Around three years ago, I sat at a table with three former Test cricketers.
They were of the opinion that Pat Howard and his sports science-backed “rotation” policy of resting Australia’s fast bowlers should take a flying nude leap at the moon.
Wouldn’t happen in my day, they said. What if Mitchell Johnson takes six-fer? You can’t rest him, they added. Bowlers have to be tough to play Test cricket, blokes should work hard for their spots, nothing’s given to you on a platter.
And over canapés and Crown Lager, they raged against the Cricket Australia machine, bagging Howard’s Powerpoint skills, manner and the fact he played rugby for Australia. What would he know?
For the most part, I sat and absorbed all this because what did I know, having played a hundred-odd fewer Test matches for Australia than these chaps.
But in the way of my tribe, the Journos – the collective noun for which is a Schooner of Journos – it seemed someone should take up the devil’s advocate position.
And given I’d enjoyed a few schooners, I offered words to the effect of:
“He must be doing something right. The Cricket Australia board, which contains many of your peers, has acted on the advice of the Argus Review which advised on the need for a Pat Howard to oversee high performance.
“And on the advice of the best sports scientists in the land, they’ve come up with this policy. And they play a lot more cricket today than ever before. Can you argue against the science?”
Seems they could! And they did.
Around we went again, all the reasons why rotation was a bad idea. How fast bowlers have to be tough and bowl 30 overs a day, and pound into those nets, and anyone who thought a “legislated” number of overs or deliveries per day is a good idea is a flat-out kook. All those science geeks, what did they know?
Fair enough. You play for Australia, your opinion carries varying levels of gravitas.
However, Pat Howard has been involved at the elite level of team sport since 1993, when as a 19-year-old Wallabies debutant he thought he could step past Frank Bunce and Michael Jones. That didn’t work out well.
But he learned from that and played 20 Tests, and it’s been an upwards journey since.
He was the boss at the Leicester Tigers. He was general manager of high performance for the Wallabies. He has university degrees. He’s worked in corporate land and has plenty of coin. He owns many pharmacies.
Granted, Howard can’t fully understand the methods of a Test fast bowler – though you’d suggest he has a fair idea now, five years into the gig – nor be able to get absolutely into their heads and motivations and so forth.
But if Dennis Lillee told him something, Pat would listen.
However, he would also listen to his crack squadron of sports science experts. Physiotherapists, people like that. People with experience and degrees and computers. People for whom sports performance is scientifically quantifiable.
These people know – because computers tell them thus – that Joe Blow’s achilles tendon, now in its eighth week of rehab, can’t take more than X overs in the nets.
They know Josh Hazlewood’s 25-year-old body is better able to cope with the rigours of bowling 30 overs a day than Peter Siddle’s 31-year-old one. They also know that because of Hazlewood’s previous injuries to ankle and rib cartilage and whatever else, that he shouldn’t bowl too many in the nets lest they flare up again.
It’s about performance. About getting the best out of cricketers. Howard is “Executive General Manager of Team Performance”. Performance is his gig.
Yes, there’s quite a good argument that given Australia is losing this Test series against South Africa, having previously lost three straight Tests in Sri Lanka and five one-dayers in a row in South Africa, that the team’s performance has been sub-standard.
Indeed there’s no argument. They’ve been shit-house. And our Pat’s job could be up for Argus Review itself.
He knows that. He knows that no-one’s safe. Not even James Sutherland, who so often talks a good game.
Lose this series, struggle against Pakistan, knives will be out for all.
But there’s a myriad of reasons why Australian cricket is in a lull. And you can’t knock the boffins.
Consider: No James Pattinson, no Pat Cummins. Now Sid Vicious isn’t there in Hobart. Time for a bolter – Joe Mennie, a man I’d never heard of until he played for Australia in an ODI against South Africa.
Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood will do their best, though Starc’s battling.
They need Pattinson or Cummins or Nathan Coulter-Nile. But they’re injured.
And that’s what Howard and his team were trying to prevent with their roundly-panned “rotation” policy that’s since been brushed aside. Though they’ll still bring Steve Smith back from Sri Lanka and Starc won’t tour Africa for nuffie one-dayers.
And here we are. Still listing reasons. Like: We can’t bat. If the ball does anything scary like “swing” or “spin”, we struggle. But then everyone does, it’s a thing.
Like: the pathways to the Test team are muddled with all the T20 rubbish going on, and Futures Leagues full of kids.
Once, there was a great pyramid up to the golden bricks of the Test team, from fourth grade in club cricket, up to the Sheffield Shield team, to Test level.
If you rose through that furnace and did a long, consistently successful apprenticeship, you were good to go.
