Our Ashes woes: blame the mechanic
Roar Guru
By vinay verma, 27 Jul 2009 Vinay Verma is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Andy Flower, Cricket, edgbaston, Mitchell Johnson, The Ashes, Tim Nielsen, Troy Cooley
Troy Cooley, Australia’s bowling coach, needs a car hoist and two balancing machines. He cannot tell the difference between a Lamborghini and a beatup Holden. Neither can he distinguish between a Range Rover and a working ute.
If he was the head mechanic of my non-existent fleet of cars I would sack him. Yes, Warne and McGrath have gone but he should keep the cars he has in running order.
Mitchell Johnson has been bowling like a car with bald tyres or more accurately as a car with misaligned wheels.
In this age of biomechanics and ice baths he seems blinded by too much knowledge.
The first priority of a bowling coach is to ensure his charges are physically fit and fine tuned. This means routine and regular checks and corrections.
A good fleet manager knows that preventive maintenance saves on downtime and is cost effective in the long run. When a car comes to a shuddering halt it is doubly expensive to put it back on the road.
Tim Nielsen is also not entirely blameless. He is still mouthing banal statements like “…there are positives..”. I am afraid this did not save the Titanic and unless the back room boys start earning their money, Ricky will never win an Ashes in England as captain. More the pity because he is, along with Tendulkar and Lara, a modern batting great.
Kerry O’Keefe pointed out in his column that it is not Johnson’s left arm that is the concern but the right side and the right arm.
He points out that the low right arm is making him fall away. Conversely it is Hauritz’s low left arm that is stopping him realise his full potential.
In 1965 Kirti Azad, who later coached Kapil Dev, was espousing the Pendulum Principle. Simple and earthy common sense.
For a right handed bowler the high left arm, to the point of inducing a stretch in your side, meant the right had to follow that arc.
Kerry O Keefe may appear light hearted but behind the Parody there lurks a razor sharp brain. He calls for the “technical purity” of Watson’s batting at the top of the order and Manou’s keeping but I think this is Kerry trying to shock the team management into action.
There needs to be only one or at the most two changes for Edgbaston. Clark for North would be an attacking move and would show faith in the bowlers who did so well in the last six months (barring Lords).
Andy Flower on the other hand has gone quietly about his business and is getting the most out of his unfashionable fleet of cars.
It is no use calling for a rocket scientist when all you need is a basic mechanic.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (30)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Andy Flower, Cricket, edgbaston, Mitchell Johnson, The Ashes, Tim Nielsen, Troy Cooley
LeftArmSpinner said | July 27th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I fully agree. Skull is very knowledgeable and should not be underestimated despite his brilliant comedic performances. The anology of the machanic is a beauty. Its not that hard to bowl, particularly when you have video and the talent that has delivered previously. Basics, basics and basics!
Chop said | July 27th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Clark for North? 5 bowlers and leave in a terribly out of form (at least in tests) Hughes and Hussey? That is not attacking move that is suicide.
Andy Flower also has Otis Gibson as his bowling coach so he’s not just doing it alone.
FIsher Price said | July 27th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Good column Vinay.
Brett McKay said | July 27th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Vinay, my brief moment of agreeing with you is set to end. I was with you here again right up to the point of “Clark for North would be an attacking move and would show faith in the bowlers who did so well in the last six months.”
Clark for North makes absolutely no sense at all. It weakens an already fragile batting line-up, and adding a fifth bowler would do the complete opposite of showing faith; it would highlight that they haven’t been able to do the job so far, rather than allow them to prove they can do it again.
Watson for North makes some sense, if North needs to be dropped at all. Clark definitely needs to come in, there’s no doubt about that. Late last week I was suggesting Siddle might be the unlucky one, but even I’m starting to wonder about what to do with young Mitchell now…
FIsher Price said | July 27th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Brett, what about Clark for Hussey?
Four bowlers have not been able to do the job so far.
Brett McKay said | July 27th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Fisher, I wouldn’t go with Clark for Hussey for the same reason as I wouldn’t go with Clark for North. Further, dropping Hussey would mean North would have to bat at 5, and Haddin at 6, and I don’t see any value in that. The only way I can see a fifth bowler coming in for a batsman is if it’s Watson or McDonald. I’d leave the batting as is – Hussey’s made another fifty in the tour game, on top of his 51 in the first dig at Lord’s – and find a way to bring Clark in.
vinay verma said | July 27th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
The pitches so far in the first two tests have lasted into the fifth day and have been on the benign side. Lords had decent carry and Flintoff exp;oited that. So we can expect more of the same. Whilst on this point just look around the world and you will see pitches become flatter. In the recently concluded Test in Sri Lanka Sangkarra and co scored 390 for 4 batting last. Australia got to 404 at Lords. Whether this is at the dictates of the TV Broadcasters and/or curators geeting used to preparing roads for the shorter versions is open to debate.
