On this basic, Root would be maybe 9 for batting and perhaps 3 for bowling (might feasibly be more in limited overs though); maybe add a couple of points for captaincy = 14/20

Mo perhaps a 6.5 for batting and 7 for bowling, and probably worth an extra point for catching = 14.5/20

So yeah Mo’s better. But only just.

Also thinking that it’s easier for a bowler to become a ‘bowling all-rounder’ than it is for a batsman to become a batting all-rounder and the former is more valuable as you’ll not take a lot of wickets in tests with a team chock full of bits n pieces players, as you need genuinely good bowlers to get good batsmen out but a team of BnPs (need a better acronym) could probably still get a half-decent total together.

“Another way of looking at it would be the individual players ability to make match winning contributions” – I actually think this is a better definition of all-rounder than “worthy of place in the team for either skill-set” (which strikes me as too restrictive, only the most outrageously talented would qualify) or “worthy of place in the team for one skill-set, contributes with the other” (too woolly and inclusive depending on what “contributes” means, and also rules out the better “bits and pieces” cricketers who would just miss out on selection for either discipline alone, but are still worth 0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5 players in your 11, which is better than e.g. a full-batsman-and-quarter-bowler’s 1.00 + 0.25 = 1.25).

For what it’s worth, England have quite a roster of batsmen and batting-capable all-rounders, though competition for places has decreased with the retirement of Trott, Taylor and (in the spinning all-rounder category) Ansari, and while the likes of Carberry, Bell, Lyth, Samit, Robson, Hales, Vince, Borthwick, Buttler and Compton are still about, they do not seem in any selectorial favour. Nevertheless, Hameed and Rashid are waiting in the wings (in the sense the selectors do genuinely seem to like them, but are apparently waiting for some additional reason to pick them), while some of the younger ones from the unfavoured list could easily make a comeback. I think it is far from certain that Ali would be an automatic England selection if he only had one discipline on offer. At the very least, if he either developed the yips or underwent a Broadesque decline in his batting – and I fervently hope neither outcome comes to pass – it seems quite likely he’d be displaced from the team sheet by someone like Rashid, without in turn being able to displace a batter or bowler to get his spot back for his remaining discipline alone. At the very least he’d be in a proper scrap for a place. Yet it is clear to me that Ali is uncontentiously genuine all-rounder, so the fact he might be marginal for “worthy of the spot for one skill alone, contributes with the other” suggests that definition is in this case too tight.

For me an all-rounder (batting/bowling, as opposed to batting/keeping or even fielding/A.N. Other, which open up whole new debates) is someone who is good enough with each discipline that they could win you the match with either their batting or their bowling. That’s not the same as saying they would necessarily merit selection for that discipline alone, because other players may be able to perform that role more consistently and craft match-winning performances more often. But it does mean their “contribution” isn’t some wishy-washy thing like battling twenties and thirties, or taking a few overs to ease the workload of the bowlers. They must be good enough, even with the weaker discipline, to have the capability to grasp a game by the scruff or the neck and redirect its course. Ali and Stokes easily qualify on that score. Woakes probably should too, though would be nice to see him bat more – there’s more to come than that top score of 66. But it is still a sufficiently strict definition to exclude Root, even though we enjoy his bowling, or in his current state, Broad, even though we enjoy it (with fond memories of what could have been) when he has a good hit-about.

With no Ali, there are quite a few questions – who bats at 7? Do you pick Dawson, or do you have to drop him to bring in a “proper” spinner? Switch to 5 seamers, or pick another batsman? Possibly you would move Dawson into the Ali batting role, and perhaps Rashid in for the new Ali “try and get them out every ball” role, but that feels like a bit of disaster waiting to happen.

England would miss Stokes as a batsman without question, but if something happened and he couldn’t bowl any more I’m not sure it would be that much of a blow. Woakes batting is a handy bonus at what might be number 9 when he comes back. Ali, however, has consistently churned out runs for 18 months now, and I’m not sure you can categorically say there is a better spinner in the country.

ps i only mean pointless argument in terms of my contribution to it – not the piece in general which i agree with!

Would Ali be picked as a spinner if he could bat as well as Tuffers – probably not, and would he bat in the top six if he couldn’t bowl – possibly although might lose out thanks to the permutations eslewhere.

Others above make excellent points on what constitutes an all rounder to which i agree and I would argue the closest we have to a Botham figure is Stokes but even he probably wouldn’t get picked for his bowling alone. Therefore we have many batsman who bowl and bowlers who bat, and keepers who bat etc who between them balance the side well but are sometimes not top class in either discipline.

Therefore in this pointless argument I would argue that Root or Stokes are more valuable by a small margin than the others but being a team game and balance being needed that Ali right now is right up there in terms of crucial cricketers for England.

Ballance not so much.

Agreed, DC.

A bloke who “takes a few wickets and gets a few runs” is a bits and pieces player, not an all-rounder.

“Worth his place for one of the disciplines and contributes to more than one” is at least a bit-of-an all-rounder, usually given the prefix of his main discipline; batting-all-rounder or bowling-all-rounder.

Genuine all-rounders, worth their place for more than one of the disciplines alone, are rare. But England are getting that way with Stokes, Woakes and Ali.

Also in the wicket-keeping department, Bairstow really is (in my view) worth his place in the top five batting regardless of gloves, which would allow us also to play Foakes if we wish, as long as we think the latter is better with the gloves and/or worth his place in the side for batting alone.

Luxury.

But these extremely valuable test players are also valuable as franchise T20 players, so they will need looking after if we want them to play test matches while reaping the rewards available globally for their supreme talent.

I had come to the conclusion that Swann was going to leave a big hole in the team … but in the end he has effectively been replaced – quite effectively – by rebalancing the side. Which shows that these “how hard would it be to replace…” calculations are harder to work out the machinations of than they sound.

Again, all-rounders are, more or less by definition, harder to replace than specialists.

England are blessed at the moment by having so many players who fall into the genuine all-rounder category…

…which, strangely, makes each of those all-rounders slightly less indispensable than yer average all-rounder.

Hence your point, Balladeer, about the nightmare scenario of losing “Stokes as well as Woakes.”

We’ll miss this problem/risk when it’s gone, that’s for sure.