Test All-rounders: an alternative BCG view

This article is a completely different graphical look at the Test all-rounders and is a continuation of the similar articles related to ODI.

Just to recap, Bruce Henderson of BCG (Boston Consulting Group) had created these charts during 1968 to study the Growth-Share aspects of products/business units. This is an excellent way to study two related variables together. These are plotted on a graph which is split into four equal (or unequal) size quadrants. The placement of a particular player, gives excellent insight into the player's position in the galaxy of all-rounders. However please do not forget that this is clearly a two-dimensional graph between two related variables. Also these are all career figures.

I elected to do an analysis of all-rounders, to start with, for Tests since that offers the clearest two-dimensional look. The all-rounder, based on a traditional definition, is clearly a two-dimensional player, Batting and Bowling. We can derive a lot of insight into the position of all-rounders and their relative strengths by doing the BCG charts.

As usual the real test starts in the selection criteria. Unlike the ODI bowlers and batsmen where a straightforward runs/wkts cut-off was used. Here the situation is too complex for a simple cut-off. We have multiple tasks in front of us. We have to have a reasonable number of players, not too many nor too few. The all-rounder standard should not be diluted. After a lot of trial and error efforts, I have decided on the following criteria.

1. All players who have scored 2000 runs or more and captured 100 wkts or more will be automatically included. This gets 23 players in.

2. Out of the remaining, players who have scored 1500 runs or more and captured 75 wkts or more will be included if their Batting average is better than their Bowling average. The later condition ensures that very average all-rounders like Emburey, Prabhakar, Streak et al are excluded. This gets 9 players in. Some of the players who get in are Faulkner, Armstrong, Mushtaq Mohd et al.

3. Now to take away the bowlers who can bat, players who have scored below 25 runs per test will be removed. This means two players, Warne (21.9 rpt) and Kumble (19.0 rpt) go out. Very fair since these two are not really all-rounders.

4. Also to take away the occasional bowlers who are primarily batsmen, all players who captured below one wicket per test will go out. This is fair since this is an analysis of all-rounders. So Hammond (0.98 wpt), Jayasuriya (0.87 wpt) and Steve Waugh (0.55 wpt) go out. I have been quite hard-nosed about this definition and have not been influenced by the very loose definition of all-rounders. Even though Steve Waugh has been called an all-rounder, there is no way he can be classified as one in view of the fact that he has captured one wicket in two tests.

That leaves 27 all-rounders for analysis.

Now we go to the analysis. This time I will do two different BCG analyses. The first will be based on two qualitative measures, the Bowling average and Batting average. The second will be based on two quantitative measures, Wickets per test and Runs per test. The advantage with this method is that it is not longevity based and gives equal chances to players whether they scored 11126 runs or 1968 runs or captured 431 wickets or 75 wickets.

I have not made any adjustment for the period or home country. My very loose conclusion is that such adjustments are not needed in an all-rounder analysis. If a player played during a batting-centric period, he would have the opportunity to have better batting figures which should compensate for the expected lower bowling figures. If a player played during a bowling-centric period, he would have the opportunity to have poorer batting figures which should be compensated by the expected better bowling figures. Similarly if he played on batting-friendly pitches, his better batting figures should compensate for the lesser bowling figures and vice versa on bowler-friendly pitches.

a typical BCG all-rounder chart
© Anantha Narayanan

The above represents a typical BCG chart. The players in the top-right quadrant, the red one, are the "Top all-rounders". They are to the right of the Batting average line and above the Bowling average line. The ones in the bottom right quadrant, the green one, are the "Batting centric all-rounders". They bat very well but can at best function as fourth/fifth bowler for the team. Similarly, the top left quadrant, the blue one, contains the "Bowling centric all-rounders". They are normally the leading bowlers for their teams but bat at 7/8. The bottom left quadrant, the black one, represents the "Average all-rounders". They play the supporting roles in both batting and bowling.

Now let us view the graphs. I experimented a lot with the sloping dividing lines, as suggested by Sriraman, but could not work out a clear formula. The basis for a proper slope could not be worked out. Hence I have stuck to the dividing lines parallel to the axes. However I have made two significant changes, as suggested by Murali. The lines are drawn now at the centre but the scaling on either side of the lines is different. This makes for very good viewing despite the lopsided data. Sobers and Kallis cause this lopsidedness on the batting front with their extraordinarily high batting averages. On the other side, Shastri and Hooper cause this lopsidedness with their 40+ bowling averages. The numbers are shown along with the player names. I have also shaded the quadrants with the appropriate colour.

