Believe the hype about 18 year-old Patrick Cummins

Mitchell Johnson hardly ever breaks down now and he put that down to taking up pilates when he was batting in grade cricket and not able to bowl due to stress fractures.

Ryan, "The best thing for fast bowlers is lots of bowling, contrary to popular belief". I could not agree more! And if you talk to the older guys who played the game they'd also agree.

jameswm, Ryan and I agree with you but you don't need modern sports scientists to get it. Just effing bowl. These guys would be better served by bowling in the nets for hours on end than by doing various exercises and gym work. Bowling actions are grooved. The nets is where to learn the craft and to learn control. Johnson doesn't need gym work - he's built like a Greek God. What he needs is repetition. He needs to learn control so that when he's back at the top of his mark he knows damn well where the next ball is going. Right now he has no idea. Batsmen in the nets shouldn't have some guy with a baseball glove doing throw downs from fifteen metres away. He needs Mitchell bloody Johnson steaming in at him with some intent. It's good for Mitchell and it's good for the batsman. Modern science has far too much to say about modern cricket. It's time to get some real people involved.

jameswm, Regarding "core strength" I reckon I understand the concept as well as most. It's particularly key for footballers providing a means to keep upright and break tackles. See Collingwood's Dane Swan as a prime example of someone with great core strength. The problem with fast bowlers is usually the fitness guys and coaching staff. As you say, a biomechanical error in the action may bring on stress injuries. So can tweaking an action which simply looks ugly but has held our man in good stead for years. What do you think of the chances of a bowler like Max Walker surviving modern cricket's Centre of Excellence? That's of course if he'd ever got past the junior coach, fresh from his Grade Three qualification, who would have surely told him it was not possible to bowl like that - read the book, you'll never find that action - and certainly not possible to be successful. Bowling actions get grooved and the body adopts a "muscle memory" approach. Change this and things can go wrong. My question would be how many of these guys got stress injuries before the experts got involved. Dennis Lillee is the prime example of stress caused by a biomechanical shortcoming. There were, however, mitigating circumstances. Lillee was, originally an out and out tearaway quick who simply over-reached his action for more speed. I saw his first Test and, trust me, he was bloody quick. He also had a high pain threshold which coupled with his highly competitve nature worked against him. Then he had a captain who kept giving him the ball - and he kept taking it for far longer than common sense should have allowed - and that was Lillee's fault. On the 1972 Ashes tour one of his fellow fast bowlers was given the job of making sure Lillee had the proper treatment, every day after play, to ensure he walked onto the ground next morning. He didn't break down until 1973 but every body knew it was only a matter of when. He missed eighteen months and was forced to reassess his approach to bowling. More control, more within himself, less out and out ball flinging for speed. He also had a fitness guru - a real one - who knew absolutely the business of building "core strength" to protect him for the future. Lillee never broke down again in the next decade after slightly tweaking his action and learning how to prepare properly - not just during games but in pre-season. On the other hand, sturdier types like Lindwall and Trueman virtually never broke down. Trueman credited his "big arse" - core strength - as one of the reasons why he could keep charging in. Thommo never broke down and his major injuries were caused by accidents (Alan Turner on the one hand, tennis in the Barossa on the other). One wonders if any of these greats could have possibly gone to the Cof E without being asked to tweak something. You'd like to think they could but I'm not completely convinced. Modern science is a wonderful thing but it's more important to know what the hell you are talking about in specific terms. Does a university trained, rugby playing, sports scientist actually know terribly much about fast bowling and the real stresses on the body. Maybe they do - but the long line of long term injured fast bowlers in recent years suggest they still have a bit to learn. Why on earth would this modern scientist actually know more about fast bowling than, say, Alan Davidson? These days, jameswm, we've become far too trusting of the qualification. We've then compounded the problem by only accepting the qualification as the true font of knowledge. In anything - not just cricket. To the point where it now becomes the minimum defacto standard and true knowledge, like that of the old-time cricketers, is being lost and ignored daily. To this end, I'll practically guarantee you that in twenty years time coaches (and players) will know less about batting and bowling than they knew fifty years ago. Now ask yourself, "Why?" The players, on the other hand, will be able to lift more weights! Once again, why?

