The Best Current All-rounder?

Shakib Al Hasan, returning from a disciplinary ban, took a 6for in the first test against Zimbabwe, and followed it up with a stroke-filled hundred in the 2nd game that is ongoing. He has a fine record in all formats of the game as an all-rounder. Is Shakib the best all-rounder currently playing the game? Who else could be the contenders?
Shane Watson? Is Watson as good a bowler as Shakib is? Is he clearly better with the bat?
Ravichandran Ashwin is a bowling all-rounder who doesn't have the control with the ball that Shakib has in overseas conditions. Ravindra Jadeja is not as good as Shakib with bat or ball. Vernon Philander is a bowler who can bat, Angelo Mathews is a batsman who can bowl. Dwayne Bravo who hasn't been picked for test cricket for almost 4 years, isn't a bowler of Shakib's class, and even with the bat, I think Shakib is better as indicated by their figures as well.
Moeen Ali in his young test career, is the only other player along with Shakib who bats in the top 6 and is the lead spinner as well. But Ali's bowling needs to go a long long way to get close to Shakib's, and Moeen hasn't been much better with the bat either.
So lets debate.......

I'd go with Philander. But it's definitely more competitive now than when Kallis was around

msp you have something against the English.....your list did not incluide any of Stokes, Woakes or Braod.....all of them genuine bowling allrounders

KP_fan wrote:msp you have something against the English.....your list did not incluide any of Stokes, Woakes or Braod.....all of them genuine bowling allrounders

Yeah well, Stokes indeed. Woakes is not a regular player in the side, he has to first establish himself. Broad is a slogger these days, though there certainly was serious potential ones upon a time.......
Shakib, Watson, Stokes?

kingraf wrote:I'd go with Philander. But it's definitely more competitive now than when Kallis was around

Big Vern is a player I like a lot, but he's a bowling all-rounder at best in my book. No top 6 material...... . Think Shakib can make any side including that of SA as an all-rounder these days. Obviously they would give anything for a spinner of his class, and as an all-rounder, he can be as productive a batsman as the inconsistent JP Duminy. Don't see Philander batting regularly in the top 7 for SA....... Australia who have gone in with players like Maxwell can certainly consider Shakib, Shakib can easily replace Ravindra Jadeja in the Indian lineup or Ali in the English lineup or most in the WI top 7 or Neesham or Anderson in the NZ lineup.
Now those 2 are additions to my original list.
Shakib, Watson, Stokes, Neesham, Anderson.......

Watson hasn't played for so long it's hard to tell. But even then his bowling is more along the Matthews vein I would have said. He is certainly as much of a front-line bowler as Shakib.

Moeen Ali has the potential to be a Shakib type player for England, but it is surely too early to tell.
Ashwin could actually be a genuine all-rounder, but at the moment he is less good with bad and ball than Shakib.

Woakes is one who I would say has the potential to be a genuine all-rounder: he is obviously technically capable of batting in the top 6, and his bowling is improving.

Stokes's batting I am still not 100% convinced by, but he may be another.

I quite liked what little I saw of Mitch Marsh in the UAE, but he may end up being another batsman who bowls.

The others mentioned on this thread are nowhere near IMO. Philander is a fantastic bowler and useful batsman, but to call him an all-rounder in internationals is stretching things (has he even got an international 100?).

Shakib by a distance IMO. At the moment he would get into any other side quite comfortably.

My knowledge of current world cricket is far from great and so I'm not the best to answer the title question. However, I'll try my luck with a few observations.

Shakib's record is good although with all due respect (which, as we all know, means ''very little respect'') to Zimbabwe, we shouldn't get too carried away by his recent performances against them.

Anyway, besides Shakib, who else is there? I'm not convinced there is actually anyone else who merits being a genuine contender - today at least.

In my book, an all-rounder is someone who is good enough (or, at least, nearly good enough) to gain a place in his side as both a batsman and a bowler. Few achieve that at international level. Those who did or came some way close include Sobers, Miller, Kallis, Procter, Greig, Botham and Flintoff. Brilliant bowler though he was, I would struggle to include Hadlee as an all-rounder as his batting (even though it at times helped support a poor New Zealand team) was too short of international class. Similarly, Viv Richards remains categorised by me as one of the world's greatest ever batsmen but not an all-rounder; yes, he bowled, often containingly and took a few wickets along the way, but never merited a place for just his bowling.

