Salary cap trap: stacking all-rounders
The all-rounder stack looks like a credit-efficiency hack, but it leaves you without a frontline pacer. Here is the math behind the trade-off.
Published January 2026 · The all-rounder stack looks like a credit-efficiency hack, but it leaves you without a frontline pacer. Here is the math behind the trade-off.
The all-rounder stack
The all-rounder stack is the most common salary-cap trap. The user sees that all-rounders cost 9-10 credits and produce points across batting and bowling, then stacks four all-rounders in pursuit of credit efficiency. The result: no credit left for a frontline pacer.
Why four all-rounders is too many
The 100-credit cap has to fund 11 players across four roles:
| Role | Count | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Wicketkeeper-batter | 1 | 8-10 |
| Batter | 3-5 | 8-10 each |
| All-rounder | 1-3 | 8-10 each |
| Bowler | 3-5 | 8-10 each |
Stacking four all-rounders means the four all-rounders cost 36-40 credits. That leaves 60-64 credits for the remaining 7 players: 1 wicketkeeper-batter, 3 batters, and 3 bowlers. The 3 bowlers end up as budget options at 7-8 credits each, not frontline pacers.
Two all-rounders is the typical sweet spot
Two all-rounders cost 18-20 credits. That leaves 80-82 credits for the remaining 9 players. The 4 bowlers in the remaining 9 can include 2-3 frontline options at 9-10 credits each.
Two all-rounders is the typical optimum. Three works in spinner-friendly matches where the third all-rounder is also a frontline spinner. Four leaves no credit for a frontline pacer.
Open the app
Apply the article framework to your next contest. Open the app, build an XI, and pick captain with the three-aligned rule.