Brett, The story of your mate is replicated every day on cricket grounds around Australia - including those at the Centre of Excellence. The issue, essentially, is the very modern love affair with paper qualifications. It now seems perfectly reasonable to appoint Sam the Schoolteacher to a key coaching role than a poor old former Test/first-class player who has only - more fool him - his knowledge and experience to help him. The problem with the text book coaches is that they believe too much in the theory if only because they lack the practical experience of our poor tormented first-class hopeful. That tends to bring a desire to change something in every player who crosses their path in order to feel like they're a real coach. Some do good but most do bad. If you go back through time you will find that something like zero good players have been produced by coaching alone. Certainly, over time players can develop bad habits which can be corrected by a properly attentive coach - who may be, incidentally, one of the player's teammates who just happens to observe from another net. The good coaches, though, do not go in for wholesale changes to grip, stance, footwork, bowling action. They suggest things which an intelligent player may pick up on, or ignore, as is his wont. Simple things, mostly. Bradman always suggested just playing in the V for the first fifteen or twenty minutes while a batsman assesses the pitch, speed and bounce. Ponting would have been wise to adopt this approach a bit more in the last few years instead of committing suicide by trying to impose himself too early. Greg Chappell, in his famous run of ducks slump, was saved by someone simply asking him, "Are you actually watching the ball?" He realised, of course, that he was not and, bingo, problem solved. Nobody suggested he change his position, his grip, his stance, his bat. As you know, my cricketing life involves me talking to many old time cricketers and I've lost count of the number of times those old players, and Test players all, have been critical of modern coaching methods. A particular bugbear is the modern coach's instruction that all batting must be performed on the front foot. No matter, apparently, the pitch, the length, the bounce. Norman O'Neill would have been appalled. The modern assumption in society is that if you hold the qualification you know more than the other fellow. Personally, I reckon I'd learn more about batting and bowling from Harvey, Davidson, Chappell than from Sam the Schoolteacher - with all due respect to Sam. Davidson told me recently that he's been told that he is NOT to speak to Mitchell Johnson under any circumstances. A week later my jaw was still on the floor. Now Davo is Davo but if he hasn't forgotten more about left-arm fast swing bowling than Johnson will ever know I'd be very surprised. Shock, horror, I even think he might know more than Troy Cooley or Craig McDermott. But there you go. Could it be another example of the "qualified brigade" protecting their investment and their coaching careers? As for Cummins, my info is that his injury occurred after the refusal by NSW to the Cof E's request. Certainly, once he was injured NSW had no desire to let the gurus at the Cof E loose on him. Previous experience with the Cof E was just a bit too recent to let them ruin Cummins as well.

I'm with you on that.

I do trust you. And my physio. I already agreed in an earlier post that core strength is vital. As an (ex) bowler myself, I was told pilates (ie: core strength) would help me immensely. But again, core strength has little to do with the gym/lifting weights.

yes and no mate, and I do take your point about it being a double-edged sword. My point was really that his already good technique - which brought him the succes to land the rookie contract in the beginning - was suddenly changed for no good reason other than it wasn't by the letter of the coaching manual..

Is technique the most over-used word in cricket? It's a double edged sword, I guess. If you tinker with someone's technique, and their results fall away or they get injured, then they've been over-coached, messed with, etc. Yet, if you let them bowl/bat how they always have, and they run into issues or loss of form, suddenly you're a bad coach for not rectifying their technical issues.

Bayman, I'll happily stand correct on this, but I have a feeling that Cummins' picking up a strass fracture after the Shield Final was also a reason for him not going to the CoE. I know NSW didn't want him to go, and I know Greg Chappell and CA weren't very happy about it, but I've just got a faint recollection that the injury put paid to it anyway... (Funnily enough, it's not just confined to bowlers. A former club and team-mate of mine went down to Tassie on a rookie contract several years ago and struggled in his first season after having his batting stance and grip completely reworked by the coaches. He came good again, but only after he abandoned the tweaks and went back to what was previously an effective technique..)

james, I'm not totally dismissing modern science. Core strength is absolutely vital. But as you alluded to, you don't need to go anywhere near a gym to work on your core strength. Is it any con-incidence that Shane Watson’s poor run with injury ended the minute he stopped going to the gym and lifting weights?

