html

    7/20 and match winning 34*
    [[
    Excellent selection. My run criterion did not get this performance in. If context had been considered the 34 would have grown big. I agree with you that it deserves to be included.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 26, 2013, 6:22 GMT

    Ananth - Interesting article - and an eye opener as well. We remember a couple of years back you made an article on all-rounders (in tests) and we realized that out of 80+ tests, an all-rounder gets to display both his facets in the same match very rarely (less than 5%) and think of it - on paper, 80 tests = 160 ODIs (opportunity-wise). So guess some messages identifying true all-rounders rather than pretenders are sort of short-sighted. Sachin did at least once what Kapil couldn't do even once (100+4w). From an ODI perspective, balance is tilted towards Batsmen who could bowl (Jayasuriya became a true batsman after 60-70 games). Wasim Akram or Ian Botham could never crack the ODI all-rounder leagues.

    An aside, though this doesn't make up the number qualification, deSilva's 107 + 3 wkts surely should be an all-round great, coming in a crunch match (summit clash). Unlike the Debils who had nothing to lose in '83, Lions had a lot to prove in the '96 WC.
    [[
    Once context comes in, De Silva's effort would move up quite rapidly.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • getsetgopk on August 19, 2013, 16:21 GMT

    I enjoyed this article, not too beefy on details but not any light either, no offence to Ryan and Shakib but being part of weaker teams, I assume they would be playing against weaker opposition most of the times and hence better stats? Personally I cant see how a Kallis or Afridi is any less talented than Ryan and Shakib in pure cricketing terms or maybe they are in which case i'm going to need another layer of proof. Performance with different weightage depending on the opposition is not going to be easy I imagine BUT it would certainly verify these allrounders and their standing far more clearly.
    [[
    In all these articles it is essential to lay down the methodology. I was clear that I would restrict myself to only the career level data. There is no point then in opening the door slightly for one match level data. I can then open the door completely. Quality of opposition, match situation, match importance, support received, task in front, resources available et al.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 19, 2013, 10:20 GMT

    Hi Ananth Excellent insights again. Just to confirm your conclusion on Ten Doeschate I checked up his stats in First Class and List A matches so as to have a bigger sample for the number of matches. His records match up with the best in business, First class and List A batting averages in the high 40s with around 30 tons at the rate of a ton every 10 innings. Bowling average around 30 with First class and A list combined with close to 20 4w hauls. International cricket is actually the poorer for this gem of an allrounder to have been denied the opportunities.Thanks for that. Cheers Santosh Sequeira

  • CricIndia208 on August 19, 2013, 9:14 GMT

    Hi Ananth, Very interesting analysis, thank you. I had just one point on an observation made by Cric_option and your response. I feel that there are no 'real all-rounders' - i.e. players who are equally strong in both the suits. Almost all these players categorised as all-rounders have one strong suit (Batting or bowling) and are reasonably ok in the other suit. There are either batting all-rounders or bowling all-rounders no 'true allrounder'.
    [[
    Basically by setting a tougher level of criteria I hope to differentiate between Jayasuriya and Lehmann. The first is a genuine all-rounder while the later is a batsman who could bowl well.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Engle on August 18, 2013, 12:42 GMT

    Amongst top All-Round ODI performances, surely Gary Gilmour's performance in the 1975 World Cup semi-final vs England must merit a mention. He decimated England's batting with 6/14, all top-order batsmen. Then smacked their bowling with 28* at a run a ball - highest score and SR of the match. Upstaging such luminaries as Lillee, Chappell bros, Walters, Greig, Snow et al
    [[
    Pl refer to my response to Nadush. This went just under the bar.
    In fact this specific one is the greatest bowling performance in ODIs and the match nperformance is in the top-5 of my ratings. Surely deserves to be included. Similar to Bichel's except that it was in the WC SF.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • cric_options on August 18, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    Hi Ananth - This is Som, with a different screen name. Could not participate actively on your work the last few months, but have been perusing them from time to time. As usual great stuff. Regarding allrounders, something about the results that we see does not quite add up. And that takes me back to asking the question, who is an allrounder? An allrounder cannot be a player who performed as a batsmen and a bowler in separate matches more often than they did in the same match. Which means probably in more than 2/3 of the matches that they played, they should have bowled atleast 1/10 of the overs for which the match was played. This would separate the active allrounders from the passive ones. Sachin is no allrounder. Can he bowl well, you bet, sometimes even better than most front line bowlers, but that sometimes is such rare instances, he cannot be competing with the likes of Flintoff, Kapil, Kallis and Afridi. A column in the tables with a qualifier for active/passive will help.
    [[
    Som, welcome back. I have missed you. This is the first cut. What I want to do later is to look at the suggestions and comments and come out with a true all-rounder analysis. I would have no problems if I had only 20 players meeting the tougher criteria set. I agree that Batsmen who could bowl (SRT, Lehmann, Clarke, Sehwag, Chappell, Mark Waugh, Ranatunga, Dilshan) and bowlers who could bat (Vaas, Akram, Pathan, Prabhakar, Streak, Pollock, Vettori) cannot be classified as real all-rounders. Maybe I will weed out these "pretenders" (told in the nicest sense) and come out with a true all-rounder article in days to come. There I could give weight for even match level performances. The delivery per match will have a lot of relevance since it will reflect a true all-rounder delivery per match.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 20:28 GMT

