Amidst the euphoria of the victory against South Africa in the second Test in Johannesburg, Australian management’s most important task is to ensure the man of the moment, Patrick Cummins, is handled with kid (or teenage) gloves.
By now the Cummins story is embedded into everyone’s minds. A meteoric rise sees just his fourth first-class game reap him the figures of 6/79 on his Test debut, and then just in case that wasn’t enough he came out in the second innings to hit the winning runs in one of the best Test Match finishes in recent times.
As is to be expected with today’s media, that performance led to the national papers blowing their collective load – and let’s be fair, it was probably justified – how many times can someone say they belted Dale Steyn back past his head for four and took the wicket of arguably the greatest all rounder of all time in their Test debut?
Regardless, it’s important not to get carried away. In his previous first class game for New South Wales – the Sheffield Shield final against Tasmania – Cummins bowled a total of 65 overs in the match before promptly pulling up with back soreness. It’s a reminder that the man is only 18 years old, and his body (and more importantly his bowling action itself) is still developing.
The man he replaced in the Australian Test side for the second Test at Johannesburg was Ryan Harris. Harris, a man who rose to be the spearhead of the Australian bowling attack almost by default – which is in no way a criticism of his abilities – is at the other end of the spectrum to Cummins, where his undoubted quality is restricted by what his body is allowing – or not allowing him to do.
The record of Harris at Test level speaks for itself – 35 wickets in eight matches at an average of 21 with a strike rate of just under 42 is nothing to sneeze at. Yet more tellingly, in Australia’s last three Test series he has been able to take his place in the team for the last match of the series due to injury.
Taking the above into consideration, the Test side is left with their two most talented bowlers both in a position where for one reason or another, they can’t play an entire series. So what do you do to solve this? Here’s the proposal, and it’s quite simple:
Rotate Cummins and Harris through the side – one in and one out, one Test match at a time – for the rest of this summer. With minimal break between each of the six Test matches Australia play at home (during the two series there is no more than a week’s break between any match), attempting to run with the same bowler is fraught with danger and can only end in tears. Remember, Harris is 32 with his body going on 102 and Cummins should be on Schoolies right about now.
There are two main positives of this scheme; firstly, you’re ensuring that both Harris and Cummins are at 100 percent when they do play for their country. As we’ve seen so far that is a recipe for success; well, from one end at least. Secondly, because they are at 100% when they play for Australia there’s less chance of picking up an injury. An injury is much more likely to flare up after a long period of sustained pressure on the body – something that is going to be avoided in this situation.
It requires patience in its execution; something that evidently isn’t in great supply currently judging by the proclamations of Cummins as the saviour and messiah. It’s obvious that he will be a great player, but it’s the management in the upcoming 24-36 months that will determine just what legacy he is positioned to leave in Australian cricket.
Therefore, this solution not only leaves Cummins in a good place, it also has the added benefit of allowing Harris to be a force for Australia for longer than he otherwise would have.
Just please be patient with Cummins.
CJ
Guest
Inasmuch as the "partnership" argument goes, the solution to that is simple: have pairs of fast bowlers that get rotated together. Say Harris and Siddle bowl together, then next Test Cummins and Cutting bowl together (or Copeland, or whoever). Ideally you'd have a spearhead who'll play every Test; and each pair comprised of a line-and-length option and a quick strike option, then add in a spinner and an all-rounder and you have a nice setup. Of course, this is ideally only a short-medium term option for the young guys or a contingency for the injured veterans: you'd prefer having three guys who can play every Test.
Brett McKay
Expert
have to admit, I didn't think Cummins was as bad as he obviously is...
Rick18
Roar Rookie
I know right, couldn't have backfired on me too much better. As I was writing I was thinking, surely they won't both be out of the First Test...and then bam. Well done the cricketing gods.
Brett McKay
Expert
Rick, this is quite a sound theory, it's implementation is only let down by today's news that both Harris AND Cummins (along with Marsh, Watson, and Johnson) have been ruled out of the First Test...
Russ
Guest
Rotation isn't a bad idea, but it is far from optimum. It means one will bowl up to 250 deliveries over 3-4 days, then have little to no cricket for 3 weeks. They need to and can maintain a minimum of bowling, by working out in the nets, but the single test workload is still potentially a problem. Really optimally, test cricket would have substitutions between the 2nd and 3rd innings, so we could rotate the two of them from innings to innings in both tests. But that concept is still several years away.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I think there's some merit in both sides of the bowling too much vs bowling not enough arguement. The problem, to me, lies in the unevenness of the schedule. Whilst they are playing more circket, they're not spreading it out over a year but cramming more cricket into a 3-5 month peiod. Instead of test series being spread out during the year we have players not playing for 6 months before having to play 3 months of back to back matches. It doesn't do much to help a players rhythm and it can't be good going from one extreme to the other so quickly. There is a reason why football players have pre-season and friendly/trial matches after all. It's amazing how many times a team can play virtually no cricket for 12 months then be touring almost all year round the next year. Have a look at the Australian team in 2011. Since the end of last summer we played the World Cup and a short ODI series in Bangladesh (I may have missed something here.) So between February and late August we only played a handful ODI and T20 matches. From August until Feb 2012 we've had, and will have, Test/ODI/T20 tours of SL and SA, a quick test series with NZ followed closely by a 4 test series against India and then a tri-series of ODI's against India and SL(?) plus the odd T20 match thrown in as well. Then I think we're on a plane to the West Indies for a full tour around April? A better balance would have been to move either the SA or NZ series to June/July and spread it out a bit. Ideally the international calendar would be more evenly spread out, though with factors such as climate, other sporting competition, commercial reasons and an increasingly crowded calendar (IPL, T20 and ODI world cups etc.) it's easier said than done.
Rick18
Roar Rookie
Agree with just about everything you said there Chris, although the Johnson and Marsh injuries weren't really anything that could have been managed; a dodgy back can go at any time and a spike through the toe is hardly common. The main idea behind this was to get Cummins through the short-term without hurting himself, so that when his body is 100% ready for Test cricket he can play every Test. I'm definitely not advocating this being a long-term solution.
Chris
Guest
If you listen to Geoff Lawson, the problem is actually that bowlers are not doing enough bowling. There does seem to be some merit in what he's saying if you look at history. With all the fitness and support staff hanging around the team these days I find it astonishing that there are as many injuries as there are. Shouldn't there be far fewer injuries in this professional era? Cummins was asked to shoulder an unusually high amount of bowling in the last Test - because Watson was injured. So we have Cummins, Watson, Marsh and Harris, and allegedly Johnson as well, who are all suffering injuries. And this is from a two Test tour! Imagine the carnage from a full five or six game Ashes series!! But bowlers often work best in partnerships - rotating bowlers 'one on one off' restricts the ability of the bowling attack to work up effective bowling partnerships.
CJ
Guest
I agree, and it seems obvious. Rotating fast bowlers makes good sense - fast bowling is an unnatural stress on the body. I think the rotation is underused in cricket: resting fast bowlers, auditioning young players (third quick or #6), playing horses for courses, etc.