Revelation – Latest from Edgbaston

Cricket has a funny way of making people look stupid. Some you win. Some you lose.

I’m going to give up making predictions. They just bite you in the posterior. I was right about Australia’s middle-order, the soft underbelly as I called it, but utterly wrong about the type of pitches that would suit England.

A couple of days ago I argued grassy pitches would play into Australia’s hands. I reasoned that low scoring shoot-outs are usually won by the team with the most firepower. I’ll get my coat …

As it happened, Jimmy Anderson and the England bowlers adapted brilliantly to the Edgbaston pitch. They bowled exactly the right length, and focused on seam movement rather than conventional swing.

When the Australians took the field, treble Mitch and the Hazlenut (sic) bowled the way they always do. There was no adjustment. Starc in particular pitched the ball further and further up, looking for magic deliveries, but it just kept swinging wider and wider of the stumps. Starc is bloody quick, but he’s really struggled to control the duke ball.

There’s still time for the Aussies to redeem themselves today of course. I imagine they’ll sod the original game plan, roll their sleeves up, and try to bounce England out. But whatever happens they’re in a spot of trouble. Even a lead of one hundred could prove rather handy on this surface.

Jimmy Anderson was absolutely magnificent yesterday. He’s a joy to watch when on song. His detractors will argue that he’s not a great bowler because he’s toothless on benign surfaces, and they have half a point, but do England fans really care?

What matters is that Jimmy is great in typical English conditions. Nobody moans about Mitchell Johnson being better at Perth than in India (or Cardiff). Jimmy has all the skills a top class bowler needs – except perhaps that elusive extra yard of pace. Think how good he’d be if he actually had that extra nip off the pitch.

I’d like to give Steve Finn a special mention too. I was extremely disappointed when Mark Wood was left out. If his chronic ankle injury is that much of a problem, he should have been rested at Lord’s (the second of back-to-back test matches) rather than Edgbaston. Wood is our fastest bowler and it appears he’s been badly managed. I feel a great deal of sympathy for him.

Having said that, Finn stepped up brilliantly. It was great to see him smiling again after years of disappointment and mental and technical traumas. He even bowled quite quickly during the afternoon – something we haven’t seen for a long, long time. He’ll be absolutely delighted that he missed out at Lord’s, and played on this spicy Edgbaston deck instead. Wood, meanwhile, will be kicking his heels.

I was always a massive Finn fan when he emerged as a young bowler with serious wheels. However, I’m not such a fan of the new Finn. I find it exasperating that a young bowler with all the physical attributes has actually lost a yard of pace at the precise age he should be filling out and adding speed.

Finn’s problem is that he’s not utilising ‘the full windmill’ – a term Brett Lee used to describe Finn’s new action. I’ve added some pics below to show you what I mean.

Finn 1

Finn 2

Finn 3

Finn 4

Finn 5

You’ll see that Finn’s arm remains bent, and only straightens into a proper bowling position, when it’s just below his shoulders. It should be straight from the moment it reaches his thigh.

As a result, Finn’s arm is not rotating 360 degrees in its optimum position. He’s effectively flinging the ball at the last moment, from shoulder/head high; therefore he’s only really utilising approximately 180 degrees of pure rotation. Some momentum will be generated by the rotation of his arm before it straightens, but it’s hardly ideal.

I’m no biomechanical expert, so perhaps someone else can shed some light, but surely this is where Finn’s missing yard of pace has gone? I doubt his action was ever the purest, but I don’t see why the coaches have made such a nonsensical adjustment. Perhaps this was the only way they could get Finn to land it on the strip?

Yesterday actually reminded me of the bowler Finn could’ve been. It’s amazing he was able to bowl as quickly as he did with such a peculiar action – which is why I doubt he’ll ever bowl fast on a consistent basis ever again.

The bottom line is that Finn and his coaches are not utilising his considerable physical gifts. He should be bowling 5-10 mph quicker. Indeed, I think it’s fair to argue that he should be the fastest, and most feared, bowler in the world. That’s what I find so utterly frustrating.

There are those who will argue that the new Finn has more control, and therefore the changes have been worth it, but I don’t see it that way. I doubt Finn will look as potent on flat decks. He’s now a very similar bowler to Stuart Broad, which is why, in the interests of balance, I’d still prefer Wood’s skiddy variations and ability to reverse swing the ball. We will see.

For now, let’s just celebrate Finn’s return to form. He might not be the bowler he was, or could have been, but having him around certainly adds depth to bowling stocks that looked worryingly thin a few weeks ago. His two wickets yesterday were absolutely crucial, and the ball that got Smith was superb.

Please feel free to add your comments on today below. Can England ram home their advantage? If we can make 300 then it’s looking very good indeed.

James Morgan
@DoctorCopy

*** Just a quick update. On Sky’s verdict show they were talking about Finn’s run up. Willis made some really good points. His approach to the crease is now smoother and he’s coming in from a better angle. This obviously makes him feel more comfortable in his delivery stride and we’re seeing the benefits.

This begs another question: perhaps rhythm and one’s approach is more important to fast bowlers that the actual mechanics of their action. It’s an interesting talking point. Finn is managing to bowl quite quickly despite his action. I find it all very interesting.

26 comments

    • With the benefit of hindsight, probably yes. And the previous optimism was probably over the top too. It’s the rollercoaster of being a England fan mate. We’re probably the most erratic, and unpredictable, side in the world.