First the qualitative one, based on averages. I have also made my comments on the positioning of players without drawing any conclusions.

qualitative graph based on averages
© Anantha Narayanan

Imran Khan and Miller are the leading all-rounders in this analysis. Aubrey Faulkner's presence would please the followers of Test cricket across the ages. The under-rated Trevor Goddard of South Africa is a surprise, but well-deserved, presence in this top quadrant. Botham is comfortably in this top group.

The batting centric group of all-rounders is led by the incomparable Sobers and Kallis, both with 55+ batting averages. There is another clutch of four all-rounders led by Greig, Brian McMillan (a surprise entrant - he just about makes it) and two greats of the 1910-20s, Armstrong and Woolley. Cairns just about misses the top quadrant. Two very average all-rounders, with awful bowling averages, Hooper and Shastri just about make it to this quadrant.

The bowling centric is a well-populated quadrant. This group is led by Pollock and has two greats of yonder, Noble and Rhodes. then we have Hadlee, Benaud and Wasim Akram.

The last group has Flintoff, Mankad and Vettori as clear residents. Vaas also belongs here. Bailey and Kapil Dev are on the borderline.

No Player            Runs   Avge  Wkts   Avge  ARIdx1

I have presented the table above. The only additional field is the ARIdx1 value which is the Batting average / Bowling average. This is a far better measure than Batting average - Bowling average. An example will explain this. 50 and 30 would give an index value of 1.67 and a difference of 20. 40 and 20 would give an index value of 2.00 and the same difference of 20. It is clear that 40 and 20 is much better than 50 and 30. The difference of 10 in bowling is far more important.

Now let us view the second graph, which is quantitative one, based on per test values. I have again made my comments on the positioning of players without drawing any conclusions.

quantitative graph based on per Test values
© Anantha Narayanan

Faulkner is comfortably placed in the top group. Botham and Miller are in this top group. Cairns is a surprise resident of this quadrant and this is a reminder to the New Zealanders that there were two top quality all-rounders there.

The batting centric group of all-rounders is led by Sobers and Kallis. Their wickets per test value is quite low, either side of 2.0, to let them move to the top quadrant.

The bowling centric is again a well-populated quadrant. This group is led by Hadlee and Imran Khan. Mankad moves up into this quadrant.

The last group is led by Bailey and Rhodes.

No Player            Runs   RpT  Wkts   WpT  ARIdx2

The second table is presented here. The ARIdx2 value is simply RpT + WpT x 20. The 20 has been derived based on these all-rounder figures rather than the all-tests figures.

We can take a batting average of over-40 and a bowling average of below-20 to be a Bradmanesque all-rounder. No one exists like this. Even if we change to 40-plus and below-22 we have no one. Looking at the two charts, we can conclude that Miller, Faulkner and Imran Khan are right there in the leading group. It is of interest that Faulkner played for a weak team and Miller for a strong team. Pollock and Botham also belong there. The summary figures for the four top all-rounders are presented below. It will be difficult to question the credentials of any of the five. Only Botham is slightly out of place in this group. Even then his bowling average is better than the best Indian bowler ever, Bedi at 28.71.

Player            Runs@Avge   Wkts@Avge  Idx1    RpT  WpT   Idx2

Kapil Dev (31.05 and 29.65) does not belong to this group. Also if his bowling figures are adjusted because of bowling in the sub-continent, then his batting figures will get adjusted the other way. Similarly Hadlee (27.17 and 22.30) has too low a batting average. The bowling averages of Sobers and Kallis are quite high (31.59 and 34.04).

Finally let me conclude with a request to send in constructive comments which add value to the article. Bouquets or brickbats, it does not matter. If this article makes a young cricket follower look up GA Faulkner and Keith Miller in the records and marvel at their achievements, I would have achieved something.

My next article is a fascinating one analyzing Test Series. The Test Series, with their myiad variations as compared to the single tests provides scope for some interesting insights.

An important announcement to the readers. I have created an open mailid to which the comments and suggestions, not meant for publication, can be submitted. The mail id is ananth.itfigures@gmail.com. Since the readers would have to use a mail route I give the readers my assurance that the mail id is safe and will never be used by me for anything other than communicating with the reader specifically. This will not be part of any group mail nor will mails be cc'd.