Mike Hussey would tell you that. Chris Rogers and Adam Voges, too. Jamie Cox would tell you another story, one of the unluckiest players to have not played a Test in a hundred years.
There’s an issue with the amount of cricket being played. Once upon a time there was an “off-season”. Now it’s wall-to-wall. Works for batsmen, usually. Fast bowlers, not so much.
But the major problem is that Australia is not scoring enough runs or taking enough wickets. And that, eventually, will rest at the feet of the executive general manager of high performance.
And we’ll blame him, and Sutherland, and Canada.
But we can’t blame the geeks.
matth
Guest
I remember wrecking my back doing a jigsaw puzzle.
Baz
Guest
Cummings hasn't been allowed to play in Shield cricket i believe he is currently not injuried but not allowed to play there's a difference.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I did my shoulder sitting up in bed, I didn't even make it out of bed. The point is all this over restriction is meant to be providing less injuries and it clearly isn't. As DK says, they need better actions, not less bowling.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The problem is why have no idea what research they are using and we probably never know. That lack of knowledge by the general public leads to many questions when the level on injuries is not at any better.
Dutski
Roar Guru
I posted this on another article a few days ago, but will give it another airing here: There was an interesting study on this as far back as 2003, which found the following: “There appears to be a dual fast bowling workload threshold beyond which the risk of injury increases and maintaining a workload that is too low or infrequent is an equally significant risk factor for injury as maintaining a high bowling workload. Further study is required to determine the reason why players who bowl infrequently suffer more injuries.” Dennis R, Farhart P, Goumas C, Orchard J. Bowling workload and the risk of injury in elite cricket fast bowlers. J Sci Med Sport. 2003 Sep;6(3):359-67. The science is there that underbowling is as much of a risk as overbowling. I’m not sure if there has been more recent research, but this paper is pretty solid. So if we need to listen to the geeks as you say, then maybe we should listen to the ones that have done the research. The rotation policy as it stands only focused on one side of the argument.
Broken=hearted Toy
Guest
Damien Fleming actually did his shoulder in getting out of bed once. It's hardly a new thing, quick bowlers and injuries. Ask Jason Gillespie next time he is on the Roar.
Larry
Guest
I think there are a number of issues in play at the moment. To me the need to have bowling restrictions placed on all bowlers is problematic. Young bowlers who have poor bowling actions will have problems no matter how many overs they bowl. Alternatatively bowlers who have an action which will not lead them to be injured are subject to the same bowling restrictions. If they play In the morning then the afternoon at times they cannot bowl the number of overs required by the captain in the grade match in the afternoon because of these restrictions. They are being penalised because of their age and their development suffers. Additionally with junior elite pathways monitoring all manner of things from workloads to wellness I believe there are a number of people employed by state bodies who may need to find something wrong in order to justify their position. Players seem to be over monitored and the recent discussion by past players saying that ultimately it was the players own responsibility to monitor their own body would seem to support this.With all of these restrictions placed on bowlers how are batsmen supposed to receive quality practice? Drop drills do not prepare batsmento face a moving ball or to face a bouncer at good pace. Thoughts?
Ozibatla
Guest
Absolutely junior coach, many of these cricketers would pully a hammy or pop their shoulders gettin out of bed. Sports science and modern programs are teaching todays players to be gym fit and not cricket fit. Do you recon Courtney Walsh or Glenn McGrath were impressive on the bench press??? They rarely broke down however. Administrators have abit to answer for as well in regards to scheduling. Playing 10 test matches within 5 months is ridiculous... moreso when you include the inevitable odi's an 20/20 throughout the summer
Rellum
Roar Guru
Look back through my comments on this site and you will see I am adamant it is all down to the entire youth development system and how these kids are brought up. You see more and more comments about how the system has been completely up ended over the last 10 years and we are now seeing the results of that. Nothing we do at the national or even FC level will fix this in the short term, so it is pointless debating who should be in the test side as none of these guys are good enough. And to those saying we should pick and stick with young guys, they too have not been schooled in the correct batting methods and it may be too late already for them to fix that so they will fail as well. We have potentially a generation of batsmen who can't play in tough conditions. My comment above is about the micro issue of bowlers and over limits.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
I agree. If it was truly based in science, then by now they should have enough evidence to refute their current theory. Then, if they were actually scientists, they would describe their next theory and test that. Unfortunately what CA is calling science is, in fact, politics and media spin.
Junior Coach
Guest
No doubt it is true that we are a bit lean on talent but the problems begin at the junior levels of the game, batsman are not taught how to handle the moving ball. Yesterdays innings of Smiths showed that he had solid back foot defence and was able to cope with the nip and swing . The game remains a "see ball, hit ball game" but has to built on the fundamentals of defence. As for the bowling injuries- ive never seen anything like it- so something tells me the sports science is getting something very wrong and my gut feeling is that it is under not overbowling causing the problems.
