What is an Allrounder?

[Phylos Fett]

Okay - I know the obvious answer is "a player that both bats and bowls", but I was wondering if there was a particular in-game definition here. I have seen some players listed as allrounders, that have awful batting averages, or bowling averages (or both, even!), so I was wondering if there was some criteria for them? Or is it just a symbol that is placed next to the player in question?

For instance, is it an indication that the player, with the right training, can hold his own as a bastman or a bowler? For example, Joe Cricket, 18 years old, is listed as an allrounder - I give him extensive batting training, and Joe Cricket becomes a great batsman. He also had the potential to become a great bowler, had I chosen to train him that way. Kind of like a sports person that decides to follow a path as a cricket player rather than a golf player.

Opinions? Thoughts? Ideas? More questions to add to these?

[DeadlyVenom]

Its quite hard to define. In the game you see guys that have ridiculously low career batting averages and are good bowlers defined as all rounders.

I think there needs to be a new icon aswell for batters who can bowl a bit..chris gayle,yuvraj,duminy etc will make the game a bit more realistic IMO.

Not entirely related but you get regens coming through that are batsmen but it says that they are Fast or fast mediums. Surely there has never in the history of the game been a batsman who could twirl his arm over at 90mph?

[El_Zigi]

Jamshed Ahmed (Pak) is classified as an all-rounder. He avgs 5 with the bat in FC.

These are just little mistakes I guess.

There should be more player types yes. I'm pretty sure this has been brought up in the sticky 'what we'd like in ICC 2011' so I think there's a chance we'll see something new in 2011.

More player types would be great as it would add a nice bit of variety to proceedings, particularly with regard to regens.

[Phylos Fett]

There should be more player types yes. I'm pretty sure this has been brought up in the sticky 'what we'd like in ICC 2011' so I think there's a chance we'll see something new in 2011.

More player types would be great as it would add a nice bit of variety to proceedings, particularly with regard to regens.

More player types would be interesting, maybe even a little exciting, but not if they don't really do anything.

[Chewie]

I had a regen who is an all-rounder, and consistently bowls in FC cricket despite averaging 80 with the ball. He's got around 300 wickets or so. You'd think the captain would realise he's terrible at bowling

[Phylos Fett]

I had a regen who is an all-rounder, and consistently bowls in FC cricket despite averaging 80 with the ball. He's got around 300 wickets or so. You'd think the captain would realise he's terrible at bowling

That's pretty bad. It'd have to be a record of some sort, I'm sure!

[Phylos Fett]

Looks like (after a quick search) that Viv Richards took 223 FC wickets at 49ish - seems to be the most FC I can find with a fairly crappy average...

[Scritty]

Okay - I know the obvious answer is "a player that both bats and bowls", but I was wondering if there was a particular in-game definition here. I have seen some players listed as allrounders, that have awful batting averages, or bowling averages (or both, even!), so I was wondering if there was some criteria for them? Or is it just a symbol that is placed next to the player in question?

Perhaps those properly designated as "allrounders" had the potential once (or still) to become "allrounders" say averaging over 20 with the bat and under 45 with the ball.

Some do not realize that potential through luck or more likely a lack of skill training between the ages of 18-24.

They still oculd be said to have once had the potential - but it's been squandered.

On the other side of the coin I have a dedicated bowler I open the batting with in T20 and some other OD games. Very aggressive, averages about 28. with a run rate of almost 150.

Gets a few ducks (sure) but also gets 3 or 4 50's most years in about 30 balls.

Has 2 first class centuries as well (no surprise that both times it was batting in the 4th innings on a terrible pitch - that's just the way this game plays sometimes)

So not classified as an allrounder - but better than many players I have had who are.

Scritty

[Phylos Fett]

Perhaps those properly designated as "allrounders" had the potential once (or still) to become "allrounders" say averaging over 20 with the bat and under 45 with the ball.

Some do not realize that potential through luck or more likely a lack of skill training between the ages of 18-24.

They still oculd be said to have once had the potential - but it's been squandered.

It's possible, I suppose. I currently have a youngster who is most definitely a bowling allrounder (averages about 25 with the ball), and for the last season and a bit I have been giving him general batting technique training to see if he can improve with the bat. Before the training he was woeful. He's still woeful. I'll give him until the end of the season to see if he can become less woeful.

As an aside, I know that Australia have had their share of allrounders that decided to become specialists - the Waugh brothers, for instance - but that seemed to be through injury rather than lack of training - hmmmm - injury that makes a player change his role as a player - there's an option I'd be interested to see in the game!

On the other side of the coin I have a dedicated bowler I open the batting with in T20 and some other OD games. Very aggressive, averages about 28. with a run rate of almost 150.

Gets a few ducks (sure) but also gets 3 or 4 50's most years in about 30 balls.

Has 2 first class centuries as well (no surprise that both times it was batting in the 4th innings on a terrible pitch - that's just the way this game plays sometimes)

So not classified as an allrounder - but better than many players I have had who are.

Scritty

I had a bowler like that last season in the FC competition - ended up with a season average of over 50 - made a couple of centuries and a few 50's (and a few not outs, as well). It's a damn shame he retired.

[ab5ides1]

Playing as Victoria in 2030 the overseas player given to me was a regen South African bowler. In FC cricket he averaged 20 with the ball and 50 with the bat. In test cricket he averaged 23 with the ball and 42 with the bat. I think that there's a bit of mislabelling going on sometimes.

[Phylos Fett]

Playing as Victoria in 2030 the overseas player given to me was a regen South African bowler. In FC cricket he averaged 20 with the ball and 50 with the bat. In test cricket he averaged 23 with the ball and 42 with the bat. I think that there's a bit of mislabelling going on sometimes.

I agree. As an aside, it would be nice to see the player's icon change to represent improvements made with technique training - turning a bowler into an allrounder, et al., if they reach a certain criteria over a number of innings or something akin to that.

[Chewie]

I think the games selects a type of player that it will generate, and then generates ratings for that player such that they create a bell curve, with the E(X) being in different places depending on the type of player. Sometimes you'll get players on the extreme edges of that bell curve, and here is where you get bowlers who can bat better than some batsmen, and vice versa.

[Phylos Fett]

I think the games selects a type of player that it will generate, and then generates ratings for that player such that they create a bell curve, with the E(X) being in different places depending on the type of player. Sometimes you'll get players on the extreme edges of that bell curve, and here is where you get bowlers who can bat better than some batsmen, and vice versa.

If that is the case, I think they have things around the wrong way. Wouldn't it make more sense to generate the ratings first, and have that define the type of player that they are?

[Chewie]

Yes that would probably make more sense, but then what would you classify people who are equally bad at batting and bowling?

I think the engine looks at what types of players are lacking for a particular team or country and generates those using the method I mentioned above

[Cyril Washbrook]

I agree that classifications should be sorted out beforehand, in order to ensure that there's an adequate range of players for each country.

However, there should also be the potential for ex post facto classification: as the "evidence" mounts to suggest that they are not really an all-rounder/specialist batsman/specialist bowler, the game will eventually reject the hypothesis that they are in fact what their original classification was.