In line with my comments above, I was very surprised to see Philander get a mention in msp's article. I saw Philander batting for Somerset against Surrey in a county game at the Oval a couple of years ago. He came in around 8 or 9. That looked about the right spot for him. He's no mug with the willow but equally he's a long way off going higher up the order and being picked purely as a middle order batsman (even at county level). In line with Mike's comments, I still view Philander as a very fine cricketer - just not an all-rounder.

Of others who might come into contention, I have to confine myself to England players as they're the ones I've most seen and like to think I know something about. The guy at the head of the queue at the moment has to be Moenn Ali. I still suspect his bowling success in the summer was more due to Indian weaknesses than his unique ability - nonetheless, he's the man in possession and rightly so given his current stats. I'm also taken with his batting capability a lot more than many posters here but accept his county form in that regard needs to be displayed more at international level.

I agree completely with Mike about Woakes. I've been a strong supporter of his batting for some time, probably going back to the old 606 days. My concerns were always about his bowling - that has certainly improved in the last year but whether he possesses the zip and penetration to fully succeed at the top level still has to be shown. If he does, then he could be right up there. Worth mentioning at this point that a proper all-rounder should also have a safe pair of hands - Sobers certainly set that standard. Whilst I wouldn't put Woakes in that class, he can certainly hold a catch - I saw him take three splendid boundary catches in a limited overs game at Guildford a couple of years back.

As for Stokes, he's got ability, flair and aggression but needs to become more of a thinking cricketer and know when control needs to be key.

^ that's a good point..what is the definition of an all rounder ?
In my view......an all rounder criteria:

1) He must get in the team purely on his bowling skills

an then contribute with the bat as an upside.

Hadlee ; Imran, Kapil, Botham, Flintoff all met this criteria

Sobers, Kallis, recently Jadeja, Sammy, Bravo, Corey anderson, neesham, Binny do not meet the criteria...they are either batsman who can also bowl to varying degree.
or bits and pieces who are picked as bowlers ahead of better bowlers because they ca bat a bit.

I can't comment on BD cricketers as I do not follow their cricket at all....their inclusion to test cricket is a sham and a shame

2) Once criteria-1 is met( getting into the team as a pure bowler) then all rounder is one whose batting and bowling averages are more or less equal as the starting point....
and higher the batting average and lower the bowling average...better the allroudner.....

and using that as a criteria....Vernon Philander is undoubtedly the best allrounder in the game today ....holds his place as a specialist bowler( crietria-1)....average 27 with bat and 21 with the ball.

and then the likes of Starc, Johnson, Stokes, Broad, Jordan, and possibly Woakes in near future can display some batting consistency and work their way towards being allrounders

Look at the amazing riches of Eng.....4 guys on that list

PS* Using the criteria above Imran Khan is games greatest allrounder

KP_f,

I actually meant to include Imran Khan in my listing of past international all-rounders. You are right to bring his name to the fore.

Your post is a good one but you don't set the batting bar high enough for my liking.

I agree with guildfordbat, the mere fact that Philander makes the allrounder rankings suggest there is a void in world cricket at the moment as far as allrounders are concerned.

My question is though, why?

Philander is an all rounder though. He was good enough to earn a call up as one in 2007. He's also way better with the bat than his average suggests. He's half century against Australia in Cape Town was very, very good (not sure too many County cricketers could have batted that long against against a rampant Johnson, Siddle, and Harris... well we know the English couldn't ). He's knock vs Sri Lanka was again huge. Not in terms if runs, but application, organisation, ability to execute skill levels under huge pressure. He's 60-odd against England was another very important knock (and part of a match winning all round display). Big game batter

I was going to point out the omission of Imran Khan as a bit harsh guildford. Also, I would add Kapil Dev to your list.

My definition of all-rounder is much closer to guildford's than yours KPF.

It is often hard to argue about whether a player would have got into a side purely on the basis of one skill, when he so obviously possesses more. For example, Kallis in his youth was a genuinely nippy and terrific bowler. As the workload took its toll on him, he bowled less and became more of a stock bowler or partnership breaker. I would argue strongly that had Kallis not been one of the greatest batsmen of all time, his bowling would have stayed stronger and got him into most test sides during that period. Conversely I always thought Pollock (Shaun) was a technically very good batsman, easily capable of batting in the top 6 (a bit reminiscent of Woakes in some ways) but chose to focus more on his bowling (until the end of his career, when his batting improved noticeably).