Ryan and Bayman Core strength. The bowlers need it. Trust me.

Guys you can't completely disregard modern science and say all they need to do is bowl. Cummins has had all of ONE tough 5-day matches in his career, and he had stress-re;lated injuries after that. And that's without backing them up in a series. Play him in the ODIs for sure, but we've learnt from others that you have to be careful with young quicks. If bowlers have biomechanical errors in their action, these can bring on stress injuries. And Bayman - do some research on core strength and its importance. I'm not saying Cummins needs hours in the gym, but he needs a well-thought out fitness program, involving background aerobic fitness (running, bike, swimming, whatever), running training, and core strength. I'm happy for the core stregth to be just sit-ups, planks, push-ups, dips, chin-ups, step-ups/lunges etc, without entering a weights room.

Totally agree Bayman. Whilst you might pull up a bit sore after a long spell, it's actually better that having the bowlers lift weights, and working on their 'technique'. Why fast bowlers go anywhere near a gym is beyond me. How does bulk and muscle strength aid fast bowling? Glenn McGrath, and Michael Holding have been described as having the 'perfect fast bowlers body', yet neither of them would ever be confused with a front rower.

Bayman, A friend of mine is a physio involved in cricket, and I'm therefore reliably informed that the fast bowlers gym work has more to do with the raft of injuries to our fast bowling ranks. I therefore read your post with interest. The best thing for fast bowlers is lots of bowling, contrary to popular belief.

Brett, If only we could get CA's Centre of Excellence gurus to stop tweaking everyone's bowling action and to stop putting them in the gym for hours on end we might do away with the need to pay so much in medical fees. NSW refused the Centre's request for Cummins to go there last year, incurring the wrath, but they stuck to their guns and, guess what, Cummins is still fit to play without missing a year in the meantime (see Hazelwood, Starc, Pattinson, Tait, Cameron etc.). For fun I'll just say......Nathan Bracken. So much for CA's expertise. Get these guys bowling, not lifting weights and running and stretching and more gym work and resting and diets, just bowling and much of these concerns will fade away.

One point of consideration with Patrick Cummins was the refusal by Cricket NSW to send him up to the "Centre of Excellence", much to the disgust of one G. Chappell. NSW took the view that since the "CofE" had turned Josh Hazelwood into damaged goods they would not get the opportunity to do the same to Cummins. And fair enough too. Cummins is still playing, got himself selected for Australia and Hazelwood is inching his way back via club cricket having missed most of last season (currently subbing for NSW in Adelaide, presumably, as a replacement for Casson given Jaques was named 12th). Let us not forget, also, that rightly or wrongly, Nathan Bracken currently has some action going against CA and it's health and fitness gurus relating to a mis-diagnosed injury which he feels has first shortened, then terminated, his career. Surely, someone somewhere is looking into the mess that appears to be CA health and fitness programme.

Cummins (3-28) overnight....

I agree with the sentiment that if you're good enough, you're old enough. It's worth noting that apparently a lot of the injuries that Australia's fast bowlers have been suffering have nothing to do with bowling too much. It's due to spending too much time in the gym, and poor physio management. If that’s the case, his age shouldn't really come into consideration. I personally would have liked to see him play a full year of Sheffield Shield before playing Test cricket, but his performances at international level (albeit in limited overs cricket) suggest he’s ready.

One thing we must do is train him like Glenn McGrath was trained. Pigeon was schooled from hour upon hour of line and length and practising hitting a dime in the nets. Due to the advent of Twenty20, players now actually practice bolwing slow full-tosses. Practice bowling full tosses! This is the new cricket world we live in and young bowlers find it hard to adapt from Twnety20 bowling to Test Match bowling. I say play him but don't overdo it. He needs time to learn his craft so he can be a good Ashes prospect for a decade and a half.