Paying the price for speeding
On the 13th July 2012 the cricket world woke up to the retirement of Brett Lee. He will always be one of the fastest bowlers of the modern game with expendable energy throughout a game whether in Colours or whites, Or holding a bat or ball. He had a deadly bouncer and Yorker which the batsmen knew could claim their head or toes or wicket. In his peak he was able to reach searing paces of up to 98MPH but as he got older he reduced his pace and incorporated experience, gradually resigning from 98 MPH to around 88 MPH. Famed for his furious speed gun battles with Shoaib Akhtar, he contributed to a global legacy of fast bowling but also reinforced a legacy that fast bowling meant being blighted by injury and inconsistency.
Shoaib Akhtar responded to Brett Lee’s retirement regretfully saying the following: ”Cricket had very few express pace bowlers and now after the retirement of Lee we don’t have any bowler who can bowl 99 mph and the terror on the batsmen will be less”. Whereas the quickest are rated as the most dangerous to batsmen and i wouldn’t for a minute dispute that, their success in terms of taking TEST wickets and longevity is questionable.
I am trying to consider whether ‘Is it worth being an express quick bowler’ with such a short career of an international sportsmen. It takes such a lot out f the body and limits the career of a bowler greatly. I am not disputing ability and definitely not their place in the game. Long may it continue, Shoaib is said to have made Tendulkar ‘shake with fear’ when bowling to him which is no mean feat. But the fact that it is nowhere near as successful and effective as focusing more on line, length, accuracy and taking wickets instead of putting fear into the batsmen, is un-ignorable.
The strain on the body of an express pace bowler like Allan Donald, Shane Bond and Brett Lee combined with the lack of breaks in International cricket means a limited career to limited overs due to fatigue, injury and a lack of management. A quick bowler that suffers an injury is also unlikely to return at the same potent level of pace, as seen with Lee and Shoaib.
Unfortunately the world does not see the likes of Lee and Shoaib for as long as we all want to. Here Shoaib shows his potency when things all clicked, destroying the helpless Ashley Giles. If only he had played for longer. He was an awesome fast bowler
Some of the greatest ever fast bowlers got a huge number of test wickets because they recognized success is defined by wickets taken. Raw pace was a means to an end in taking those wickets perhaps and not as just an end in itself, and they were able to combine pace and accuracy and not be too disadvantaged by the International schedule.
The likes of Hadlee, McGrath, Vass and Pollock began their careers with youthful pace but transformed into line and length regardless of pace. They bowled longer spells and had longer careers. Focusing on accuracy means a bowler has a better wicket taking ability. A batsmen has less margin for error. If they make a mistake they are out. There are less gaps because the more accurate and controlled a bowler is the more precise fields can be set reinforcing the idea that the batsmen has to force the pace and make mistakes. Crucially accurate bowling with less pace and more attack means frustration and dot balls which leads to pressure and wickets.
The fact is that although fast bowlers could be deadly, they tend to bowl less balls on the stumps. Fast bowlers also tend to bowl a little shorter, as fuller balls are easier to hit, and will race away at that pace. The typical fast bowler will use a full ball sparingly and focus on a good or short length trying to take catches not lbws or bowled wickets. It is the crucial difference.
Many fast bowlers have combined pace with accuracy but unfortunately extreme pace doesn’t stay with quick bowlers for ever and it is not a modern phenomenon either. It stretches to the greats of yesteryear. Holding 60 tests and 249 wickets and retiring from tests at 33. Garner: 58 tests with 259 wickets in a ten year career, compared to a line and length bowler who could play 15 or more years. Roberts: 47 tests and 202 wickets and playing until just over 30 years old. Ntini was relatively impotent nearing the end of his career and even Lee was down on pace, hitting high eighties instead of mid nineties. Its inevitable that a fast bowler will have a much more limited period of effectiveness.
Brett Lee managed 76 tests and 300 wickets and Shoaib ended up with 178 wickets in under 50 games. They both contributed to an incredible legacy of fast bowling both globally but more specifically in their country. However, Lee and Shoaib can be judged in comparison to a bowler of accurate and line and length bowling like McGrath n terms of how long they played and in that time how successful they were. Mcgrath (124 games and 564 wickets) played nearly 50 more games producing an additional 200 more test scalps. McGrath was of course one of the best bowlers ever, but the point is they time period he was able t play and the wickets taken during that time.
Another more apt example perhaps is that of Ambrose who was extremely fast enjoyed 98 tests and 405 wickets but compared to the more line and length (but still fast) Walsh: 132 tests and 519 wickets it is no comparison. Walsh was able to play longer and still be effective by dropping his pace. Even the best of the quickest bowlers in terms of wickets still were out bowled by their accurate line and length counterpart
Australia’s demon pair of Lillee and Thompson were lethal. Lille played 70 games taking 355 wickets whereas Thompson (arguably quickest ever ) got 201 wickets in 51 games because Thompson was so hampered by his extreme action. The sweltering pace he could produce has a significant and long term toll on his body. Thompson and Lille left a divine fast bowling legacy and was one of the most brutal opening bowling partnerships of all time. They were part of a golden generation of fast bowlers. It is not that Fast bowlers are not worth it, because they are, i am merely bringing attention to the limited character of their careers and arguable lack of management.
Perhaps the key exceptions are Malcolm Marshall ( 81 games taking 376 wickets) at an astonishing average of 20. and Wasim Akram who had 104 games and over 400 wickets in tests and was the first to 500 ODI wickets, but it is debatable as to why he was so quick. Many would say it was due to his quick arm more than the energy he put in.
The not so quick counterparts of the express bowler, such as Pollock (421 wickets), Mcgrath (563 wickets), and Walsh (519 wicket) forged success because they made the batsmen play a very high percentage of balls and maximizing immaculate lines and lengths, mixing it with supreme control of the swinging ball.
We are seeing a further development in the story of the express bowler. Shaun Tait may be able to ‘terrify’ the batsmen with 100 mile an hour balls, but the huge strain on his body has transformed him into a T20 specialist. Not only is he blighted by injury due to his inefficiency and awkward strenuous action but he is limited to the shortest form of the game. He won’t be recognized in the test match arena as one of the quickest or most successful and is not having the best of times as a T20 bowler either. For me, a bowler like Tait will never leave a strong fast bowling legacy, because he does not play international cricket, and does not play anything else other than T20. He hasn’t proved himself amongst the best on every stage.
The out and out raw fast bowlers such as Tait and Malinga and before retirement both Flintoff and Shane Bond, were handled with extreme care in case of injury almost to the point they were not worth playing in case of injury. The physical strain on their bodies were so extreme that one must ask, is it really worth bowling at extreme paces if you are hardly going to play?
Essentially to conclude i would say, YES fast bowling is a good thing. Extreme pace bowling is also a good thing. Maybe it is unfortunate that bowling faster means injuries and a limited career, but i think it is something that should be accepted as opposed to change. The current state of fast bowling is healthy with plenty of very fast bowlers like Steyn, Morkel, Finn, Siddle, Harris, Malinga, Tait, Roach and plenty of others. We don’t want to lose them by making them slower but more importantly we don’t want to lose them through injury. It is increasingly my view that quick bowlers should scrap ODI cricket and focus on tests which is the pinnacle of the game and T20 which is the newly emerged ‘quick’ format and offers a financially viable form of cricket.
Stumpycricket
This first appeared on the Stumpycricket blog at http://stumpycricketallout.wordpress.com/
Memory added on July 31, 2012
Comments (Add your voice)
No comments have yet been added to this memory.