    Wouldn't changing the weightages (percentages) completely alter the rankings ?
    [[
    Of course, yes. But none of these weights is arbitrary. In summary,
    50% weight for Batting and Bowling. Can anyone change or challenge that?
    Equal weight for the two bowling measures. Very difficult to challenge that although I can see merit in arguments relating to this.
    Batting strike rate gets 10% higher weight than RpI (10% on either side). You could challenge that. Let me add that I did my initial calculations at 25% each. Barring one or two player position shifts, these tables will remain the same. So there would not be a complete change of positions.
    Finally 32. 100% based on actual numbers.
    So I feel these weights have far more backing than some of my earlier Ratings analyses.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 14:00 GMT

    While ten Doeschate's numbers are amazing and it's sad that he couldn't display his clearly amazing skills to a larger audience, my contention is simply that Doeschate was an international class all-rounder, stuck playing against Associates. His skill is not in doubt, but he was clearly playing teams below his league. He would've walked into any international outfit. How he would've fared playing only against international teams would have, in my mind, established his status as an all-rounder. Teams like Kenya and Afghanistan can be termed tough for Netherlands in particular, but not for an international class all-rounder like ten Doeschate. I'd call him international class. My personal vote for best ODI all-rounder would go with Flintoff or Jayasuriya, simply because they played against oppositions worthy of their talent.
    [[
    Ireland, Afghanistan, Kenya and a few Test playing countries are not necessarily below the level of Holland, But I understand your reasoning in selecting others who have performed outstandingly over a number of years and many matches.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 13:11 GMT

    brilliant article, delivery per match is a great innovation. the batting index i believe is misleading, sehwagh having same value as richards and afridi having higher value than most greats ( even lara and ponting, far superior batsman than afridi wud have similar or worse indexes than him). the flow is that Sc/R-Idx is almost like duckward/lewis system as it is assumed that someone like sehwagh having scored his runs quickly will allow some other batsman to face more balls and score more runs. a much better system wud be taking rpi as it is and adding or removing points for strike rate wrt avg. eg taking base strike rate as 75 richards str= 90,exess str =15 improvement = 15 * rpi/100 = 15 * 40/100 = 6 richards value = 46 a similar method gets afridi = 31, sachin = 45, watson = 38.5, kallis = 37, sehwagh = 44 which is much close to there actual value (afridi and sehwagh are still slightly higher than their actual value imo) .
    [[
    Adding or subtracting is not correct. A 15 can be the difference between 75 & 90 and 60 & 75. Also this is not only batting. Bowling also has to be incorporated. But I will look at your suggestion carefully once I have a similar one for bowling.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Nadush on August 17, 2013, 11:06 GMT

    Best Allround performance is by Andy Bichel in World Cup 2003 against England:

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65269.html

    7/20 and match winning 34*
    [[
    Excellent selection. My run criterion did not get this performance in. If context had been considered the 34 would have grown big. I agree with you that it deserves to be included.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 26, 2013, 6:22 GMT

    Ananth - Interesting article - and an eye opener as well. We remember a couple of years back you made an article on all-rounders (in tests) and we realized that out of 80+ tests, an all-rounder gets to display both his facets in the same match very rarely (less than 5%) and think of it - on paper, 80 tests = 160 ODIs (opportunity-wise). So guess some messages identifying true all-rounders rather than pretenders are sort of short-sighted. Sachin did at least once what Kapil couldn't do even once (100+4w). From an ODI perspective, balance is tilted towards Batsmen who could bowl (Jayasuriya became a true batsman after 60-70 games). Wasim Akram or Ian Botham could never crack the ODI all-rounder leagues.

    An aside, though this doesn't make up the number qualification, deSilva's 107 + 3 wkts surely should be an all-round great, coming in a crunch match (summit clash). Unlike the Debils who had nothing to lose in '83, Lions had a lot to prove in the '96 WC.
    [[
    Once context comes in, De Silva's effort would move up quite rapidly.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Charith99 on August 23, 2013, 14:58 GMT

    as always very nice article ananth. regarding tendoeschates selection as a top all rounder i completely agree with ananth, His stats are really impressive. To all my fellow readers who are questioning his stats what do you guys suggest he should do , he certainly can't say i will score less and get less wickets because its Kenya or Afganisthan.He can't pick and choose whom to play against.If his opposition was always easy then a lot of other dutch players would have being on this list too. Personally my vote goes to sanath. over 13000 runs and over 300 wickets plus during his younger years he was a brilliant fielder plus an excellent captaincy record my only wish is that he should have retired earlier and stayed out of politics.
    [[
    Jayasuriya's bowling stats are extremely impressive. He could bowl 10 overs in every match he played. He bowlred just over 5.5 overs par match.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • alarky on August 22, 2013, 16:16 GMT

    Ananth, Congrats again on an outstanding piece of work! And I'm convinced that all your work is "NAME BLIND"! You do the research and the chips fall where they may! You've proven that Ryan ten doeschates' career so far is "a Lilliputian in the land of giants" story! Hence, we need to be more appreciative of him, knowing that his status is solely determined by genuine statistical facts, and not bias media hypes and exaggerations. Ryan doesn't have those guys with the megaphones in the commentary boxes, or those with the golden type writers in the media houses. Hence, only work like yours could show case him to the world! So, to hell with those who are disappointed that they didn't see the name that they want at the top, and asking for weighting system to meet their desires! Some great players owe part of their glorification to performances against the weakest teams: Eg SRT made 5 of his so called intern'l (100s) vs Namibia and Kenya! Would they like a weighting system that deny him any?

