Morne Morkel to retire from international cricket after Australia series

[Stefan9]

Unfortunately for morkel he played with steyn,philander and kg which means that there will always be the feeling he under achieved. That happens when you are averaging 28 compared to 22's.
I feel he is retiring too early, making the same mistake as smith.

 

[harsh.ag]

Has there been a more disappointing career from someone who promised to be so threatening

I knew Ishant Sharma would be mentioned in this thread after this post.

Unfair comparison . But Ishant sharma and Morne Morkel have lots of identical records

Morkel
Test :81
5 wicket haul:7
10 wicket haul:0
Man of the match :2
Man of the series :1

Ishant
Test:81
5 wicket haul:7
10 wicket haul:1
Man of the match :2
Man of the series :2

This record suggests that while Morkel had more control he wasn't a match winner on his own.

But I didn't think it would go down like this. Well done, sunilz.

 

[SeamUp]

Unfortunately for morkel he played with steyn,philander and kg which means that there will always be the feeling he under achieved. That happens when you are averaging 28 compared to 22's.
I feel he is retiring too early, making the same mistake as smith.

Yeah in many ways similar to Smith with foreign wives. But it just felt odd seeing his wife at the BBL and him in SA with their young kid. Something had to give.

My opinion is him and his wife will live in England in the winter whilst he is Kolpak. Come to South Africa for family early summer then over to Oz to play BBL

 

[harsh.ag]

My opinion is him and his wife will live in England in the winter whilst he is Kolpak. Come to South Africa for family early summer then over to Oz to play BBL

That sounds nice.

 

[quincywagstaff]

A fascinating and exasperating career. After he returned to the side in early 2010, he was a remarkably consistent contributor... yet those matchwinning performances that he looked capable of never really materalised. I'm pretty sure he never got a MOM during his Test career.

Two interactions with Michael Clarke sum him up; in Adelaide in 2012/13 when Australia humiliated South Africa with the bat (550 at over 5 an over with Clarke getting a double-ton) Morkel was pretty much the only bowler who held his own, taking 8/196 for the match.

Then, on the final test of Oz's 2014 SA tour Morkel famously peppered Clarke with a relentless series of short deliveries that left him battered and bruised... but he wasn't able to finish the job and Clarke got an unbeaten century which was pivotal towards Australia winning the Test and series.

 

[cnerd123]

Shame to see him go. An ATVG of the highest calibre.

 

[the big bambino]

What really helped Morkel was that Clarke was unable to dodge the short stuff due to his bad back

 

[GotSpin]

Interesting question. Johnson and Morkel almost have the same exact average. Whose career would you prefer?

FTR I've really enjoyed watching his career but always thought him to be a bit short of fulfilling his potential.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Unfair comparison . But Ishant sharma and Morne Morkel have lots of identical records

Morkel
Test :81
5 wicket haul:7
10 wicket haul:0
Man of the match :2
Man of the series :1

Ishant
Test:81
5 wicket haul:7
10 wicket haul:1
Man of the match :2
Man of the series :2

This record suggests that while Morkel had more control he wasn't a match winner on his own.

Another really weird post. Those "identical records" don't suggest they are similar players, or were of a similar quality, at all. All it shows is how much of a better and more consistent bowler Morkel was.

 

[cnerd123]

Another really weird post. Those "identical records" don't suggest they are similar players, or were of a similar quality, at all. All it shows is how much of a better and more consistent bowler Morkel was.

I mean, I think it's interesting to see that in a way, Sharma's peak effectiveness happens at about the same rate as Morkel's does.

If the net bowling average/strike rate/economy rate of those 5-fers and MOTM performances are similar too, then it would suggest their peak effectiveness is on about the same level as well.

It then also goes to show how **** Ishant was between those peaks when compared to Morkel's sustained excellent. Nothing we don't already know but interesting nonetheless

 

[thierry henry]

I don't think it's unreasonable to simultaneously appreciate a very good career and also say that he never fully lived up to his potential.

Saying a tall guy can't take bags of wickets because of his "natural length" is a bit of a cop out, I don't even know if examples are really necessary to prove this claim wrong but...McGrath, Ambrose. Hell, I've heard almost the exact opposite said about Joel Garner i.e. "he was unplayable because he was so tall".

EDIT: HEIGHT HEIGHT HEIGHT HEIGHT

 

[a massive zebra]

I don't think it's unreasonable to simultaneously appreciate a very good career and also say that he never fully lived up to his potential.

Saying a tall guy can't take bags of wickets because of his "natural length" is a bit of a cop out, I don't even know if examples are really necessary to prove this claim wrong but...McGrath, Ambrose. Hell, I've heard almost the exact opposite said about Joel Garner i.e. "he was unplayable because he was so tall".

EDIT: HEIGHT HEIGHT HEIGHT HEIGHT

Neither McGrath nor Ambrose were bang it in bowlers who consistently bowled short of a length. Yes they both had a good bouncer (Ambrose in particular), but generally they were incredibly accurate bowlers who maintained a perfect length on the off stump, could move the ball both ways, and were experts at identifying and exploiting the batsmens weaknesses. The only thing they had in common with Morkel was their height and bounce, both of which are certainly great assets, but if height and bounce alone can make you unplayable, Mohammad Irfan should be the best bowler ever. I think you will struggle to find more than a couple of short of a length bowlers who have gone down as true greats. History shows it simply isn't conducive to true greatness.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean, I think it's interesting to see that in a way, Sharma's peak effectiveness happens at about the same rate as Morkel's does.

