Pattinson's no-balls changed his captain's MCG plans

When Australian fast bowler James Pattinson bowled Carlos Braithwaite for 13 at the MCG yesterday, the West Indies would have been 7-101 and in danger of being beaten by an innings inside three days for a second successive Test.

But the delivery was a no-ball and Braithwaite not only survived, but was let off again on 50 when he was caught at fine leg off another Pattinson no-ball.

Braithwaite was eventually dismissed for 59 with the score at 7-173.

So the original Pattinson no-ball cost 72 runs, and 24.2 overs, which is virtually a session.

Instead of being dismissed for around 130-140, and being forced to follow on, the West Indies rallied to be all out for 271, tiring out the Australian attack.

That left Australian skipper Steve Smith with no option but to bat again, finishing day three at 3-179, an overall lead of 459.

Pattinson’s no-balls won’t change the result, Australian will still win the MCG Test and the series.

But it will take two days longer because of the no-balls, and the extra time in the middle will help the West Indies to start getting their competitive act together.

There was a good feel about them for the first time in this series, scoring their highest total against Australia in their last seven innings – 148, 216, 220, 114, 223, 148, and 271.

But let’s discuss the telling no-balls which are making Pattinson infamous. He bowled South African opening batsman Hamish Amla at the Gabba in 2012 on a no-ball that also proved costly.

Former Australian bowler Brett Lee explained on Channel Nine yesterday that fast bowlers rely on “feel”, in other words their position at delivery.

“Sometimes, when I put the extra effort into a faster delivery, I overstretched.

“If I moved my mark back a metre, and then tried to bowl a faster delivery, the chances are I would still step over the mark,” Lee explained.

That was a honest description from one of the quickest bowlers of all-time, but it doesn’t cut the mustard.

Let’s compare fast bowling with hurdling, and use Olympic gold medallist Sally Pearson as the example.

Hurdling is a far more precise event than fast bowling. The difference is if Pearson wasn’t totally accurate with her three steps between hurdles, she would come a mighty painful cropper hitting, or running into hurdles.

But Pearson is a true professional with her precision. If she ran every event in the same lane, her spikes would land in the same spike marks, or within millimetres.

On the rare time that didn’t happen, Sally crashed heavily in Rome last June hitting a hurdle in the Diamond League, badly breaking her wrist – and it still isn’t right.

Fast bowlers won’t tumble bowling no-balls, but they can be more precise in their run-up as Sally normally is between hurdles.

Most quicks start from “somewhere” near their disc, and it’s the “somewhere” and not the precision that gets them out of sync

The remedy is simple, and it must be done at the nets, and in the middle.

The only change from automation is the difference between bowling downhill with the wind, to bowling uphill against it..

But the remedy is still simple, just adjust accordingly.

Had Pattinson done that, the baggy greens would probably be on the golf course today as series winners.