One thing which makes Gilchrist a modern great is that he has achieved great things in both tests and one-day internationals - but he isn't the greatest: that honour goes to Jacques Kallis. People have criticised his lack of a killer instinct, but I'm with him when he sets aside these comments from the crowd. Only the legendary Gary Sobers has equalled his feat of over 8,000 runs and 200 wickets in test cricket. Kallis has also achieved the same feat in ODIs - a fantastic and unique pair. Only Kallis appears in the list of top 50 batsmen and top 50 bowlers when tests and ODIs are combined. Sobers also weighed in with 100 catches in tests, by the way - Kallis too, and he's well on the way to matching that feat in one-dayers. Sobers, of course, never had the chance to play many one-dayers, so it can't be proved he wouldn't have done just as well - but Kallis has done it, and that's why he gets my vote.

Hey,

I'm just wondering just when does a wicketkeeper become an allrounder? Clearly, the experts while arriving at this shortlist have excluded players who are exceptional batsman and merely competent keepers. Why the bias?

While batsmen and bowlers can have off days, glovemen have no such luxury. For eg, Sachin Tendulkar is inarguably an ODI legend despite being dismissed for a single digit score on more than a hundred occasions. No keeper will be allowed anywhere close to these many failures over a career. So for a player to keep his place in the team as a keeper over a longish period of time, he necessarily has to be a world class wicketkeeper. In additon, if he is a frontline batsman, he has to be considered as an allrounder.

The point of all this is that, in my opinion, players like Les Ames (Wisden obituary ,in 1990, called him the greatest keeper-batsman the game has seen), Andy Flower ( 50+ test average and keeper for 60 odd tests) and Alec Stewart (nearly 4500 runs and 250 dismissals as a keeper) should have made the shortlist ahead of Akram, Flintoff and Shastri.

And on a related note, according to the official ICC ratings, keepers don't count as allrounders. (thus multidimensional mavens like Brett Lee and James Franklin are rated amongst the world's leading allrounders)

And one last gripe, it'd have been nice if space could have been found for Golden age allrounders like George Hirst and W G Grace in this discussion.

No doubt. He is left-handed Viv Richards

A major factor in Aussies being number one in both forms of the game, is the asset they post in Gilchrist. No doubt the contribution he makes is generally overshadowed by the likes of Warne, Mcgrath, Ponting & Co. The subtle contributions he makes are not in large print unless either he bats devastatinlg or more likely when he fails, which is very rare.

Yes add the runs, catches, stumpings and the contribution provided through the old adage that the best V captain is one who is behind the batsman, he will form one of the greatest to have ever played in the modern era and more so the valuable contribution he has made for Aussie domination.

A lot has been said about the success of Warne and Mcgrath, if not for his contributions what would they be.

In my opinion, Gilchrist should have been in the team long before Healy retired, and I can safely predict, when he finally hangs his boots, aussies will be faced with a Rodney Marsh situation, wherein the true replacement in teh form of Healy took nearly a decade in the darkest ages of Aussie Cricket.

Gilchrist has become one of the best keepers in the history of the game.Has any other player acheived 8000runs/400dismisalls double in ODI cricket?In addition,he has an average of nearly 50 in tests(far higher than Marsh or Healy).

Thanks for putting the lovely article about Vinoo Mankad. Most fans today are not much aware of Vinoo's exploits, as also that of the likes of Monty Noble. Even the exploits of the likes of Keith Miller is judged solely by stats. For a moment forget fans, even players today are not aware of Vinoo. Didnt Sehwag suggest(after he and Dravid had come close to Vinoo/Pankaj's opening partnership record - Vinoo who?)Players like Vinoo, Noble, Miller etc have enriched cricket's history and deserve their due respects.

Vinoo's impact on Indian cricket was quiet unsurpassed. For the better part of his career he was India's main bowler. Only towards the end did he get any support(Subhas Gupte). As a batsman he batted in all batting position and scored 5 centuries in 44 Tests(1 less than Imran in half the number of Tests played). Mind you all his success came when India was a novice team, almost like BD today, and also when Vinoo was plus 30.

I would also like to say that there are a few names missing. One such name is Aubrey Faulkner from South Africa. 25 Test 1754runs@40 and 82 wickets@26.6. His credential are far more impressive than many other in the list.

Saurabh

Not a bad thought that a good wicket keeper-batsman be considered an allrounder. After all, while he does not bowl, the "classical" allrounder does not keep wicket.

My comment on Gilchrist is not related to being an allrounder. I really believe he is a better batsman than Hayden. Some may therefore argue he is first a batsman and then a wicket keeper.

By-the-way, what considerations should be given to the following characteristics when considering who is an allrounder:

- A good fielder who is also a good batsman or
vice versa
- A good fielder who is also a good bowler or
vice versa

Share your thoughts

I think wk/batsmen are a separate category to traditional allrounders.

You can compare the batting averages and styles of Gilchrist, Andy Flower, Sangakkara and Mark Boucher, but how do you compare their keeping ability. Flower kept for the weakest side in world cricket, Gilchrist the strongest, Sangakkara somewhere inbetween.

It's undoubted that Flower would have more victims if he'd been keeping to Warne and McGrath throughout his career, and vice versa Gilchrist would have less. Do Sangakkara and Gilchrist score higher because they have kept to two of the finest spinners in test history?