  • on August 20, 2013, 13:09 GMT

    I should also add that even when a team is all out they still have scored some runs on average, 182.8592 (1st innings where match is completed) so value of 1 wicket is equal to (Total runs scored in 1st innings - 182.8592*number of innings)/total wickets not taken = (753480- 182.8592*3288)/7408 = 20.55. I think I like this number better than my previous 13 as that was too weighted towards the relatively rare occasions where a team lost very few wickets (the average is 7.7)

  • on August 20, 2013, 12:41 GMT

    Ananth, the 13 from my earlier post is that for each additional wicket lost a team scores approximately 13 less runs. The gap is largest between losing 9 wickets and being all out as you would expect as not all balls available have been faced. I don't have the figures to hand now but the average 1st innings scores (where a game has a definitive result can be found using data from statsguru). The price of a wicket is often underestimated in limited overs cricket despite the fact a team rarely wins if they are all out. An all rounder also only helps his team if he is bowling or batting. Hence Flintoff coming in at 6 or 7 means he is less influential with the bat than Kallis or Watson and the likes of Lehman, Waugh, Sehwag are very uninfluential with the ball as they bowl very few balls per match. This is where your ratio of batting RPI and bowling average is fairly good but simplified for batting contribution to a match but is blind to bowling contribution to a match.
    ON ROAD. HENCE UNABLE TO RESPOND
    ANANTH

  • on August 20, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    @Michael Counsell your formula for bowling value seems well thought out. if i am correct 13 is the amount by which the eventual total score is reduced when a wicket falls. a wicket taken in the final over is of no value while at the start it is of high value. even if u pick a top batsman in the 40th over the eventual score will only vary by 10-15 so 13 seems good. by valuing balls per match wrt rpo along with wickets u have valued all essentials of bowling. for batting i think it shud be calculated per innings rather than per match, also the batting value seems flowed. when richards and kallis have the same value u know smoething's wrong. richards has higher avg, str rate, rpi and lower not out %. the best bowler has a value of 35 and best batsman 25.5, batting allrounder rchards has bowling value of 12 while bowling allrounders have values of 6 so u have not given equal weightage to bat and bowl.

  • gandabhai on August 20, 2013, 8:29 GMT

    This is all good work you are doing sir but its a bit namby pamby , Please do an analysis to show which countries benefit the most from umpiring decisions . You have a moral duty to conduct a fair study of this .

  • on August 20, 2013, 1:40 GMT

    Anantha Great analysis. One suggestion, though. For calculating delivery per match, you have awarded a weightage of 32 / wicket. But you have disregarded the cost at which the wicket came and the run per over conceded, which is more important in an ODI than in a test. My suggestion is as follows for converting wickets into runs: Bowling contribution converted to runs per wicket =32+ ( 32- (Bowling average ( Runs per wicket ) X Runs conceded per over/6)) This will separate A conceding 24 Runs/Wicket @ 4 Runs/over from B conceding 30 Runs/Wicket @ 4 Runs/over from C, conceding 30 Runs/Wicket @ 5 Runs/over.

  • Engle on August 20, 2013, 1:08 GMT

    Another performance which will stand the test of time and secure it's place in cricket history was Aravinda DaSilva's unbeaten century in the WC final vs Aus, plus his 3 wkts when no other bowler could muster more than 1, and 2 catches to boot. When the pressure is on, the stakes are high and the world is watching, then performances on the highest stage of competition remain indelibly embedded in one's consciousness.

  • MilPand on August 19, 2013, 20:10 GMT

    Not entirely related to this article but there are certain methods that I prefer to avoid.

    1. Measuring a player's contribution based on one-dimensional 'run equivalence' has been done for IPL MVP analysis too - see this rediff article - http://www.rediff.com/cricket/report/ipl-stats-gayle-continues-to-be-the-most-valuable-player-purnendu-maji-srinivas-bhogle/20130522.htm

    There are benefits but I prefer a neutral measure which transforms BOTH batting and bowling figures.