I wouldn't suggest a perfect definition, but I would argue strongly that a definition which allows Philander and Hadlee to be considered all-rounders whilst excluding Sobers and Kallis has gone wrong somewhere. Even more so when the likes of Starc are talked about as potential all-rounders.

Somewhere in my definition though would be the requirement to have a reasonable number of centuries, and 5-wicket hauls. That shows IMO that you can play a match-winning part with both bat and ball reasonably regularly (rather than take the occasional wicket/score some handy runs, with possibly the odd big haul/score).

Hadlee averaged 27 with the bat, and was not imo, an all-rounder, so that counts Philander out. A player averaging at least 32ish with the bat, and/or between 30-32 and less with the ball sounds about right.
So:

Beefy
Kallis
Sobers
Miller
Imran
Dev
Pollock

Plus a few more

A young Kallis was certainly a true all rounder. Think at one stage he was simultaneously in the top ten for both bowling and batting. That's rare form.

Not convinced about a player having to get into a team with either discipline either. Flintoff would not have got into the England team if he couldn't bowl, that's for sure. Pollock if he couldn't bowl? No chance.

Pollock is a possibility if he couldn't bowl... The 90s-2005 era was not exactly filled with danger batsmen. If Dippennaar Could get nearly forty test Caps, I'm sure pollock would have, as I think he could have been a 40ish average batter. Even now, he's average is higher than Boeta's

kingraf wrote:Pollock is a possibility if he couldn't bowl... The 90s-2005 era was not exactly filled with danger batsmen. If Dippennaar Could get nearly forty test Caps, I'm sure pollock would have, as I think he could have been a 40ish average batter. Even now, he's average is higher than Boeta's

He was ok with the bat, but was a number 8 wasn't he. I really couldn't see him batting in the top six. Two hundreds only. Just noticed that he had 39 not outs as well. Does well for the average.

Of course it does... but I'd put money on a few of those not outs having been starts.

there is no rigid rule for what an all rounder definition, but if we look at 3 or 4 possibilities possibilities:

--Good enough to play in the side on merit either as a batsman or a bowler.....phew!...that's a tight criteria and you' barely get a double digits list of qualified candidates.

--good enough to play as a specialist batsman .......and can also bowl.......well with this criteria he cannot be game changer / impact player

--good enough to play as a specialists bowler...and the day he gets a big 50 or a hundred he will be a game changer.....Hadlee, Flintoff, Kapil, and even Broad and Philander..in that category

--needs to count on both disciplines to get in.....yeah that's the classic bits and pieces player..... Sammy, Holliake, Pringle category

kingraf wrote:Of course it does... but I'd put money on a few of those not outs having been starts.

Yes, be a bit unfair to criticise his century count if he had a few unbeaten 50'. Anyway, I'll leave you to look it up

Think Pollock was a better batsman than his record; he only really focused on his batting in his last few years, once his bowling stopped having the impact it once had. I think you'd struggle to call him a true all-rounder based on his career, my point was more that had he not been such a good bowler, I'm convinced he had the ability (and the drive) to play test cricket as a batsman alone. But it's more a theoretical point than anything else.

As an aside, it does seem that almost everybody mentioned on this thread is an attacking/dashing batsman. There seem to be practically no all-rounders who bat like a Barrington or even a Hussey. Probably something to do with the personality of all-rounders.

KPF I disagree that a batsman who bowls cannot be a game-changer. His destructive innings remain equally as distructive, and if he is capable of the odd game-changing spell with the ball surely that is as likely as a destructive innings from a bowler who bats?

Disagree Mike. A bowler is always more valuable. So all things being equal, a bowler who can bat, is likely to be a greater matchwinner than a batter who can bowl. Five wickets in twenty one balls is more valuable a run a ball hundred.

I agree (perhaps I expressed myself poorly) that bowlers tend to be the more likely match-winners (not sure that makes them more valuable; a cricket team needs all sorts, not just match-winners), but a batsman who bowls CAN still be a match-winner. With both bat and ball. To say the likes of Viv Richards, Garry Sobers couldn't be game changer/impact players is way off IMO.

Mike Selig wrote:I agree (perhaps I expressed myself poorly) that bowlers tend to be the more likely match-winners (not sure that makes them more valuable; a cricket team needs all sorts, not just match-winners), but a batsman who bowls CAN still be a match-winner. With both bat and ball. To say the likes of Viv Richards, Garry Sobers couldn't be game changer/impact players is way off IMO.