Reece
Guest
Its all well and good pointing out deficiencies and errors throughout the setup that is Cricket Australia but unless this proud cricketing nation traces the problems back to where they originate from then these sub par performances will continue. The inept batting we are witnessing continuously in modern times leaves me in no doubt that this has become a systemic problem tracing back to how these guys are brought up to play. 20/20 has flooded the cricketing landscape to the point of overdose. And with that, plenty of secondary effects have entrenched themselves into all formats of the game ie: ultra-aggressive batting, flat dead wickets, bigger bats, smaller boundaries and a diminished quality in the general effect of bowling. Hence when many of these young (and indeed not so young) batsmen are confronted with a moving ball of any description (swing, seam or spin) they become flummoxed as to how to survive due to a lack of exposure to such scenarios when growing up. On a side note, i think we just have to accept that we are going through a period where australia just isnt producing as good a cricketer as yester year or as many of them. Suffice to say, maybe we should lower expectations a tad
Reece
Guest
Its all well and good pointing out deficiencies and errors throughout the setup that is Cricket Australia but unless this proud cricketing nation traces the problems back to where they originate from then these sub par performances will continue. The inept batting we are witnessing continuously in modern times leaves me in no doubt that this has become a systemic problem tracing back to how these guys are brought up to play. 20/20 has flooded the cricketing landscape to the point of overdose. And with that, plenty of secondary effects have entrenched themselves into all formats of the game ie: ultra-aggressive batting, flat dead wickets, bigger bats, smaller boundaries and a diminished quality in the general effect of bowling. Hence when many of these young (and indeed not so young) batsmen are confronted with a moving ball of any description (swing, seam or spin) they become flummoxed as to how to survive due to a lack of exposure to such scenarios when growing up. On a side note, i think we just have to accept that we are going through a period where australia just isnt producing as good a cricketer as yester year or as many of them. Suffice to say, maybe we should lower expectations a tad
Rellum
Roar Guru
If the sports science guys and Pat Howard are doing a good job then we would be seeing less injuries and improving cricket across the country. We are seeing the opposite. I am not a right winger who does not believe science when it suits me, but the evidence we are exposed too as members of the Australian cricket fraternity shows us that their methods are not working.
AlanKC
Guest
Hmm, High Performance Units seem to have overseen a fairly decent decline in our abilities in every sport that has adopted them - think swimming, tennis, rugby union and cricket. Perhaps one of the problems is that the vast bureaucracy that accompanies such a system becomes more about ensuring that it survives and less about producing the best results possible?
Tom Rock
Expert
Perhaps we simply aren't that good at cricket anymore. After performing at such an elite level for so many years, we expect to dominate. And if we are not the best team in the world, we search for someone to blame. But maybe this is just the level our players are at right now. A bleak reality...
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I'm not sure its a case of "blame". The science is only as good as the results it produces. The results are, at best, unclear. With sports science a relatively new field, and cricket changing rapidly in recent times, that is perhaps not a surprise. The demands are different to other sports, and different to cricket's own demands even just a decade ago. T20 tournaments everywhere, and international players having few FC games outside of Tests, there is far more travel. In the past, if a rest was needed a bowler would sit out a four day tour game. Instead, now, the first choice team has to play the one 2-3 day game they get before a Test series. it means no acclimatisation, and no chance to rest if needed other than rotations. And in the short games, even a rotation means travelling for a few hours the next day - hardly a rest. Today's bowlers don't get rest or routine, and that's before questioning all the limitations on the amount of net bowling, junior cricket over limits, etc. The newness of the schedule and the newness of the science make it hard to trust the results. Medium to longer term, things should improve. But the data returned is only as good as the data to fed in and the theories applied and tested, and there may not yet be a good enough input dataset to base sound theories on.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
"They need Pattinson or Cummins or Nathan Coulter-Nile. But they’re injured." This says it all for me. The policy is clearly not working. Was the old way better? I do not know, as I don't have the information, nor do I have a crystal ball. Something needs to change, the evidence is this way is not helping to get the best on the field consistently. I have some theories around the fact that the current bunch have learned their trade on "accountant's wickets" and their corresponding reaction to charge in and not use guile and out-think a batsman.
Tom from Perth
Guest
Good article. But is it possible that the sport scientists are keeping fast bowlers on the pitch (most often than not) that wouldn't still be there in the old days? I remember a quote from Lillee (or similar) to the effect that they were the best of their generation because they had the bodies to actually stay in the game. Cummins for example may have been run into the ground with irreparable injuries by now...