    2. Carefully selected weights are fine but sometimes there are special numbers that boost a player's overall rating. See the rules for IPL fantasy league - http://cricketat.info/the-official-fantasy-iplt20-com-fantasy-league-2013/#.UhJ155L2a8A - There is a milestone bonus for 25 runs. So scoring 24 or 49 vis-a-vis 25 or 50 is considerably worse. Similarly bowling 5 dot balls in an over fetches 1 point for each dot ball whereas the 6th dot ball is worth 15 points.
    [[
    Again, Milind, when I strictly limited myself to Career numbers and career numbers only, all these extremely relevant and priceless measures are out of reach. That would be a different type of analysis which would require even more data such as ball-by-ball data.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 19, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    I like it but the units of your calculations aren't consistent which is providing these strange anomalies such as Lehman etc. I've done my own analysis on allrounders based on players with 106 ODI appearances (less than 200 players...) a the rating expressed in runs per match. I have assumed a cost of a wicket (W) to equal 13 runs based on historical 1st innings totals. Batting rating is balls faced per matches played * (strike rate - (no. outs * W) per ball)) Bowling rating is balls bowled per match * ((R - runs conceded per ball) + (wickets * W) per ball)) R (target run rate) was found to be 0.8767 by ensuring the total batting points per ball of best 30 batsmen equaled the bowling pts per ball of the best 30 bowlers. Top 7 are: Player-Bat Rat.-Bowl Rat.-Total Shakib al Hasan - 18.0 - 24.3 - 42.30 Hadlee - 6.1 - 35.4 - 41.5 Kallis - 25.5 - 13.4 - 38.9 Richards - 25.5 - 12.1 - 38.1 Pollock - 5.9 - 30.6 - 36.5 Imran Khan - 12.9 - 22.3 - 36.2 Watson - 20.5 - 15.6 - 36.1
    [[
    I have not looked at this in detail since I am travelling and am rushed.
    Off hand looks good. However the 13 runs per wicket is jarring and probably incorrect. It does not appear correct even if going by your first innings calculations.
    In first innings of 3403 matches, 717994 runs were scored at a loss of 26110 wickets at 27.5 runs per wicket. Then what is 13.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • raf1 on August 19, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    The analysis is very interesting but it would have been better if you would have found a way to calculate the relative strength of the opposition team/players. Tendo is a good player and has been trying to break into the SAf side but not successful. If he were that great then would SAf not snapped him up already? An interesting point to ponder and I await any explanation on why they overlooked him in favor of other players-- surely they need to replace Kallis!

  • on August 19, 2013, 16:38 GMT

    "Also a 50-ball 30 is more likely to win a match than 75 in 90 balls". I think you meant to say a 30 ball 50 is more likely to win matches than 75 in 90 balls. right Ananth?
    [[
    Yes.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 19, 2013, 14:36 GMT

    Too bad Sir Ravindra Jadeja is short of 258 runs to enter in this league of great all rounders. I wish the author had RJ in mind, he would have made the table more interesting!

  • Jay.Raj on August 19, 2013, 12:38 GMT

    Jac kallis and sir gary sobers are best all rounders of all time.period!

  • on August 19, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    Havent read the analysis, but the list doesnt come close to what is reality. Dont even remember Ryan bowling in one days, Flintoff, Lehmann, Sehwag better allrounders than Kallis and Jayasurya in one days, this is a big joke
    [[
    The joke is because you have not bothered to read the analysis and come out with broad spectrum comments. There are multiple tables. If you have not heard of Ryan Do's name, that is your problem, not his. Anyhow I have uploaded an additional Excel sheet where the cut-off criteria is tougher and the table is headed by Flintoff and Watson. Try and do something like this before shooting off a comment.
    And I suggest find out more about what Flintoff before shooting him down. Again ignorance, I am afraid. 3397 runs at 27.81 and 88.8 plus 169 wickets at 24,38.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • ahilan9999 on August 19, 2013, 8:59 GMT

    Ryan Ten Doeschate stats against test playing nations - 8 matches; Batting 298 runs, average 42.6, runs per innings 37.3, Strike rate 5.14 runs per over; Bowling 65 overs, 10 wickets, average 44.9, wickets per match 1.25, economy rate 6.91 runs per over. This is only 8 games but gives a good indication. Batting is strong, bowling is poor. Remaining games are against associates who are at best first class standard. Flintoffs bowling stats are highly impressive (bowling average 24.4, economy rate 4.40) while Watsons batting stats are very good for an all rounder.
    [[
    Ireland is a lot more than just a first class team. Similarly Afghanistan and Kenya, a few years back. But that does not matter. He has been allowed tpo play 8 matches against Test-playing countries and has scored at an average of 42.6 and captured more than a wicket per match.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • logeshwaran on August 19, 2013, 6:21 GMT

    is there a list sans Sachin #legend

  • Bonehead_maz on August 19, 2013, 4:30 GMT

    Unlike many who comment here, I failed 101 statistics 4 times. I had to repeat the subject several times to gain my degrees. I don't understand it at all - normal variations, (or is that standard) etc leave me completely cold. Is there a reason why in English only two words start with letters "numb" ?

    To me the problem here is only all rounderness - someone who bats early has a distinct advantage. I mentioned O'Donnell earlier because to me in ODI's he was truly the all rounder. Kapil, Flintoff, Oram (and I've forgotten many) the same. Perhaps this shows my lack of understanding of ODI's ? I think the great all rounders are bowlers (probably a hangover from serious cricket ?)

    One guy can win you a game or two (or several) bowling well or batting well. The guys who before the game on this pitch could win it either or both ways are the great all rounders ?

    Would have liked to watch my Uncle play this stuff !

  • ahilan9999 on August 18, 2013, 21:58 GMT

    Ryan Ten Doeschate is a good player, but countries like Kenya, Afghanistan, Canada are not even near English county teams. Based on watching him play, he is a good batsman, but not a world class bowler. Would only be a part time bowler for a Test team. I would rate Klusener who was a frontline bowler for South Africa and made quick runs under pressure against the best teams as a better all rounder. Flintoff, Watson and Imran Khan behind him in no order. Take for example Imran Khan, who has a 6/14 against India when they were world cup champions and years later top scored (72) against England after they had lost 2 early wickets in 1992 world cup final. Strength of the opposition is an important factor in assessing performance.

  • TommytuckerSaffa on August 18, 2013, 14:55 GMT

    King Kallis. Enough said.