I suppose that's a different statement altogether, though. Not one I made, so I'll leave that to KPF, just stating that you're more likely to win tests if the game is being changed with the ball, rather than the willow.
(Funny old game cricket, isn't it? Must be the only sport where the matchwinners are NOT the ones getting the adulation and fanfare.

Would it be fair to say that an all-rounder is a player who is fairly equal in both disciplines? Therefore, players like Derek Pringle, Simon O'Donnell are all-rounders, just not very good ones.

Mike Selig wrote:Think Pollock was a better batsman than his record; he only really focused on his batting in his last few years, once his bowling stopped having the impact it once had. I think you'd struggle to call him a true all-rounder based on his career, my point was more that had he not been such a good bowler, I'm convinced he had the ability (and the drive) to play test cricket as a batsman alone. But it's more a theoretical point than anything else.

that applies to Imran and Kapil also ...when their bowling declined......their batting improved visibly...if someone was to run stats...they both probably averaged 40 and 35 respectively in the last 1/3rd of their careers
and probably Kallis too....became a super batsman only after his bowling speed and workload declined.
These guys were so naturally talented that it was just a matter of giving focus in a specific area.

KPF I disagree that a batsman who bowls cannot be a game-changer. His destructive innings remain equally as distructive, and if he is capable of the odd game-changing spell with the ball surely that is as likely as a destructive innings from a bowler who bats?

a batsman who can bowl......off-course can play destructive inning
that he can produce game changing spells with ball.......is not impossible but highly unlikely.
he is more likely to be a partnership breaker.....although Border once produced a 10-fer in Sydney to beat WI at their peak around 1985 timeframe...but that's about the only "game changing" spells I remember from a batsman who bowls.

On the contrary game change innings from bowelrs who can bat......Broad, Stokes,Philander, Hadlee, Akram ...there are about 20 + that i can recollect with a little effort

Stella - Being equally inept at both does not make you an all rounder. It just means you're quite fortunate to be paid for being rank

Al Hasan is a superb all rounder. If he was from india, he'd be hyped I the moon and back...

Philander isn't an all-rounder, he's a bowler who can bat a bit..

Faulkner is certainly starting to make a move as an all-rounder, and very soon can be one of the best all-rounders in the world..

Stella - I think it's important to distinguish between bits 'n' pieces players and true all-rounders.

I remember being told many years ago that a very good all-rounder would be someone whose batting average when divided by his bowling average would equal or come near to 1.5. For example, a batting average of 39 and a bowling average of 26. That is setting the bar very high but it is still something I feel the best all-rounders should strive for.

Pringle was a bits 'n' pieces player with a good education.

Dr Pringle to me and you, Guildford

Thinking about what you said, I'm tending to agree, regarding Pringle.

As for your example (39 and 26). Has any player (min 30 tests) got those stats?

One aspect we have to bring into this discussion is the player's level of contribution and ability in different formats of the game. Again, Shakib wins hands down for me, in tests he averages over 38 with the bat and under 31 with the ball, in ODIs over 34 with the bat and more than 170 ODI wickets at over a wicket a game at a very fine economy rate just about 4.3 in today's ODI world. And he averages over 20 in T-20s with a healthy strike rate with the bat, and is a strike bowler who has a very acceptable economy rate.

Shakib takes another 5for, his 2nd of the match on top of his top-scoring effort in Bangladesh first innings of 137 with the bat as Bangladesh win the 2nd test against Zimbabwe.
I am mindful of Guildford's comment on Zimbabwe and the record against them, but even without that, Shakib is a very fine all-round cricketer, the best of his kind in the contemporary era.
And Guildford, Philander found a mention in the original article as a bowler who can bat.......

And as a sub-text, anyone remember Sachin Tendulkar's spells with the ball in Kolkata and Adelaide against Australia? If they are anything, they are match-defining!.......

And the only other all-rounders to have managed a century and 10 wickets in a test match are Imran Khan and Ian Botham!.

Stella wrote:Dr Pringle to me and you, Guildford

Thinking about what you said, I'm tending to agree, regarding Pringle.

As for your example (39 and 26). Has any player (min 30 tests) got those stats?

Stella - this is really one for Hoggy but with a lot of help from cricinfo, I've got three players who played a minimum of 30 Tests and whose batting average divided by bowling average exceeded 1.5:
* Garry Sobers 1.70
* Imran Khan 1.65
* Keith Miller 1.61.