I suppose the acid test is whether Gilchrist, Flower, Sangakkara, Knott et al would have been their country's first choice keepers on keeping ability alone, and whether they would have been chosen purely as a top 6 batsmen for their sides. There's definitely a case for the first 3 but probably not Knott, whose batting was effective but eccentric, but was chosen above Bob Taylor because Bob couldn't bat.

Think WK / batsmen should be a separate category to batting / bowling allrounders.

To quote Aussie commentator, writer and former test captain Ian Chappell : 'The difference in ability between Bradman and the next best batsman is the same as that between Garry Sobers and the next best all-rounder.'

This man was an unbelieveable talent and athlete. He is one of the best batsmen ever, by far he is the most versatile bowler ever and also an unbelieveable close-in fielder.

Sir Don Bradman himself said that Sobers' 254 for the rest of the world against Australia was the best innings EVER played in Australia.

He is the only allrounder selected (at #2) in Wisden's 5 Cricketers of the 2oth century.

Surely, the highest accolade up for grabs in this poll is for 2nd place as this race is won before it even starts.

Those with any knowledge about the game will tell you that the man who was initially picked as a left-arm swing bowler and retired with 8000+ runs at an average of 57+ is the greatest all rounder now and forever......SIR GARFIELD SOBERS.

gilly has won 76% of the tests & 70% of the ODI's he played in, kallis having won 45% of the tests & 63 % of the ODI's. i think gilly is a better player than kallis

Reading all of those amazing records and performances of allrounders past makes me realise one thing - there will be less and less of them.

Cricket is becoming more specialised and more professional and since the quality of cricket is so much higher these days, it is just too difficult to do both at a top level.

When you look at the modern allrounders in the group (and much as I love Gilchrist, I just can't include him, otherwise we'll have to start including great slip fielders etc), they all have a very clear strength.

Kallis is a world-class batsman who bowls useful medium pace (maybe medium fast). Also, does Kallis ever win games for his team, or does he just draw them? If there is a least watchable allrounder poll taken, I'll be sure to mention him.

Flintoff should not even be on the list, (I just checked Chris Cairns' record and its better in basically every respect), but he is becoming an excellent bowler - but his bowling average probably hasn't caught up yet after years of mediocrity. But a batting average of less than 33 is hardly remarkable. He is by no means good enough to be picked as a specialist number 6 batsman (though after the Ashes, England might take an average of 33 for its batsmen).

Pollock is the best of the current allrounders - one of the best bowlers of his generation and a batting average of about 32.

But 2 players on the list really stand out statistically - Imran Khan and Keith Miller. Both average about 37 as batsmen (which suggests both could have played as specialist batsmen) and bowling averages of under 23, which is quite remarkable. In todays terms, only a handful of bowlers (and one pretty effective thrower) are around that mark or better.

By the way - how does Ravi Shastri get a mention? A bowling average of 41? I've vomited better test bowling careers than that. That must have been a joke.

Hi,

I wondered why Sanath Jayasuriya was not considered in the 20 Allrounders list.

As far as shere numbers go

Batting:

Tests: Almost 7000 Runs at 40.42
ODIs: Almost 12,000 Runs at 32.87

Bowling:

Tests: Almost 100 Wickets at 34.17
ODIs: 285 Wickets at 36.96

Fielding:

Tests: 78 Catches
ODIs: 111 Catches

Now if you are considering only Tests, then Having a batting average higher than the bowling equivalent, for over 100 Test matches itself should be worthy of a mention I believe.

As far as ODI players go, Sanath is immortal! Not many players have ever taken a game away from a team quite the way Sanath has, over and over and OVER again!

Bowlers fear him the same way batsmen feared Akram (ask Venkatesh Prasad :P)

I don't have enough knowledge to choose which player I think he should replace from the list, but I feel Mike Procter may be the most appropriate purely because he hasn't had the opportunity to prove himself at the highest level, whereas Sanath has lead the cause of transforming a minnow team into World Champions.

Well somebody just mentioned aboce that Adam Gilchrist is left handed Viv Richards...i beg to disagree Viv Richards at his prime was right handed Adam Gilchrist I think this settles the debate

I think Adam Gilchrist is possibly the only player on this list who would make it into the team as a genuine player on either count.

That being said, there are people like Sobers,Pollock, Khan etc. that are exceptional in one aspect and decent in the other.

many people criticise the fact that pollock,akram khan etc. bat very far down the order and they therefore aren't good batsman, but when you realise having them as an allrounder means you save an extra spot in the order for a specialist batsman, and a captain would like to keep the bowling all rounders as fresh as possible.

Also, where is Chris Cairns, Sanath Jayasuriya, Sachin Tendulkar and Shane Warne? I'd rate all 4 above some in this list.

Irfan Pathan will enter that list in the future by my guesses.

Jacques Kallis shouldn't be even be considered in the 20 Allrounders list. Countless times has Kallis had the oppurtunity to put teams to the sword but he never does. He doesn't even try! No matter how great an average he has,he will never reach the greatness of say a Ricky Ponting. The moment Ponting steps onto the pitch, he always tries to dominate and put the bowlers under pressure. You never see Kallis try to dominate despite his obvious batting ability and he is not that good a bowler. Personally I consider the agressive Jacob Oram a better allrounder despite the weaker stats.