If the net bowling average/strike rate/economy rate of those 5-fers and MOTM performances are similar too, then it would suggest their peak effectiveness is on about the same level as well.

It then also goes to show how **** Ishant was between those peaks when compared to Morkel's sustained excellent. Nothing we don't already know but interesting nonetheless

Not really though. Those statistics could just be a result of Morkel having stronger bowlers around him taking wickets, also bowling change more often than opening. Hence why he doesn't have as many 5 wicket hauls.

edit: I'm not disagreeing that Ishant Sharma has been insanely inconsistent and unpredictable though. He can be brilliant and almost unplayable some days, yet absolutely atrocious on other (more numerous) days

 

[thierry henry]

Neither McGrath nor Ambrose were bang it in bowlers who consistently bowled short of a length. Yes they both had a good bouncer (Ambrose in particular), but generally they were incredibly accurate bowlers who maintained a perfect length on the off stump, could move the ball both ways, and were experts at identifying and exploiting the batsmens weaknesses. The only thing they had in common with Morkel was their height and bounce, both of which are certainly great assets, but if height and bounce alone can make you unplayable, Mohammad Irfan should be the best bowler ever. I think you will struggle to find more than a couple of short of a length bowlers who have gone down as true greats. History shows it simply isn't conducive to true greatness.

To me, McGrath and Ambrose generally did bowl "short of a length" albeit close enough to a good length to coax batsmen in to playing. They were "into the wicket" like Morkel.

That aside- I'm just arguing against any perception that Morkel's "natural length" was somehow an excuse (which is what it is sometimes made to sound like) as opposed to a shortcoming. There's no reason why a tall guy can't bowl a good length.

 

[cnerd123]

I though McGrath's whole thing was that he bowled it full and got lots of players fending his bounce on the front foot, or pinned them on the back foot.

Morkel was a classic hit-the-deck, back-of-a-length hustler. Great at that role. Don't think he could have done more being that style of bowler.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I though McGrath's whole thing was that he bowled it full and got lots of players fending his bounce on the front foot, or pinned them on the back foot.

Morkel was a classic hit-the-deck, back-of-a-length hustler. Great at that role. Don't think he could have done more being that style of bowler.

Nah McGrath rarely bowled full. He was always (at least in the latter half of his career) a back of the length bowler.

He wasn't a guy that bowled a huge amount of bouncers/shoulder height balls though if that's what you mean by "hit-the-deck"

 

[thierry henry]

Morkel was a classic hit-the-deck, back-of-a-length hustler. Great at that role. Don't think he could have done more being that style of bowler.

That's a style of bowler? Your classic "I could bowl Glenn McGrath's length but I'll bowl short instead because we need something ineffective" style?

This is a weird argument. If you're saying he didn't have the ability to change his style to something more effective then....well that just means he wasn't that good. If you're saying that South Africa wanted him to bowl less effectively then I really can't buy that.

 

[thierry henry]

Nah McGrath rarely bowled full. He was always (at least in the latter half of his career) a back of the length bowler.

He wasn't a guy that bowled a huge amount of bouncers/shoulder height balls though if that's what you mean by "hit-the-deck"

Yeah I always picture McGrath bowling into the deck and getting it bouncing 6-12 inches over the stumps.

Anyway, all I'm saying is I doubt there's a good excuse for Morkel "choosing" to not bowl like McGrath, whatever that means. His shortcomings were shortcomings, not some stylistic choice to not take bags of wickets.

 

[cnerd123]

That's a style of bowler? Your classic "I could bowl Glenn McGrath's length but I'll bowl short instead because we need something ineffective" style?

This is a weird argument. If you're saying he didn't have the ability to change his style to something more effective then....well that just means he wasn't that good. If you're saying that South Africa wanted him to bowl less effectively then I really can't buy that.

I dont think it's as simple as that. Sometimes the biomechanics of one's bowling action means to bowl it fuller you sacrifice pace/accuracy/seam position and arguably make yourself less effective even tho you are bowling in more effective areas. I also think it's possible the team preferred Morkel bowling in a certain way to make Philander/Steyn more effective with their styles at the other end, versus trying to have him do a poor imitation of them.

I just think that if there was a way for Morkel to bowl that means he took more wickets, and given that he's an elite, professional Athlete who has been doing this his whole life and has the best facilities and coaching staff available to him, that for sure he would have just bowled in that way instead. We're armchair cricket fans talking **** on the internet, Morkel's an actual Test cricketer whose bowled more deliveries than I've ever watched. I'm sure he knows what he's doing. I'm not going to assume 'well he could have done better if he just bowled a different length'. I'm going to assume that what he put out there was the best he could put out there.

Wasted Potential needs to be saved for guys like Sreeesanth. Now that's a real waste of talent.

 

[the big bambino]

Don't think McGrath was a short of the length bowler who banged it in to get wickets but do think Ambrose and Walsh were. Also Garner, though he'd vary length with his yorker. Pat Cummins also played the part of short length bully in the ashes and he has the potential to become a great bowler.