For possible interest, I'll throw in the averages for some other suspects (certainly not meant to be comprehensive):
* Jacques Kallis 1.41
* Trevor Goddard (largely forgotten South Africa player of the '60s) 1.31
* Tony Greig 1.25
* Ian Botham 1.18
* Kapil Dev 1.05
*  Andrew Flintoff 0.97.

A very honourable mention as well to Mike Procter. In his 7 Test career (halted by the apartheid ban), his average was 1.67; that's even more remarkable as by common consent he didn't do himself justice with the bat averaging only 25 - however his bowling average was an incredible 15. I obviously accept this doesn't meet your minimum Test criteria but worth flagging that over his entire first-class career, Procter's average is 1.84. One of my all time favourites, someone who always gave everything.

One player who does meet your minimum criteria is Dr Derek Pringle, playing exactly 30 Tests. His average is 0.42.

msp83 wrote:One aspect we have to bring into this discussion is the player's level of contribution and ability in different formats of the game. Again, Shakib wins hands down for me, in tests he averages over 38 with the bat and under 31 with the ball, in ODIs over 34 with the bat and more than 170 ODI wickets at over a wicket a game at a very fine economy rate just about 4.3 in today's ODI world. And he averages over 20 in T-20s with a healthy strike rate with the bat, and is a strike bowler who has a very acceptable economy rate.

Msp - that's a very valid point. By way of my own example and without resorting to stats, I would certainly view Collingwood far more favourably and highly as an ODI all-rounder than at Test level.

Good to chat to you again. I certainly take the points made in your other posts today.

using that battinng / bowling and 30 test criteria:

Phailander has a ratio 1.3
Michael Clarke 1.33
steve waugh 1.36
alan border 1.29
sehwag 1.04


are these the greatest allrounders of all time?
or a confirmation.....extracting stats from data-base on a simplistic gross criteria can be rather mis-leading

That means they are either good batsmen who can bowl, or vice versa. Not all-rounders. Going by that, those calculations seem a tad off the mark. I prefer to look at averages, and watch the players of course.

Well to be fair I'm sure as well as the average you'd want a minimum number of wickets/runs. Otherwise Don Bradman is almost certainly the greatest ever all-rounder...

You've got the wrong figure for Kallis guildford: it's 1.70 (my guess if you took his SR rather than batting average).

As for batsmen bowling match-defining spells, Steve Waugh bowled a couple as well. One against South Africa on a fairly low and sluggish pitch, and he bowled stump to stump and picked up 3 or 4 wickets as it looked like South Africa were heading for a big lead.

It does always surprise me that when we discuss all-rounder people usually have Sobers, Botham, Imran Khan but all too often leave out Miller (and, until recently, Kallis).

Mike Selig wrote:Watson hasn't played for so long it's hard to tell. But even then his bowling is more along the Matthews vein I would have said. He is certainly as much of a front-line bowler as Shakib.

Moeen Ali has the potential to be a Shakib type player for England, but it is surely too early to tell.
Ashwin could actually be a genuine all-rounder, but at the moment he is less good with bad and ball than Shakib.

Woakes is one who I would say has the potential to be a genuine all-rounder: he is obviously technically capable of batting in the top 6, and his bowling is improving.

Stokes's batting I am still not 100% convinced by, but he may be another.

I quite liked what little I saw of Mitch Marsh in the UAE, but he may end up being another batsman who bowls.

The others mentioned on this thread are nowhere near IMO. Philander is a fantastic bowler and useful batsman, but to call him an all-rounder in internationals is stretching things (has he even got an international 100?).

Shakib by a distance IMO. At the moment he would get into any other side quite comfortably.

This, Moeen is like a poor mans version of Shakib - not that, its a bad thing, but Moeen is coming along, for me an allrounder is someone who can change the match with the ball or the bat, Shakib has proved this for about 5 years now, Moeen recently has started showing that he can do this also, Stokes looked good when i first saw him, but his batting is a bit mediocre to be honest

Has to be Shakib

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/797027.html

Averages 50 and 30 with the ball in test for the past few years, and averages 35 and 28 with the ball in ODI's

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/797145.html

'31 Years since a player has scored a hundred and taken 10 wickets in the same Test. Before Shakib, Imran Khan achieved this double against India at Faisalabad in 1983. Ian Botham is the only other player to have achieved this feat. Shakib is the first spinner.'