  • on August 18, 2013, 13:57 GMT

    @AN- can you post the original data you intended, the one with a cut off of 100 wickets and 2500 runs please.
    [[
    The Excel sheet is there. You can easily extract the data into another sheet. Or I will do it and create a second worksheet. I will do it by tomorrow morning. You can then download the Excel sheet.
    Joel: I have since done that and uploaded the Excel sheet. There are 32 all-rounders who qualify.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • ExtraCoverDriver on August 18, 2013, 10:28 GMT

    Statistics, averages, as usual, don't always paint a true picture and in this case they present a very misleading one indeed. Ten Doeschate, a good player he might be, is nowhere near the quality of the others mentioned in that list. It is absurd to compare him with them, let alone put him on top. He is probably the greatest associate player after Tikolo, but thats about it, you can't compare him with the big boys so to speak.
    [[
    Why? Just because he did not play amongst the "big boys" he becomes a small boy. You have a right not to consider him in your analysis, done on your computer. However, you do not have the right to call this analysis absurd just because a "big boy" did not head the table.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 18, 2013, 6:02 GMT

    Considering this analysis doesn't take into account who the players were playing it is impossible to compare them. Just have to look at Flintoff v Watson's record against each other's teams. Watson has the same batting strike rate and his average is significantly more, considering he opens the batting too. Also, his record against england is far better than Flintoff's vs Australia.
    [[
    True head-to-head is Flintoff vs Watson. What you are suggesting is a proxy comparison. Flintoff might have faced much more difficult Australian bowlers while Flintoff, lesser English bowlers. We are talking of the mid-2000s.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Bonehead_maz on August 17, 2013, 23:58 GMT

    Glad someone else brought up the 'keepers being considered all rounders these days ( I'dd add ABDV to Gilchrist and Dhoni there). I of course have no idea how their stats could be incorporated (or indeed similarly added value to all rounders like Symmonds when considering fielding - IVA Richards 3 run outs in World cup final springs to mind).
    [[
    Tough to do any normalising between bowler dismissals and wicket-keepr dismissals. So the best way out is an honourable mention to Gilchrist, Boucher, Sangakkara, Dhoni, Moin Khan, McCullum et al. Hats off to these true all-rounders.
    Ananth
    : ]]

    Glad to see Phil Simmons make these lists - saw him bowl a few devastating spells. Sadly? I lost interest in ODI's at about the time I thought Simon O'Donnell a VERY handy 50 over all rounder. (note now he didn't score 1,500 runs)

    Agree with those mentioning Aravinda's effort in that final as very special.

    I must add that Greg Chappell and Viv Richards were far from poor bowlers in 50 over games (same to be said for a younger SRT). Further, to a right hander, the round the wicket "darts" from the Jayasuriya and Lehmann types is always hard to score quickly from.
    [[
    And now Jadeja is joining these players.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • MilPand on August 17, 2013, 22:02 GMT

    I personally prefer a measure where raw figures are not used for either discipline and individual performances are valued based on match situation. I had similarly disagreed with some of the assumptions you made in 'series "colour"-washes in Test cricket -http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/620154.html '.

    Yet I do appreciate the benefits of an all-rounder index based on actual values for one discipline and derived values for another. This approach is easier to understand and implement. The most important thing is that the key insights can be drawn relatively quickly. For example your assertion that " In the 210 4/5/6 match Test series played so far, the England win over India is the most comprehensive and devastating in history of Test cricket. " remains true irrespective of the complexity of the model.

    Flintoff during 2005 Ashes was temporarily a great all-rounder which is an observation not a criticism. The numbers here reveal that he was a better ODI performer.
    [[
    Milind,
    Where career-level figures are used there is bound to be some amount of "golden numbering", as fondly call these weights. Pl also see the response to Al Mindondo.
    Why do you say actual values for one discipline and derived values for another discipline. All four are actual values. The fact is that the batting measures are published and tabled independently. The bowling values are combined and published as a single measure. At least as far I am concerned I would always show career figures in all four measures.
    Flintoff, Jayasuriya and ten DO are the people who stand out in this analysis.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • calcu on August 17, 2013, 18:58 GMT

    Surely, batting avg will be a better option than RPI!! Otherwise, a great article.
    [[
    One of my favourite subjects. In Tests the Batting average makes a lot more sense than ODIs. There are limited number of overs and it is far more easier for a 5/6/7 batsman to remain not out than a 1/2/3/4 batsman. Given below are a few NO % values.
    Amla: 8.2% (still an average of 50+)
    Tendulkar: 9.1%
    Hayden: 9.7%
    Sangakkara: 10.9%
    ...
    Dhoni: 28.5%
    Clarke: 20.2%
    Bevan: 34.2%
    Hussey: 28.0%
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 16:14 GMT

