Personally, I believe sustained success in test cricket is about an individual who is exceptionally talented at a specific skill and you can use two current South African players as an example: Hashim Amla and Dale Steyn. You need one all-rounder, maybe two (no more) in a test side and he needs to be good.KALSTER wrote:Thing is that all rounders have been one of our signature features for a long time. The more you reduce the number of all rounders, the more you weaken your batting line-up. I would also not be comfortable with increasing the number of hopeless batsmen in a side, unless the bowler was really worth it. Who is really worth it?
The term 'all-rounder' is definitely used too loosely these days, instead of using it when it is really deserved. For example: Robin Peterson would probably be termed as an all rounder, since he is equally adept at both skills. The truth of the matter is that he isn't particularly skilled at either and is nothing but a bits-and-pieces cricketer. Some people even argued that Jacques Kallis wasn't a true all-rounder and although I'd be VERY careful to climb onto that bandwagon, I do understand the merit of the argument.
Much LOL!"What makes this knock by Elgar even more impressive is that he is doing it without his middle fingers. Both of them are directed at CSA."