I was watching the opening over the Boxing Test at the home of my son Zac and after a couple of balls by Jackosn Bird, I called out to him that Australia has discovered its new Glenn McGrath.
Bird was immediately on the a great line and length. He moved the ball both ways, sometimes with out-swing and then cutting the ball in.
He bowled at a good pace delivering what connoisseurs of fast/medium-pace bowling like to call ‘a heavy ball’. Generally he bowled at a McGrath-like 135km/h and occasionally up to 139km/h
Medium/pace bowling is not really about pace as such but on what a bowler can do with the ball, little movements both ways, and a sort of rush off the pitch (an illusion) that hurries batsmen into their shots and makes the ball hit their bats hard.
The failed hook shot by Dimuth Samaraweera immediately after the lunch interval is a case in point. The batsman was just too late on his hook shot and, as a consequence, merely bunted it to Dave Warner at mid-wicket for an easy catch.
What I noticed immediately about Bird was his springy, athletic run in to bowl, rather like the run up (but much shorter) Michael Holding (a resemblance noted, as well, by Malcolm Knox in the SMH).
The other very notable aspect of Bird’s bowling was his intense accuracy, always on or just outside the off stump and just back of a length, except for the fuller out-swing deliveries tempting the drive from frustrated batsmen.
This accuracy enabled Bird in his 13 overs to bowl five maiden overs. The other four bowlers (Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle, Shane Watson and Nathan Lyon) bowled their 30 overs with a total of only 5 maidens.
The point about bowling maiden overs (as Wayne Smith also noted in one of his reports in The Australian) is it puts the batsmen under pressure and opens up the possibility of wickets from less parsimonious bowlers at the other end. As Smith pointed out, Bird’s first 21 deliveries after lunch did not concede a run and that ‘the Sri Lankans happily – and fatally – chanced their arm against everyone else.’
So it is time for a fearless prediction, or probably more accurately, a fearless insistence. When the selectors want to put their best fast bowling unit in a Test, Peter Siddle and Jackson Bird have to be in the mix.
Siddle is better at being the enforcer coming in at first change and banging the ball into batsmen.
Bird is an opening bowler, with his swing and cut, who will bowl into the wind, if there is any. On this reckoning, Ben Hilfenhaus is now relegated to being a back-up for when, or if, Bird is not available.
This leaves open the other opening bowling spot. James Pattison (when fit), Patrick Cummins (when fit), Mitchell Starc and Mitchell Johnson are also contenders. As Shane Warne, the two Mitchells can’t be played together because ‘they both leak runs.’I actually prefer Starc to Johnson as an opening bowler.
Johnson, to my mind, is just too erratic now to be considered as the cutting edge of an Australian attack (unless everyone else is out). He doesn’t just leak runs, they flood off his bowling. By way of comparison, Johnson bowled 14 overs yesterday for 63 runs (something like 4.3 runs an over, using the cricket ratio of the .3 representing three runs) and Bird bowled his 13 overs for 32 runs (about 2.3 runs an over).
We come now to the controversial rotation policy. Is there some method in what is perceived by experts like Geoff Lawson as a cricketing madness?
To begin with, the rotation method has given us Jackson Bird, who I regard now as a permanent starter in the bowling attack, along with Peter Siddle.
I am convinced also by a sophisticated analysis written by Malcolm Know in the SMH. He sees the rotation policy as part of the ‘managerialism’ ideology that has come to dominate the Western corporate world. The essence of managerialism, according to Knox, is that a ‘shared methodology can achieve better results than relying on the brilliance of individuals.’
What this means for the baggy green caps is this: ‘The cricket managerialist dream is that while individual bowlers can come and go, what cannot be rotated out are the fundamental principles of line and lenth tailored to specific conditions. It doesn’t matter who the bowlers are, as long as they are schooled in the method.’
I find this analysis stimulating, to say the least. When I read Knox’s excellent column I immediately thought of Graham Henry and the All Blacks and their quest for the Holy Grail of a Rugby World Cup triumph.
