Is Hilfenhaus the victim of the rotation system?

Does it matter if the quicks are out of Test cricket by the time they are thirty if, like McKenzie, they started at nineteen. Ten years service is pretty good by any standard - I'm sure we'd all accept that from the likes of Pattinson and Cummins.....and Harris.....and Hazlewood......and Tait et al. As for those Ashes tours you mention (1948, 1953 and 1856) Lindwall played and bowled in 14 of 15 Tests. Miller played in all 15 but did not bowl in 4. Miller's back injuries, incidentally, were as much from flying accidents as bowling stress. Not to mention that Miller saw himself primarily as a batsman. Bill Johnston played and bowled in 8 of 10 Tests (replaced by Archer, '53) in '48 and '53. Davidson ('53 and '56) played and bowled in 7 of 10 (replaced by Archer, '56) - and played in all five of 1961. Ron Archer played and bowled in 8 of 10 in '53 and '56. Were all the missing games caused by injury or just 'team balance'? I do not know because I haven't checked why those players missed the games they missed. Even allowing for the fact it was injuries they still played the majority of games for which they were available. Did they play and bowl with niggles? Almost certainly, fast bowling is a tough business. The thing is though, those guys had no science behind them other than their own experience and the experience of teammates. And they mostly played. Today's lot have all the science they can poke a stick at and they mostly miss. Why is it so? These guys are not just missing games, or series - they're missing whole seasons. McKenzie, incidentally, wasn't out of Test cricket by age 30 because he was injured but because the selectors went elsewhere. Ian Chappell will happily tell you that if he'd had McKenzie instead of Dell at Sydney in 1970/71 he's have won that Test and retained the Ashes (of course, he'd also include Lawry for Eastwood in that scenario). Sean Young played one Test - not a whole series and Whitney played, from memory, a couple in 1981. Dennis Lillee was nursed through the 1972 tour but he still played. So, either the current lot could still play with their injuries and niggles - or they cannot. So are they more injured now than then? If so, why? If they are not, why aren't they playing? If the science is there why are they breaking down in such large numbers? Fast bowling is a tough job - but it's no tougher than it was ten years ago, thirty years ago, a hundred years ago - and the footwear is a lot more comfortable! Not to mention the beautifully coloured drinks!

I don't understand why Hilfenhaus was even considered for this series. He has been very ineffective for the last few seasons except against India who were dreadful.

Bradman never dropped O'Reilly.

Kim Hughes being sliced and diced by the Windies and his own team mates? Cameron White playing as a specialist spinner against India? Bryce McGain? Bradman dropping Bill O'Rielly allegedly because he was catholic? Have to admit I'm digging pretty hard....OK I've got it! George Bailey as a debutant non-playing T20 captain!

Hopefully this study did not just look at tests in the past, where there was around a 21 day gap between tests. which meant of course there would be more injusries in days 21-28, because that was when the next test match was ... Not sure if that's true, but my childhood memories seem to be two to three week gaps between matches.,

+1 Problem is, our options are getting reduced with every injury

I seem to recall Mitch had some pretty nasty back problems early in his career, prior to making the Australian team

Glenn, Bayman, your points actually answer each other. If the only concern was keeping players on the park over the very long term then they wouldn't have selected Siddle, nor made several other selections, or in game situations (Cummns workload in the Shield final and his first test, both of which resulted in injuries, bordered on neglect). Obviously it is not, the players have to play and they have to perform as the situation demands. If they could be substituted in the same manner as baseball pitchers then the sports scientist could devise a program to limit injuries (they are always only more or less probable, not certainties). But they can't closely monitor in-game workloads, because the game doesn't allow it. My reading of various studies makes we dubious that rotation will actually help, because it is the pattern of work, more-so than the total workload. But that leads me to supporting substitutes, to even the workload, not to tossing out the science. On the issue of Ashes tours you mentioned, which tours would that be? 1997 when Sean Young got a callup in the final test after injuries to so many players? Or 1981 when the same happened to Whitney? You surely aren't talking about Lindwall because contemporary news reports record him as having an injury in 1948, 1953 and 1956. Miller was injured even more frequently. A week before the first test in 1953 Australia had four injured quicks: Miller, Lindwall, Davidson and Johnston. All but Miller bowled, because players then played with injuries. I'm sure modern quicks could do that too, but like McKenzie, amongst others, they'll probably be out of test cricket by the age of 30.

