he would hold his spot in either discipline
I guess that for me would be one of the best definitions of a genuine all-rounder, that they could get in the side as a batsman or bowler. So you have to wonder if Swann or Broad would get in as batsmen, although someone seems to have included them as bowlers who can bat which to me is a bowling all-rounder anyway
Interesting point about the batting order, don't you think that as a quicker bowler Broad should bat below Swann as a long innings would surely be more detrimental to Broad who would bowl earlier?
imran has a poorer batting record than his all-rounder tag suggests but that's because when he started out he still had to bat and got out for low scores. he wasn't actually playing as an all rounder, when he was his average was quite good (over the 80s it was in the 40s)
this was an unnecessary observation.
Imran averaged 37.69 with the bat so I'm not sure where you're coming from with that, although he did bowl less and focus more on batting as his career came to an end. Even if you break his batting down to runs per innings it was a decent 30.21.
To compare that with other top all-rounders who scored over 1000 runs, took 100 wickets and had at least one hundred and 5wi, players like Sobers, Kallis, Greig, Miller, Hooper and Botham managed more runs per innings, but all those who averaged more in my list averaged nearly 10 runs per wicket or more with the ball................. Only Miller, Goddard, Botham and Cairns average more runs per innings with bat, and less than 30 with the ball.
Point of all that, only 'all-rounders' who were more batsmen average more runs per innings than Imran and none more than four runs per innings so it's the same street.
Interestingly Kapil Dev who I consider a bowling all-rounder scored 28.52 runs per innings, Hadlee who is probably the greatest bowling all-rounder of all time only 23.31 runs per innings.
But again in reference to the OP, when do you give credit for a bowler 'who can bat' and stop shy of someone who is more of an all-rounder? Was Streak 'a bowler who can bat' or a bowling all-rounder? Same question re DeFreitas, Vaas, Wasim Akram etc. DeFreitas doesn't make my list as he didn't score a Test hundred, does the ability to score a fifty make a bowler more than just a bowler? Gillespie is in my list, I don't want him to be, but ridiculously he has a Test double to his name. His career average was 18.74, is that 'a bowler who can bat' or a bowling all-rounder? Even without the double he averaged 15.89, rabbits tend to average well under 10 so you could list virtually anyone in this thread unless you clarify ground rules. I nominate Sobers