    for bowling, delivery per mach is a better indicator than bowling index though the bowling economy has to be incorporated. the bowling index gives advantage to the lesser bowlers, the part timers usualy bowl when the field restrictions are lifted or when there is not much pressure, also when they are not bowling well they are not required to still bowl there quota of overs . since odi is a limited over game allrounders shud be amongst the 5 frontline bowlers all the time to provide real value. wickets to inns ratio takes into account strike rate and amount of bowling per match. a seperate value for economy can be added. eg taking base economy rate as 4.4( 44 runs per 10 overs) for every 0.1 drop in bowling econ 0.7 points could be added to bowling run equaliser delivery per match value and vice versa. value of shane watson with econ 0.4 worse than the base value 4.4 becomes 31.2- 2.8 = 28.4, for a economical bowler like hadlee he would get added value for his economy.
    [[
    Overall I feel the delivery per match is a simpler and more effective indicator. It rewards the players who score more runs and capture more wickets per match. Just to strengthen it I could incorporate the two measures of strike rate and accuracy as multiplying factors.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • red_forever on August 17, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    The moment i read the Title and the 1st Para i could make out what kind of comments people would be upto. It isnt Tendo's fault that he dint play more matches against Test(or so called Superior) nations. It is ICC's fault. Look at Fifa. Tahiti played in Confed Cup and lost humiliatingly but the confidence they would take home cant be calculated. So where ICC failed there Fifa Succeeded. He averaged 50 in the 2011 world cup all matches he played were against Test nations. If given more matches he might/would have played at the same level. Yes his bowling records look bad against test nations. IF we look at the match against Eng he scored 119 in just 110 balls and took 2/47 in 10. He almost won Oranges for the Dutch. We should feel bad that we lost a player to ICC and other Test nations boards that he and others(O'Briens) dont get more chances to Play. This very apathy has made Tendo give up playing for Dutch and make a living by playing T20 leagues. He destroyed all in BPL.
    [[
    ten Do's case is a lesson for all. A top class player who got minimum exposure but did the best he could do. I feel the run-equivalence of 100+ "runs" per match is something we cannot ignore. Maybe there is no comparison. But these figures are comparable to Murali in Tests.
    And the tragedy is that Kevin O'Brien does not get a 50k dollar bid in IPL.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • JustInfinity on August 17, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    Excellent analysis. Thanks. It feels a bit unfair though due to the fact that some of these allrounders such as Akram, Kapil, Pollock, Razzaq etc came on to bowl in the first few overs to top order batsman while other all rounders primarily seemd to take *easy* lower order wickets. Could we weight the average (a weighted average) so that it reflects the top-middle order wickets? Then the analysis can be fair. Somehow the impact of Razzaq seems higher than Afridi but in the analysis it seems otherwise.
    [[
    I think numbers do not lie. While accepting that there are hidden nuances behind numbers, the value of numbers cannot be over-emphasized.
    One thing I would never do is to confuse career leval analyses with match level tweaks. The opening bowlers have the benefit that they are bowling with the newer ball, have catchers available and the batsmen, until recent rule changes, tended to attack. This would help them to pick up more wickets than a bowler who bowls in the middle overs.
    Afridi delivered on the field for 100 more matches. Their bowling figures are comparable as well as batting average. But Afridi delivered 30 more runs per 100 balls.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • SG_Styles on August 17, 2013, 14:41 GMT

    Good article ! I alwyas thought that all-rounders benefit teams more in the limited-overs format than the specialist ones. Having a couple of quality all-rounders in the line-up will certainly make any team a formiddable. Talking about the players, TenDo stands out. Though he has played majority of his matches against associates, one can not take away what he has achieved with all those facilities available to him at an associate country. And also his performances in the counties and in the leagues across the world are not bad either. Andrew Flintoff, is another candidate for being the best all rounder ever. He could change the course of the match with his batting at any instance although his bowling skills were quite superior to his batting. Freddie could swing at 140-145 kph continuously and then hit those giagantous sixes.. Just a kinda player every captain always want in his team. Among the rest Watson, Shakib and Klusener are stand-outs. Others dont fill the criteria of a shorter format all-rounder to great extent (in my view).

  • on August 17, 2013, 12:27 GMT

    1) My reading of this analysis is that regular batsmen who are capable of bowling 5-6 overs on an average are more valuable than specialist bowlers who can bat for 15-20 runs. 2) A discussion on all rounders must mention Gilchrist. It goes beyond saying that he redefined the batting role of the wicketkeeper. I consider Gilchrist as an allrounder as he substituted two players (Taylor and Healy) at once 3) Regarding great all round performances, my addition to the list would be Aravinda De Silva in 1996 WC Final, 3 wickets (including 2 set batsmen)m a catch, and then scoring an unbeaten hundred after coming in at 23/2 in a world cup final chase
    [[
    For me to push de Silva up, I would take into account context, in this case the importance of the match, into the picture.
    Dhoni is also an all-rounder. But let us stick to the traditional definition.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 10:59 GMT

    All said and done, Sanath Jayasuriya is the greatest all rounder to have ever played the ODI game. Sir Gary Sobers in Test cricket and Jayasuriya in One day cricket. period.

  • sifter132 on August 17, 2013, 9:45 GMT

    This is a good start! Watson and particularly Flintoff definitely deserve more credit for their fine ODI careers.

