It is probably a result of the sheer volume of one day cricket that is played these days, but sides seem to becoming increasingly dependant on ‘bit’ players to fill their teams and I believe this can be counter productive.
I suspect that in a lot of ways, this is promulgated by the fact that they don’t have enough depth player-wise to fill the team with specialists.
Worryingly I think
A lot of people call these players ‘all rounders’, but they are not. They are ‘bit’ players.
To me, a player like Adam Gilchrist is an all rounder. When he can average 50 with the bat and still keep wicket then you can be considered an all rounder. Jacques Kallis would be another example – it wouldn’t be unusual for him to score 100 with the bat and then take a fifer.
Differentiate between ‘bit’ players and those who play as all rounders.
Unfortunately winning cricket matches, very often comes down to a few cold hard moments in a game.
As a South African cricket fan / selector / player, you need to ask yourself – do I want an expert like Dale Steyn bowling a key over in a one day game or am I happy to rely on a trundler who comes in 115km/h?
Don’t get me wrong - variety is great in a side, but great sides are made by great specialists not by good ‘bit’ players…
No comments:
Post a Comment