Allrounders 'unsustainable' in modern game

[Richard]

I'd say anyone who claims that right now Morkel isn't one of the best OD batsmen in South Africa is kidding. And I've been saying for about 6 years that Mascarenhas is one of the best OD bowlers in this country (albeit he wasn't in 2005 and 2006), the only thing that's stopped this being recognised is the "good ODI bowlers must also look like our idea of good Test bowlers" nonsense.

Morkel is an extremely poor ODI bowler and Mascarenhas' batting is purely a bonus, but their principal discipline is easily strong enough. It's the same annoying way that someone who is actually a specialist with another insignificant skill gets wrongly pigeonholed as a bits-and-pieces player that saw Mark Ealham pensioned-off 6 years early.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd say anyone who claims that right now Morkel isn't one of the best OD batsmen in South Africa is kidding. And I've been saying for about 6 years that Mascarenhas is one of the best OD bowlers in this country (albeit he wasn't in 2005 and 2006), the only thing that's stopped this being recognised is the "good ODI bowlers must also look like our idea of good Test bowlers" nonsense.

Morkel is an extremely poor ODI bowler and Mascarenhas' batting is purely a bonus, but their principal discipline is easily strong enough. It's the same annoying way that someone who is actually a specialist with another insignificant skill gets wrongly pigeonholed as a bits-and-pieces player that saw Mark Ealham pensioned-off 6 years early.

Morkel's the best OD number 7 in their country (their's vastly different skills sets for batting in every position). The point is that under most circumstances you don't really want to be picking a specialist number 7 batsmen who neither bowls a bit nor keeps wicket.

Mascarenhas's problem as ODI bowling goes is that he's not great at the death or late-middle overs. If you're picking the top five or six OD bowlers you'd ideally want them to be more capable of bowling any time you need them than Dimi is.

 

[Richard]

Morkel's the best OD number 7 in their country (their's vastly different skills sets for batting in every position). The point is that under most circumstances you don't really want to be picking a specialist number 7 batsmen who neither bowls a bit nor keeps wicket.

Number-seven (or even eight) is one of the most specialist-skilled roles in cricket. SA had the best-ever (Klusener) there and he was easily good enough to play purely as a batsman. It's a role which is incredibly difficult to play as well as Morkel has recently done.

Mascarenhas's problem as ODI bowling goes is that he's not great at the death or late-middle overs. If you're picking the top five or six OD bowlers you'd ideally want them to be more capable of bowling any time you need them than Dimi is.

I don't think so. I think there's a place for at least two who don't bowl in the slog overs (usually last-10 for ease of reference), and absolutely certainly one. England, with Swann and Mascarenhas, can afford such a thing. Precious few sides have ever had a team composed entirely of completely flexible bowlers. The best ODI attack of modern times (SA's with Pollock, Kallis, Elworthy, Donald, Klusener) was generally pretty rigid.

 

[SJS]

TBH, I'd argue that bits-and-pieces players were always unsustainable. .

I couldn't agree less. My views on the matter are well known

 

[Richard]

Really? You think there was some point where bits-and-pieces players were viable long-term Test cricketers?