    2 issues I have are...1) that ten Doeschate is eligible at all for this study. At the risk of offending our associate friends, the marks should be 1500 runs & 50 wickets against full member nations, or at least the matches played should be raised to 50. Ten Doeschate, while successful on paper, hasn't had much influence on ODI history. He's played so rarely - 33 ODIs in 7 years, against modest teams and only a handful of his matches would have been seen by anyone. 2) The bowling measure in table 1 should be weighted by how important the bowler was to the team, maybe by wickets per match or overs bowled per match. It is a TRAVESTY that Darren Lehmann gets more points for his bowling than Kapil Dev or Shahid Afridi do. He's not far off Shaun Pollock's bowling scores either, one of the greatest ODI bowlers ever! That doesn't pass the credibility test.
    [[
    A few points.
    1. You can always create your own tables by having your own criteria.
    2. ten Doeschate can only play the matches his team plays. Once I lower the criterion to 1500/50, excluding him would be unfair. Anyhow he has not just played the weaker teams only.
    3. Lehmann has delivered 52 wickets at 27.81 (34.48 & 4.84), let us not forget. His strike rate is better than most bowlers.
    4. If you look at the Run equivalence delivered per match, he is quite low, at 40 per match. There the 52 wickets in 117 matches puts him down.
    5. This is not a bowler analysis nor a batsman analysis. We have to look at it as a package. The Run equivalence analysis has built into it, the runs/match and wkts/match.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • sifter132 on August 17, 2013, 9:45 GMT

    This is a good start! Watson and particularly Flintoff definitely deserve more credit for their fine ODI careers.

    2 issues I have are...1) that ten Doeschate is eligible at all for this study. At the risk of offending our associate friends, the marks should be 1500 runs & 50 wickets against full member nations, or at least the matches played should be raised to 50. Ten Doeschate, while successful on paper, hasn't had much influence on ODI history. He's played so rarely - 33 ODIs in 7 years, against modest teams and only a handful of his matches would have been seen by anyone. 2) The bowling measure in table 1 should be weighted by how important the bowler was to the team, maybe by wickets per match or overs bowled per match. It is a TRAVESTY that Darren Lehmann gets more points for his bowling than Kapil Dev or Shahid Afridi do. He's not far off Shaun Pollock's bowling scores either, one of the greatest ODI bowlers ever! That doesn't pass the credibility test.
    [[
    A few points.
    1. You can always create your own tables by having your own criteria.
    2. ten Doeschate can only play the matches his team plays. Once I lower the criterion to 1500/50, excluding him would be unfair. Anyhow he has not just played the weaker teams only.
    3. Lehmann has delivered 52 wickets at 27.81 (34.48 & 4.84), let us not forget. His strike rate is better than most bowlers.
    4. If you look at the Run equivalence delivered per match, he is quite low, at 40 per match. There the 52 wickets in 117 matches puts him down.
    5. This is not a bowler analysis nor a batsman analysis. We have to look at it as a package. The Run equivalence analysis has built into it, the runs/match and wkts/match.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 10:59 GMT

    All said and done, Sanath Jayasuriya is the greatest all rounder to have ever played the ODI game. Sir Gary Sobers in Test cricket and Jayasuriya in One day cricket. period.

  • on August 17, 2013, 12:27 GMT

    1) My reading of this analysis is that regular batsmen who are capable of bowling 5-6 overs on an average are more valuable than specialist bowlers who can bat for 15-20 runs. 2) A discussion on all rounders must mention Gilchrist. It goes beyond saying that he redefined the batting role of the wicketkeeper. I consider Gilchrist as an allrounder as he substituted two players (Taylor and Healy) at once 3) Regarding great all round performances, my addition to the list would be Aravinda De Silva in 1996 WC Final, 3 wickets (including 2 set batsmen)m a catch, and then scoring an unbeaten hundred after coming in at 23/2 in a world cup final chase
    [[
    For me to push de Silva up, I would take into account context, in this case the importance of the match, into the picture.
    Dhoni is also an all-rounder. But let us stick to the traditional definition.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • SG_Styles on August 17, 2013, 14:41 GMT

    Good article ! I alwyas thought that all-rounders benefit teams more in the limited-overs format than the specialist ones. Having a couple of quality all-rounders in the line-up will certainly make any team a formiddable. Talking about the players, TenDo stands out. Though he has played majority of his matches against associates, one can not take away what he has achieved with all those facilities available to him at an associate country. And also his performances in the counties and in the leagues across the world are not bad either. Andrew Flintoff, is another candidate for being the best all rounder ever. He could change the course of the match with his batting at any instance although his bowling skills were quite superior to his batting. Freddie could swing at 140-145 kph continuously and then hit those giagantous sixes.. Just a kinda player every captain always want in his team. Among the rest Watson, Shakib and Klusener are stand-outs. Others dont fill the criteria of a shorter format all-rounder to great extent (in my view).

  • JustInfinity on August 17, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    Excellent analysis. Thanks. It feels a bit unfair though due to the fact that some of these allrounders such as Akram, Kapil, Pollock, Razzaq etc came on to bowl in the first few overs to top order batsman while other all rounders primarily seemd to take *easy* lower order wickets. Could we weight the average (a weighted average) so that it reflects the top-middle order wickets? Then the analysis can be fair. Somehow the impact of Razzaq seems higher than Afridi but in the analysis it seems otherwise.
    [[
    I think numbers do not lie. While accepting that there are hidden nuances behind numbers, the value of numbers cannot be over-emphasized.
    One thing I would never do is to confuse career leval analyses with match level tweaks. The opening bowlers have the benefit that they are bowling with the newer ball, have catchers available and the batsmen, until recent rule changes, tended to attack. This would help them to pick up more wickets than a bowler who bowls in the middle overs.
    Afridi delivered on the field for 100 more matches. Their bowling figures are comparable as well as batting average. But Afridi delivered 30 more runs per 100 balls.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • red_forever on August 17, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    The moment i read the Title and the 1st Para i could make out what kind of comments people would be upto. It isnt Tendo's fault that he dint play more matches against Test(or so called Superior) nations. It is ICC's fault. Look at Fifa. Tahiti played in Confed Cup and lost humiliatingly but the confidence they would take home cant be calculated. So where ICC failed there Fifa Succeeded. He averaged 50 in the 2011 world cup all matches he played were against Test nations. If given more matches he might/would have played at the same level. Yes his bowling records look bad against test nations. IF we look at the match against Eng he scored 119 in just 110 balls and took 2/47 in 10. He almost won Oranges for the Dutch. We should feel bad that we lost a player to ICC and other Test nations boards that he and others(O'Briens) dont get more chances to Play. This very apathy has made Tendo give up playing for Dutch and make a living by playing T20 leagues. He destroyed all in BPL.
    [[
    ten Do's case is a lesson for all. A top class player who got minimum exposure but did the best he could do. I feel the run-equivalence of 100+ "runs" per match is something we cannot ignore. Maybe there is no comparison. But these figures are comparable to Murali in Tests.
    And the tragedy is that Kevin O'Brien does not get a 50k dollar bid in IPL.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on August 17, 2013, 16:14 GMT

