Is the need for speed crippling our young quicks?

Bowlers need to bowl as many overs as they could. I do not think workload is the issue. I definitely think the more a guy bowls his body gets use to or adapts to the action and actually minimizes the risk of injuries. I laugh when I hear talk of resting Hazlewood. I also think guys back in the 80's and mid 90's played through injuries.

Fair enough jefferey But When u compare Johnson to a hadlee or Lillee the stats r dramatically closer

Good question eski. I know that Tate bowled off breaks, but I understood that he was primarily a medium fast bowler. For example, Trevor Bailey wrote this of Tate in History of Cricket in the context of the 1924-25 series: "Maurice Tate was the most feared new ball bowler in the world, and certainly justified this rating by capturing 38 wickets in the series. His run-up was short, while his pace, lively fast-medium, was derived from a fine, powerful body action. A batsmen always knew that if he stayed long against Tate his right hand would be automatically jarred." I always assumed that he was primarily a medium fast bowler (although Bailey refers to him as 'fast-medium'). I know he opened the bowling for England over a fairly long period, and I think it unlikely that "the most feared new ball bowler in the world" would have bowled mainly overs of spin. Perhaps towards the end of his career. In any event, you raise a fair point.

I'll take your word on Walsh. But, by your own statement, he was quick for the first half of his career; half of his career would have been approaching 8 - 10 years. I certainly remember him as quick. Johnson played Tests from 2007-15, say, 9 years. Johnson's average bowling workload over his entire test career was a little more than half of Walsh's workload over his full 18 year test career; including when Walsh was fast. (I'm including bowling in all forms of cricket here.) But the same comments re speed applies to Johnson for a lot of his career. There were periods where he was express (eg last Ashes series in Australia) and then others where he was 'merely' fast. His pace dropped dramatically after the last Ashes series in Australia.

Jefferey I'm assuming you are referring to Maurice tate who next to his bowling style it has right arm , medium fast, medium and right arm off breaks so how many of these overs were either bowled at medium pace or spin You can not compare a bowler like that to a hazelwood or Johnson

Walsh wasn't an out and out quick for the last half of his career. Not close to it.

Perhaps, but my comparison included the workload of two quicks (Walsh and Johnson) and the workload of two medium fast bowlers (Tate and Hazlewood). In both cases, Walsh and Tate bowled substantially more overs per annum over a period of around 18 years than did Johnson over his career, or than Hazlewood has so far.

You can't compare an out and out quick like Johnson with bowlers who can trundle in at a medium/fast pace. The stress on the feet and legs of someone bowling like Johnson is massive.

Are we expecting bowlers to bowl injury free? Having a biomechnic expert advise you doesn't make injuries impossible. The CA biomechanics have stated publicly that there is little they can do in many cases because of the nature of first-class/test cricket and the age of he bowlers. Most likely, well see Cummins and Pattinson follow the career arc of Gillespie: perennially injured in his younger days, and more stable as he reached his late-20s before breaking down again in his early 30s. To respond to several commenters above: yes, bowlers today bowl much the same amount as in past years, possibly less, but in past years bowlers got injured a lot as well (and there is always a confirmation bias, in that those who didn't get injured prospered, and those who did went back to their day jobs). In terms of the research into workloads: the two big dangers to bowlers are 1) wear and tear from bowling a lot over a long period and 2) spikes in workload over and above the normal load. The latter is more dangerous which is why people are right to say that bowlers need to bowl a lot. But you can't overdo it (see 1). The best thing we could do for fast bowlers is introduce substitutions in test cricket (between the 2nd and 3rd innings), so that a bowler could bowl 20 odd overs, then have a week off, much as baseball starters do. It borders on negligent that Steyn, to cite a recent example, would have to play the second innings of a match in which he was injured earlier. And Cummins original injury - after the Shield final as a teenager - was some of the grossest mismanagement a bowler could receive. No amount of training or medical help will get a 17 year old through 65 overs in four consecutive days.