Haddin playing as a specialist batsman in Melbourne would be an absolute slap in the face to every half decent specialist batsman in the country. It would be like the selectors saying "We'd rather a recently dropped 35 year old wicket keeper in our team than any of you 20 something batsmen working your proverbials off to play Test cricket".

I don't recall any of the bowlers during that era throwing themselves around in the field. Not that many possessed a decent throwing arm either. Not so much an issue of athleticism, more the fact that it just wasn't the done thing in those days. How times have changed. Very rare that a bowler has to be 'hidden' in the field these days.

Swampy, Fred Trueman, Brian Statham, Glenn McGrath, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Joel Garner, Wes Hall, ............... The point is, all fast bowlers had niggles but did they need to miss games? Lillee missed eighteen months with a back problem and did not miss again for a decade. Thommo had problems when he ran into Alan Turner in Adelaide and again when he injured his shoulder playing tennis ( but very few problems caused by bowling ). Fast bowlers might miss a game or two but rarely a season - followed by another season (see Cummins and Pattinson). If the science is so good why do we now have bowlers missing seasons - then consecutive seasons? In the old days bowlers worked for a living and played cricket for fun. Often their jobs involved that well known Spaniard, Manual Labour. Core strength was not an issue. Today, we have "professional" cricketers who do not get out of bed unless someone pays them. Ergo, the core strength is artificially manufactured and some guys have it and some guys do not. Those who do not - are injured. By any definition, though, the science is letting them down.

Russ, Let's, for a moment, just accept your "stats" on face value (and they may well be right). The question is........are the sports science gurus doing the right and proper thing to prevent the injuries they can so confidently predict? It's one thing to say if this guy bowls another ball he's up for an injury but quite another thing to prepare in such a way that injury never occurs. Surely that is the test for the science addicts among us.

Jason, As soon as I saw Clarke call for the physio I confess I had a similar thought, "Oh my God, does this mean Watto is captain on Boxing Day?" I didn't see it as a good thing - except.......I have a book at home, "On Top Down Under" by Ray Robinson, which is a pen picture of all Australian captains up to Ian Chappell and it is signed be every captain since, and including DGB, up to the present day. Watto would add to my autograph collection in that book but that's the only positive I can find.

GT, I do seem to recall Hilfy missing a complete season only a couple of years ago. Man of the Match in the first Test, not seen again all summer. We can talk all we like about the notion that bowlers have always had injuries but the fact is we have never, in my memory (which goes back to the 1950s/60s) had so many potential Test fast bowlers injured at the same time. Unless, of course, we are talking about last year, or the year before, or the year before that. In other words, since the "science" started being the be all and end all of judging whether a bowler was ready to go.

Wattie -the Tampon (1 week in-three weeks out) as captain would be Australian crickets lowest point. I would be interested if anyone could show a more regrettable incident.

GT, Would it be churlish of me to suggest that, given the number of injuries - and long term injuries at that - that they do not know what they are doing. Given their sole purpose is to get people on the park, and keep them there, then I can only say the evidence is overwhelmingly against the notion that they know what they are doing. Sports science must be the only job where you you get credit for obvious failure. The evidence suggests we should stop just believing what they tell us and start questioning them as to their methods. One question, how do we explain fast bowlers of yesteryear surviving a full Ashes tour where they played six days a week and often travelled the length and breadth of England overnight to start the next match. Surely work load was just as much of an issue then as it is now?

On a happier note for David, the talk at the moment is for Haddin to play as a specialist batsman in Melbourne if Clarke is out. And Watto to be captain. If that happens, I am struggling to think of a worse XI that Aust has put on the field in my 30+ years of watching cricket. Maybe some of the early WSC teams. Even in the 80s you had AB along with guys with obviously big futures playing for Aust.

It seems like as soon as the bowlers feel a niggle they are off & the expert staff will find an issue (maybe the technology is too good at finding problems) Some of these bowlers have said they feel fine but the "scientists" have told them that they can't play. It's all too precious, play for your country until you can't. It should never be - "just in case". I think it boils down to " harden up princess."

On that evidence they should not have selected Siddle for Hobart either given the elevated risk of injury.

and Courtney used to patrol the boundary using his feet to stop the ball, and often returned the ball round arm! I'm not sure I ever saw him throw himself headlong in the field.