[quote="Stella"]That means they are either good batsmen who can bowl, or vice versa. Not all-rounders. Going by that, those calculations seem a tad off the mark. I prefer to look at averages, and watch the players of course.[/quote]

that is always the key...ypu cannot take subjectivity out of sports in general and cricket in particular.

Looked up Chris Cairns. Over 62 tests, averaged 33 with the bat and 29 with the ball. That's top class stuff. A definite all-rounder, although he, unlike say Imran, Kallis, didn't excel at one discipline.

R ashwin average 39 with the bat and 28 with the ball........ superior than Shakib

those who have seen Ashwin will know he will struggle to average even reverse in overseas conditions

Mike Selig wrote:Well to be fair I'm sure as well as the average you'd want a minimum number of wickets/runs. Otherwise Don Bradman is almost certainly the greatest ever all-rounder...

You've got the wrong figure for Kallis guildford: it's 1.70 (my guess if you took his SR rather than batting average).

As for batsmen bowling match-defining spells, Steve Waugh bowled a couple as well. One against South Africa on a fairly low and sluggish pitch, and he bowled stump to stump and picked up 3 or 4 wickets as it looked like South Africa were heading for a big lead.

It does always surprise me that when we discuss all-rounder people usually have Sobers, Botham, Imran Khan but all too often leave out Miller (and, until recently, Kallis).

Yes, apologies to all and particularly Kallis for the goof with his figure.

Certainly as well as a minimum number of appearances, there should be a minimum number of wickets/runs. I doubt if I could properly quantify that but there has to be some degree of reasonableness.

It's a shame that Miller is too often left out of these discussions now. It wasn't always so. Arlott was a huge supporter and used to regularly enthuse about him in print and on the radio. The broadcaster Michael Parkinson is/was also a huge fan. It was during an interview with Parkinson that Miller was asked about the pressure of cricket. The former World War Two airforce pilot famously replied, ''Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not''.

I suspect the devil may care type of attitude voiced by Miller was then fairly typical of other leading all-rounders, particularly Sobers and Botham, and particularly endeared them to the public who would leave their bar stools to watch such flamboyant characters in action. For all his skill and reliability, I suspect that Kallis never quite resonated with the public in the same way. I recall MfC on here a couple of years or so ago referring to Kallis - in comparison to Sobers etc - ''lacking the X-factor''.

Interesting thread. I guess that with the intensity of modern international cricket, not least the playing schedules, it's fairly unlikely that we will see many players in future who are both front rank batsmen and bowlers for their side in test cricket over any significant period of time. The risk of early burn out and/or injury would be very high.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Interesting thread.  I guess that with the intensity of modern international cricket, not least the playing schedules, it's fairly unlikely that we will see many players in future who are both front rank batsmen and bowlers for their side in test cricket over any significant period of time.  The risk of early burn out and/or injury would be very high.    

Shakib did manage to acheive this, but ended up with a stress fracture on his shin, and he's what 28?, he could be done by the time his 32/33

KP_fan wrote:R ashwin average 39 with the bat and 28 with the ball........ superior than Shakib

those who have seen Ashwin will know he will struggle to average even reverse in overseas conditions

KPF, I won't be surprised if Ashwin averages around 30 with the bat in away conditions as well, but it is his bowling that needs to pick up....... And I would maintain he would be a much more worthy pick at 6 as the all-rounder than the likes of Rohit Sharma or Suresh Raina who offer nothing with bat or ball in challenging conditions. But Ashwin is not in Shakib's class at the moment.......

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Interesting thread.  I guess that with the intensity of modern international cricket, not least the playing schedules, it's fairly unlikely that we will see many players in future who are both front rank batsmen and bowlers for their side in test cricket over any significant period of time.  The risk of early burn out and/or injury would be very high.    

Schedule is not just leading to burnout, with so much international cricket how do players develop and maintain form in both disciplines?

How many chances does say a Broad for example get to play a proper First class innings in a year? They mainly only get to play in Test innings where they come in more often than not either in a collapse situation or with the team 380-5 and with the pressure more or less off.

Star Players are learning the game more or less in the international level, which is hard enough with one discipline, never mind two!

Also I think the emergency of the wicket keeper as an all rounder has negated a little the need for the traditional batting / bowling all rounder.

I was reading Imran's bio on CI...and it said in his last 10 years Imran averaged 51 with the bat and 19 with the ball......
Imagine that
and he captained his side....a mediocre side , full of personalities, factionalism and turned them into world beaters.....
and in an era when WI was super strong and Aus quite strong....
Imran was phenomenal