I'd hardly suggest it's the need for speed in this case, as it's not as if Pattinson was a medium pacer who has been told he needs to bowl faster. He was always a fast bowler and would have been whether there was a 140km/h requirement or not.

well said, its just a misconception that everyone runs with and accepts as the truth. just like all RL players say the game has gotten faster when it was at its fastest 15 years ago

they defintely play less ODI in australia than they used to. we would play 12 ODI at home now we play 5

they bowl 4 overs

I also remember playing school/club/rep that the best periods of my bowling, and my fittest, coincided with the times I was bowling the most, not the least. Whilst obviously not a professional athlete, I ran at school, but I never lifted weights and I was a decent enough quick for my level.

The problem is they don't bowl enough, they spend too much time in the gym, resting or doing other things. Nothing prepares you better for bowling then bowling. I remember a few years ago the Wallabies used to break down all the time and there were big questions around why this was happening, compared to say the All Blacks. One of the things people pointed out was that the All Blacks were always playing top flight rugby, when they weren't doing Super and Tests they had the NPC. In contrast the Wallabies at the time were doing it very stop start, with Super Rugby and then Tests with nothing in between. No training or weights can replicate actually playing. Nothing prepares you better for doing an activity than actually doing it and this isn't just about sport (world famous drummers talk about being drum fit, something that they build up over decades of playing endlessly, not lifting weights in a bloody gym).

I don’t know where this idea comes from that fast bowlers have heavier workloads nowadays. I was recently reading an account of the 1928-29 timeless test against England. The bowlers in that series averaged around 120 – 130 overs per day and the 5 test series took 33 days to complete. In that series the great medium fast bowler Maurice Tate bowled 485 overs, while Harold Larwood bowled 300 overs. In the recently completed 5 test match series against NZ, Josh Hazlewood bowled a total of 214 overs, less than half Tate’s overall overs. I had a quick look at Tate’s overall career. From 1920, (he made his test debut in 1924), to his retirement in 1937, he bowled the equivalent of 146,443 6-ball overs, in all forms of cricket. That’s an average of 1,356 overs per year. I also had a look at Courtney Walsh’s record. Over an 18 year period from 2000 to his retirement he bowled a total of 148,165 overs in all forms of cricket, for an average of 1,372 overs per year – a very similar figure to Tate. Mitch Johnson, on the other hand bowled a total of 58,886 overs in all forms of cricket for an average of 701 overs per year, which is around half of the annual overs bowled by Tate and Walsh. Last year (2015) Hazlewood played in 12 tests and bowled a total of 403 overs (compared to Tate’s 485 overs in 5 tests) and he bowled around 54 overs in ODIs, I think there must be something wrong with the management of modern day quicks, when they bowl, comparatively, so few overs and break down so frequently.

The emphasis in the past was on prevention of back injuries by making sure the bowler did not have a "mixed action" , there were always injury prone bowlers and match hardened bowlers. The norm in the past was to aim to have a quick fit enough to bowl 20-25 overs in a day- even in club cricket that was common. Watched some footage of Hadlee bowling 30 in a day . Practice sessions the guys who were fairdinkum bowled and bowled , I certainly always felt that the more I bowled during the week the better I would go on the weekend . Now juniors are restricted and are not hardened by bowling. I still believe that bowling is a unique activity. I can still remember finding muscles on one side of my body that were more developed than the other and only through bowling. Gym workouts are ok but they don't tack into account the lopsided nature of bowling. as Bush said above DKL bowled for his club, his state and his country - I think its underwork not over work. Another point when do you ever see a quick bowling a 10 over spell these days- even if hes just taken 2 wickets and is working the new batter over the skipper will pull him off after 6 overs.

A bit of everything to be honest Daniel. I know when I was a kid playing cricket you use to just bowl, bowl and bowl some more. There was never restrictions on bowling overs. I know in the Grade Cricket I play, there's restrictions on any bowler under the age of 19. I also know for a fact in Test Cricket Squad, there's also limitation on amount of balls players are to bowl in the nets. Cricketing bodies nowadays are just not conditioned for Cricket.