    for bowling, delivery per mach is a better indicator than bowling index though the bowling economy has to be incorporated. the bowling index gives advantage to the lesser bowlers, the part timers usualy bowl when the field restrictions are lifted or when there is not much pressure, also when they are not bowling well they are not required to still bowl there quota of overs . since odi is a limited over game allrounders shud be amongst the 5 frontline bowlers all the time to provide real value. wickets to inns ratio takes into account strike rate and amount of bowling per match. a seperate value for economy can be added. eg taking base economy rate as 4.4( 44 runs per 10 overs) for every 0.1 drop in bowling econ 0.7 points could be added to bowling run equaliser delivery per match value and vice versa. value of shane watson with econ 0.4 worse than the base value 4.4 becomes 31.2- 2.8 = 28.4, for a economical bowler like hadlee he would get added value for his economy.
    [[
    Overall I feel the delivery per match is a simpler and more effective indicator. It rewards the players who score more runs and capture more wickets per match. Just to strengthen it I could incorporate the two measures of strike rate and accuracy as multiplying factors.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • calcu on August 17, 2013, 18:58 GMT

    Surely, batting avg will be a better option than RPI!! Otherwise, a great article.
    [[
    One of my favourite subjects. In Tests the Batting average makes a lot more sense than ODIs. There are limited number of overs and it is far more easier for a 5/6/7 batsman to remain not out than a 1/2/3/4 batsman. Given below are a few NO % values.
    Amla: 8.2% (still an average of 50+)
    Tendulkar: 9.1%
    Hayden: 9.7%
    Sangakkara: 10.9%
    ...
    Dhoni: 28.5%
    Clarke: 20.2%
    Bevan: 34.2%
    Hussey: 28.0%
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • MilPand on August 17, 2013, 22:02 GMT

    I personally prefer a measure where raw figures are not used for either discipline and individual performances are valued based on match situation. I had similarly disagreed with some of the assumptions you made in 'series "colour"-washes in Test cricket -http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/620154.html '.

    Yet I do appreciate the benefits of an all-rounder index based on actual values for one discipline and derived values for another. This approach is easier to understand and implement. The most important thing is that the key insights can be drawn relatively quickly. For example your assertion that " In the 210 4/5/6 match Test series played so far, the England win over India is the most comprehensive and devastating in history of Test cricket. " remains true irrespective of the complexity of the model.

    Flintoff during 2005 Ashes was temporarily a great all-rounder which is an observation not a criticism. The numbers here reveal that he was a better ODI performer.
    [[
    Milind,
    Where career-level figures are used there is bound to be some amount of "golden numbering", as fondly call these weights. Pl also see the response to Al Mindondo.
    Why do you say actual values for one discipline and derived values for another discipline. All four are actual values. The fact is that the batting measures are published and tabled independently. The bowling values are combined and published as a single measure. At least as far I am concerned I would always show career figures in all four measures.
    Flintoff, Jayasuriya and ten DO are the people who stand out in this analysis.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Bonehead_maz on August 17, 2013, 23:58 GMT

    Glad someone else brought up the 'keepers being considered all rounders these days ( I'dd add ABDV to Gilchrist and Dhoni there). I of course have no idea how their stats could be incorporated (or indeed similarly added value to all rounders like Symmonds when considering fielding - IVA Richards 3 run outs in World cup final springs to mind).
    [[
    Tough to do any normalising between bowler dismissals and wicket-keepr dismissals. So the best way out is an honourable mention to Gilchrist, Boucher, Sangakkara, Dhoni, Moin Khan, McCullum et al. Hats off to these true all-rounders.
    Ananth
    : ]]

    Glad to see Phil Simmons make these lists - saw him bowl a few devastating spells. Sadly? I lost interest in ODI's at about the time I thought Simon O'Donnell a VERY handy 50 over all rounder. (note now he didn't score 1,500 runs)

    Agree with those mentioning Aravinda's effort in that final as very special.

    I must add that Greg Chappell and Viv Richards were far from poor bowlers in 50 over games (same to be said for a younger SRT). Further, to a right hander, the round the wicket "darts" from the Jayasuriya and Lehmann types is always hard to score quickly from.
    [[
    And now Jadeja is joining these players.
    Ananth
    : ]]