He was shouting ... f*** before it even bowled him yesterday.disappointing innings from the boy Janneman
He has the talent to bat top 6. Very Big Mac like, even a little better I think. I don't think his bowling is anywhere (or likely to get to) the quality of Pollock or Philander. Overall bowlers tend to develop earlier and he has not shown signs that he can reach those heights.When talking about future Test players, is it just me that sees Mulder as a future Pollock/Philander type, rather than a batting all-rounder?
I know he's not there yet in terms of accuracy but he seems the sort of bowler that could do a great job of bowling for the top of off stump consistently and then getting movement to make things tough.
His batting is good but I wonder if he will be good enough to justify a top 6 batting position.
He will be a great boon to a SA bowling attack. Need him desperately to do well.I like the idea of Rabada and Ngidi/Dupavillon/Nortje being complemented by a guy like Mulder.
Does he really get into our top 6 over guys like Hamza, Bedingham, Rickelton, Verreyne, Qeshile, etc?He has the talent to bat top 6. Very Big Mac like, even a little better I think. I don't think his bowling is anywhere (or likely to get to) the quality of Pollock or Philander. Overall bowlers tend to develop earlier and he has not shown signs that he can reach those heights.
Talking test team at the moment. Think he has better potential than Rickelton or Verreyne in longer format, those two I think of as more limited overs players. As an immediate example I think he is a potential better batsmen than Stokes will ever be. Just to be clear, he has all the shots, play all around the ground and has a great technique. Great base for a potential great batsmen.Does he really get into our top 6 over guys like Hamza, Bedingham, Rickelton, Verreyne, Qeshile, etc?
I guess someone like QdK gives the luxury that you could bat him at 6 and Mulder at 7 if push comes to shove?
You may be right with Rickelton. I'd disagree on Verreyne though.Talking test team at the moment. Think he has better potential than Rickelton or Verreyne in longer format, those two I think of as more limited overs players. As an immediate example I think he is a potential better batsmen than Stokes will ever be. Just to be clear, he has all the shots, play all around the ground and has a great technique. Great base for a potential great batsmen.
I think that Verreyne's problem for the test team is that his 2nd string is wk. With QDK around difficult to get a long term shot. I think directly there is more potentially talented batsmen around and/or coming through to get a pure batting spot. I include Mulder in that.You may be right with Rickelton. I'd disagree on Verreyne though.
I am almost certain they will give Mulder every opportunity; he is a highly talented batsmen and bowler, I hope he concentrates on his batting because I think that is ultimately his best skill and should allow him to crack top 6. I would expect him to avg 45+ at international level. He is an excellent bowler, but not in the class of our top speedsters but should be a world class support bowler. Basically I look at him and see a batsmen that should crack the top 6 in tests, but I don't see a bowler that has the potential to replace any of our top quicks.I think my main thought is that a precocious talent like Mulder needs to be in the Test team. His batting may or may not reach top-6 heights. I wouldn't want to lose him from Tests if he doesn't make the top 6 on merit.
As I say, in hindsight he may be able to make it at 7 for us even if his batting doesn't reach its potential heights. I just saw him bowling in the semi-final (admittedly a completely different format) and although he wasn't bowling well I think there's a LOT of potential there. Such a nice, simple, and repeatable action. Certainly more potential with the ball than Stokes, for example, whereas batting I think could be a close run thing. I struggle to see Mulder averaging much above 40 in Tests - which in itself is hardly poor, but I think his bowling average could dip well below 30.
I think Mulder is good enough to be a top 6 batsman. Even if there might be better batsmen around, it still wouldn't be a case of picking someone who's not up to test standard, and there's the obvious benefit of his bowling.I think my main thought is that a precocious talent like Mulder needs to be in the Test team. His batting may or may not reach top-6 heights. I wouldn't want to lose him from Tests if he doesn't make the top 6 on merit.