FisherP,you are right in that four bowlers have not been able to do the job. England are playing 5 bowlers and batting Prior at 6.
Brett..the above addresses your concerns about the bowlers. And why would you call Australia’s batting fragile? Except for the poor shot selection in the first innings at Lords they have scored 600 plus and 400 in the other two innings. Michael Hussey top scored in the first innings at Lords. Australia dont need North’s bowling and he has not been convincing in his last three digs. Haddin at six and Johnson at seven are as good as or better than Prior or Flintoff. So what does Watson bring to the table? He is not suitable as an opener at Test Level. His six innings for Queensland in the Shield netted him 28 runs with four ducks. His injury record excludes him in my book as a bowling option.
It was not so long ago that Johnson was being hailed as the allrounder we craved.
So I believe that Hauritz and Clark to nag away at one end and the three 140 plus bowl in short bursts at the other end.
And of course Hilfenhaus and Clark with the new ball.
The toss is important and if the Punter can jag one then we could put up a score and go from there. If he loses the toss it becomes even more important to have five bowlers.
I’m sticking with the one change..Clark for North.
FIsher Price said | July 27th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Well if it had to be a choice between Watson and McDonald I’d plump for the latter.
Colin N said | July 27th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
“And why would you call Australia’s batting fragile? Except for the poor shot selection in the first innings at Lords they have scored 600 plus and 400 in the other two innings.”
I wouldn’t necessarily call it fragile, but taking out Hussey or North for Clark would certainly weaken it, and if I was an England bowler, I would be licking my lips at the prospect of possibly having 5 wickets down and then Johnson coming in. I would say this England bowling attack is similar in quality to 05′s, yet they generally managed to have the upper hand over one of the best Australian batting line-ups ever. Australia also had a pretty good tail with Lee and Warne in there and Gilliespie having the ability to hang around for a while. Where as, I don’t think much of Hauritz, Clark, Siddle and Hilfenhaus with the bat.
England’s batting line-up is no way near as good as the opposition’s, but in Broad, Swann and Anderson, they have tailenders who can hit a few shots and also get fairly sizable individual scores. Both Swann and Broad average over 30 in tests, with Swann averaging 37.
Brett McKay said | July 27th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Vinay (here we go again), England’s 5 bowlers includes a guy who batted in the top 6 until the last few years, so they haven’t had to worry about dropping a batsman for a bowler. That point doesn’t address my concerns at all, in fact it reinforces mine, that the fifth bowler would need to be an all-rounder.
Why would I call the batting fragile?? Three of the top six scoring no more than 131 is a fairly obvious reason. And Australia were out for 215 in the first innings at Lord’s, not 400+. Watson brings useful middle order batting (I never suggested him as an opener), and useful seam bowling. He’s currently fit, and so would come into calcs. If injury history rules out a player in your books, then Flintoff shouldn’t be bowling either.
I’m not saying I would play Watson by the way, I’m just saying the only way North would be dropped would be for an all-rounder to come in, not a fifth specialist bowler.
And on the pitches, I don’t think we can expect the same at Edgbaston. The curator has had limited preparation time due to the weather, and continues to have major concerns at how it will play. See http://www.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/current/story/416163.html for his comments…
vinay verma said | July 27th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Didn’t say australia got 400 in the first innings at Lords.
Flintoff on one leg is a better proposition than Watson.
I am aware of your preference for a traditional batting or bowling allrounder. That is your opinion and I respect it.
Figures can be skewed to project a point of view. If you take Australia’s top six there have been centuries from katich,Ponting,Haddin, Clarke and North..North would be unlucky but he looked at sea at Lords and his century at Cardiff was a no pressure century.
I think by now you would be aware of my classification of Haddin as an allrounder and we just have to agree to disagree.
We cant pick a side factoring in the vagaries of Nature. Pick you best side and let nature take care of itself.
If the top five batters cant do the job then thats unfortunate. For Test matches I prefer specialists rather than bits and pieces players.
vinay verma said | July 27th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
If I was the australian Captain I wouldn’t be relying too much on what the curator at Edgbaston told me. Just as an English Captain wouldn’t put too much store on what an Aussie curator says.