- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Yesterday, fellow Roar expert Brett McKay and I had a good old fashioned ‘pub debate’ around Australia’s batting. Today, we turn our attention to the bowling.
ROC: Beer, Mr McKay?
BM: I’d love one, Mr O’Connell.
ROC: Are you looking forward to the second series of The Voice next year? Ricky Martin has replaced Keith Urban as a judge – do you think he and Princess Beautiful will get along?
BM: You’ve got issues, mate. Can we please talk cricket?
ROC: If we must.
BM: So, the bowling. What do you make of this whole ‘rotation’ thing?
ROC: I’m not utterly convinced there actually was a rotation policy in effect for the Perth Test. I think it was more the consequences of tight scheduling, along with the circumstances of how the Adelaide Test finished.
Michael Clarke stated that Hilfenhaus and Siddle simply weren’t fit to play at the WACA, presumably because there was so little time in between Tests, and both players bowled a lot of overs in Adelaide. I think they were worried they wouldn’t make it through the Test, or that they would have bowled poorly due to the workload from the previous game. Is that really ‘rotating’?
In any case, to answer your question, I’m not a fan of the rotation policy. But by the same token, I’m actually in no position to comment. People with more knowledge of the human body than me say it’s necessary, and I therefore have to believe them.
What I do have an issue with, is how the situation arrived where Australia had a completely new attack for the Third Test. If you are going to have a rotation policy, then either Siddle or Hilfenhaus should have sat out in Adelaide, instead of both sitting out in Perth.
While we’re talking fast bowlers, what about the revelation from Cummins and Pattison that they change their bowling technique in limited overs cricket. Excuse me? How is that not setting alarm bells off left, right and centre?
BM: Massive alarm bells for me. Two obvious issues here. Firstly, it’s proof that Twenty20 cricket is doing damage to techniques, and by direct flow-on, on bodies as well. That’s ringing the Tower of London for me.
Secondly, and perhaps even worse, is that our coaches and/or medical people either aren’t recognising these changes in action and the potential for injury, or if they are, they’re not rectifying the problem.
I can’t think of what’s worse, actually.
ROC: Just staying on the fast bowlers for a minute. There is a lot of talk about how deep Australia’s fast bowling ranks are. But are they really?
Sure, Australia may have anywhere up to eight or nine quicks to choose from, including Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Starc, Johnson, Pattinson, Hazelwood, Hastings, Cummins and Harris. But half of those guys are injured, Hazelwood hasn’t played a Test, and the rest weren’t good enough to bowl South Africa out in Adelaide, or contain them in Perth.
I’d be very wary of confusing sheer numbers with actual quality depth.
Yet, having said that, I believe Australia can fashion a genuine 20 wicket-taking attack out of that squad, but consistency, health and variety are all issues that need to be addressed.
BM: So, perhaps now we should discuss spin bowling? Should we address the Liz Hurley-dating elephant in the room? I warn you, I may blow up…
ROC: Elephant? Bit harsh. He’s actually lost a lot of weight.
Personally, I don’t think there anything to discuss, but fine, let’s go there anyway.
BM: OK, here I go then.
It’s high time that that this whole ‘Warne to make Test comeback’ farce stopped, and stopped dead. Everyone who’s had the slightest inclination to speak even semi-seriously on this matter needs to stop and have a think about what they’re suggesting.
ROC: OK, I’m listening.
BM: And I mean everyone from Warne himself, Michael Clarke, the Cricket Australia honchos who the captain has supposedly spoken with on this, to the sports journos who keep asking their leading question every 12 months, right down to those who pick up that paper and think, “Yeah, we need Warnie back.”
If any or all of you allow this to happen, you will be complicit in the death of Australian cricket.
ROC: The death of Australian cricket?
BM: I cannot be more serious about this. I’m deliberately going to the extreme of hyperbole to make this point.
If Warne is allowed to play for Australia again, then the very fabric of Australian cricket – the well-worn path up the grades to state squads to First Class to Test level – will cease to exist.
The Australian team will no longer be selected by traditional means, but rather it be left to the whim of the captain to pick whomever the hell he wants to with no justification or logic involved.
And if that happens, there will be no point having the Sheffield Shield, there’ll be no point having state Second XIs, and there’ll be no point having grade clubs encouraging their players to do the hard yards that will push them to higher honours, because the precedent will be set.
It has to end. Warne, of his own admission, bowled “pies” the other night, and frankly, looked like a 43-year-old playing beyond his time. He is “done and dusted,” as Starc put it recently, without even the slightest hint of disrespect.
This charade must stop. It makes as much sense as using the Duke ball in Australia in preparation for an Ashes Tour to England.
I’m angry now.
ROC: Wow. I’m not sure where to go after that.
BM: Well, what are your thoughts on Nathan Lyon?
ROC: Nathan Lyon? I think he’s doing a pretty good job.
Whilst he may never be a spinner who consistently runs through batting line-ups, that isn’t necessarily how he should be judged. Sure, it would be nice if he could take bagfuls of wickets, especially on day five of a Test Match, but if expectations are kept realistic, and his role made clear, he can have a lengthy Test career.
He doesn’t need to be Shane Warne – which is lucky for him, because he never will be – but if he can chip in with some wickets, stop the runs from flowing, and apply pressure from one end, then he’ll be a valuable asset to the team.
I’d love to see more variation in his bowling, a touch more loop at times, and some more aggressive fields set, but overall, I think he’d developing nicely, and if managed correctly, he’ll be an important player for Australia, especially in England.
Thankfully, I think Michael Clarke is the perfect captain for him.
Now, have you calmed down over there?
BM: I have calmed down, thank you. And I agree about Nathan Lyon, too. For all his doubters, he’s still got to 50 Test wickets a hell of a lot quicker than many of his colleagues in the ‘brotherhood,’ so he’s clearly making a decent fist of Test cricket.
He’s a keeper, as far as I’m concerned.
ROC: No, he’s a spinner, mate.
BM: Very funny. It’d be great if a young leggie could be found somewhere to play alongside Lyon though. And I mean an actual young leggie, not a 43-year-old with the wrinkles ironed out.
ROC: Don’t go there again.
BM: Anyway, this has been fun mate, we should do this again if you can drag yourself away from the summer reality TV schedule.
ROC: Actually, The Voice doesn’t start until next year, so I should be right.