Henry introduced a similar sort of rugby managerialism into the All Blacks when he took over a coach in 2003. It is history now that the All Blacks collapsed in their quarter final against France in RWC 2007. But it also history that the policy worked in RWC 2011.
The lessons from Henry’s experience is that sooner or later, going into a crucial must-win tournament like the RWC the selectors have to define their starting team and then play it all the time in the crucial matches. At RWC 2007, for instance, Henry did NOT play the same starting XV once throughout the tournament.
In the 2011 Rugby World Cup a starting/best XV was played in the important matches. Rotating stopped essentially once the tournament started. This is what has to happen when the Australian selectors pick their teams in the Ashes series later next year.
The up-side of the rotation policy, though, came for Henry when first Daniel Carter, then Colin Slade, and then Aaron Cruden (actually in the final) all succumbed to injury. Stephen Donald, brought back from his holidays, became the fourth fly half used by the All Blacks in the tournament. He played for 50 minutes in the final and kicked the winning penalty.
Donald had been dropped from the All Blacks squad for RWC 2011. But in the previous few years he’d played 28 Tests for the All Blacks and, therefore, was ready enough to become the super-sub.
Back to the Australian cricket team, what all this means in my view is rotating may be acceptable up to the Ashes series. Then the best unit must be used in every Test on the theory that battles are won with all guns blazing.
Players like Johnson and possibly Starc, though, are there, like Donald, with the background, experience and will to perform if they are forced to come into the starting side with better bowlers out injured.
TJ
Guest
Only if Vodafone sponsor the announcement again.
Red Kev
Guest
Almost confirmed on Channel Nine news AD by Watto. Johnson and Cutting are good enough alrounders to be honest and Watson is not a good enough batter. Maxwell would be a bad call unless it is a raging turner, Khawaja should be in at 4 permanently.
Russ
Guest
By modern standards it was ridiculous There was a reason the West Indies only got through 12 overs an hour. That extra 15m adds 15 seconds a ball, 90 seconds an over. With the current over-rate rules Holding would either need to shorten it or play with a spinner, not four quicks (or both). Anyway, the point was that Bird's run-up is actually quite long. No doubt it works for him too, but a few more slow days like day 1 and Clarke will get suspended.
Red Kev
Guest
I think he would find himself dropped and forced to work his way back in that situation. At least that would be what should happen.
Atawhai Drive
Guest
Latest word on Watson, according to The Tonk Twitter feed, is that Watto is considering giving up bowling in an attempt to prolong his career.
TheGenuineTailender
Roar Guru
I'd argue that James Pattinson is the best bowler in Australia at the moment.
Red Kev
Guest
If they replace Watson with Maxwell it is an admission that Watson is not one of the best 6 bats in the country but is selected as an allrounder. Which is a joke for a guy who bowled 3 overs in the entire damn match.
Keagan Ryan
Roar Guru
Technically, I had Bird compared to England's ex-swing machine Matthew Hoggard. Pollock again is similar. What he brings to the table is more Stuart Clark-esque, does just enough nibbling each way. Probably doesn't get the bounce Clark did but still looks a promising new ball bowler.
Rob from Brumby Country
Guest
Gee... You couldn't make room for the best performing bowler from the last England tour? Ouch. Hilfi's apparently fallen from grace in a big way...
Jason
Guest
I'd back Bayman's and sheek's knowledge of cricket over Pat Howards any day of the week.
Jack
Guest
What a load of rubbish about meteorologists. "They still can't get the weather right." They get it right most of the time, just like the selectors do. But knee jerk critics like yourself know more than the experts. And I mean real experts, not the self elected "experts" on this site. If this current system brings back the ashes, will you and other critics give credit where it's due. Thankfully the general public don't pick our national teams.
Bayman
Guest
Atawhai, I concur with your mate, Watto is a very nice guy. I'd love him to do well but, seriously, how hard can it be to play consecutive games without breaking something - especially given all the so-called "science" being put into each player's preparation.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Agreed. We shouldn't be too quick to talk him up just yet, just like we shouldn't be too quick to bag a player if they have a poor debut. The "next great player" tag has been thrown out far too easily in the recent past. Krejza and Marsh are two examples that quickly come to mind. Bird did look very good though and backed up what he's been doing in the Shield
Matt F
Roar Guru
It depends on the situation. If they are genuinely too tired to play then they should be rested. There's no point in saying "well he's tired now so we'll play him in back to back test matches and then rest him in a month's time" as that doesn't solve the problem of the player being tired now. If we're just resting for the sake of resting though then I agree with you. From the late 90's until we eventually won in India in the mid-2000's the Australian players also considered it the biggest series, or at least equal to the Ashes
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
What is it with Watto? On TV, he looks like a poster boy for the concept of gym bunny gone wrong. Such a big upper body and relatively slender legs. A mate has spent a bit of time with Watto, who he says is a genuinely nice bloke perhaps lacking the hard edge of self-confidence that distinguishes the truly elite sportsman. My mate also says that TV doesn't give a real impression of just how huge Watto is. He's an awesome sight up close, apparently. His bowling run-up has always looked heavy-footed. I don't imagine umpires have any problem hearing him coming. The ground must shake on his approach. Top-heavy? What would I know? But this is a player who has missed 50 Tests since his debut in 2004. Sure, he wasn't actually selected for some of those, but he's missed a lot through injury. At 31, this eternally promising player really needs to start delivering consistently with bat and ball, vice-captain or not.
Jason
Guest
On Bird - we shouldn't get too carried away as yet. The opposition is weak and demoralised and he only ever had to bowl with a new ball. A stack of potential there though.
Bayman
Guest
Jason, ken, I agree entirely. Apparently it is now perfectly acceptable to have second stringers playing for Australia even when the best are available. Either we are very, very good or someone is getting confused with what Test cricket is supposed to be all about. Of course, that last comment presumes that CA does also feel responsible for our win/loss ratio and not just the opinions of its "science" gurus. Surely the only driver for rotation is to save bodies and make sure everyone is available all of the time. That said, we have some seven fast bowlers in the grandstand or lying on the couch. If rotation actually works, why are we missing so many bowlers. Were the gurus not precise enough, not quick enough or just not good enough? We now have Watson with yet another calf strain. Can somebody - who actually knows - kindly explain to me how it is possible for Watson to strain his calf with his particular bowling run up. He runs half pace and not particularly far. While they are at it, could they also explain why, given he strained it, that the gurus failed to detect the possibility given the massive amount of science and data and knowhow involved? The obvious thought is that they can either predict it - or they cannot. If they can, why did he play. If they cannot then surely they are just guessing about everybody else too. Or perhaps Watson's body is so complicated that he's impossible to predict other than the time honoured, "It's been three games - he's due". Frankly, the idea that your best fast bowlers might miss any two of six Tests a season is laughable. Just as well we don't care who wins the Ashes. I will happily accept the science when the fast bowlers a) get on the park and b) stay on the park. Until then the only thing we know for certain is that these guys have no idea. Rotation is just another way of guessing and hoping you've picked the right guy. In Watson's case, they did not. Probably the same with Starc.
Atawhai Drive
Guest
Uzzie's in, on standby for Clarke. Glenn Maxwell comes in as the all-rounder, replacing the injured Watto.
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
Michael Holding's runup was ridiculous. It was not ridiculous to Michael Holding!!! And actually it was "fluid in motion" - and the length - Michael Holding's decision - not yours and not anyone else's. It worked for him!!
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Sheek, 'One ruke for some, anothe rule for others'. Mike Gatting would be proud of you. I think the difference for AFL players is that they are always recovering from bruises as well as muscle fatigue. Cricketers shouldn't have too many bruises and therefore the Swans program might not transfer to cricket quite so well.