      • But you’re an astute observer of cricket. Surely the objective should be to form a view that doesn’t need to be turned upside-down then back again from one match to the next.

        Surely you don’t need the benefit of hindsight to see the insanity of abandoning all hope at 1-1, just because England lost the most recent match?

        Don’t you get frustrated by the kind of punditry that just overreacts to whatever happened most recently?

        I remember guys like James Lawton used to specialise in this. If Manchester United win one weekend, it’ll mean ‘Van Gaal’s renaissance’ is taking shape – or some other wordy nonsense. But if they lose the following weekend, he’ll write another piece saying that pressure is mounting on the manager to deliver results, apparently oblivious to his previous comments in the opposite direction. It’s bad punditry.

        Like I said, instead of simply excusing this kind of pendulum swinging as par for the course, why not aim for a view that can survive more than one match?

        • We never said England have no chance, or Australia have no chance. If you ran a blog you’d understand. We do serious analysis too, but the raison d’etre of this blog is to celebrate the highs and lows, and reflect what England fans are thinking. I’m an emotional person myself, and it’s our job to write from the heart … not write a thesis from a detached position of scholarly objectivity. I felt up after Cardiff, and down after Lord’s. It’s natural. I’m not trying to win a ‘cricket analyst of the year award’. I’m trying to engage with people.

          • “We never said England have no chance, or Australia have no chance.”

            I think one or both of you came pretty damn close to writing England off pre-series and after Lord’s.

            “It’s natural. I’m not trying to win a ‘cricket analyst of the year award’. I’m trying to engage with people.”

            I’m not trying to tell you what you should or shouldn’t write. I just find the exaggerated positions baffling.

            • It’s a general lack of confidence and anxiety surrounding the England team. It comes from years and years of occasional highs and baffling lows. It’s all part and parcel :-)

            • I am with Tom here. I thought you were too pessimistic before the series began, too buoyant after Cardiff and then back to the other extreme after Lords. It must be tiring to go through such extremes of motion! :)

              I remember getting shot down before the series started because I said I thought it would be close, that the Aussies had problems of their own and because I also suggested Mitchell Starc hadn’t done anything in red ball cricket yet…

              Honestly, I think there is a deliberate tactic on the part of some England fans to write England off in an attempt to avoid disappointment if it does go tits-up. Oh well, we thought they were going to be rubbish anyway, so no harm done if the prophecy is fulfilled. That of course means that if the cricket does go OK, or even well then naturally you will be happy. Classic defence mechanism, presumably because you can remember all the terrible failures of yesteryear against Australia.

              I am only 23, and the first Ashes series I ever watched was 2005. Let’s be honest, I’ve had it pretty good in terms of English results in Ashes series since then (with the obvious exception of the debacle in the last 18 months) so I have no direct experience of the 16 years of pummelings that we received from 89 onwards. Even with all the shit that has hit the fan from late 2013 onwards I still thought England would give the Aussies a pretty good contest.

              • Well said, Paul. Agree completely.

                There’s a deliberately exaggerated pessimism designed to provide cover in the event of a loss.

              • Just thinking aloud. Is there anything particularly wrong with that (if it was true)?

  • Having attended an Ian Pont fast bowling biomechanics course, he used Steven Finn as an example of poor bowling mechanics that are detrimental to pace.

    His back foot lands side on, but he is looking inside his arm. His front foot splays out towards third slip. His back knee bends sideways not forwards, meaning he loses both power and alignment (and also knocks over the stumps).

    And as you say, he doesn’t fully engage his torso and the full range of his arm movements. No “scapular loading”.

    • Brilliant. Thanks for that AB. Just the kind of comment I was hoping for. Cheers for your insight.

      It seems incredibly harsh to criticise the guy (and I suppose that’s what some people will think we’re going) when he’s just had a great day. But I think it’s fair to celebrate his achievement, while also imagining ‘what if’. He could have absolutely brilliant not just yesterday, but every day.

      I’d really like to know how much responsibility lies with the coaches. We know that Saker and Fraser gave him conflicting advice. It’s such as shame. Then again, as yesterday proved, he’s still a more than useful guy to have around.

  • You should follow Ian Pont on Twitter who is a fast bowling coach. He speaks a lot of sense and would love to know what he thinks about Finns action.

  • “I imagine they’ll sod the original game plan, roll their sleeves up, and try to bounce England out.”

    It appears Mitchell Johnson agrees with you James. Nice tipping.

    • Bloody hell! Australia 5-93 as writing,middle order decimated,well done England. I am so disappointed with Australia’s inability to bat on pitches that don’t resemble their own. The previous generation honed their batting in county cricket as well as shield. They could play patiently and build an innings. Don’t want to blame ipl but it’s hard not to see a correlation.

  • Leave Finny alone. The ECB have been (rightly) criticised for their handling of him and trying to change him which led to him being deemed ‘unselectable’. He goes away, works with Richard Johnson at Middlesex, comes back into the England team bowling better than he has ever been, takes seven wickets (so far) and you want to remodel him again. Finn is so much happier in himself as well. He knows his body. He knows his strengths. I’m absolutely delighted that he’s made such a positive impact on his return to the Test team.

    • Who wants to remodel him? Attempting to remodel the mechanics successful professional cricketers is a sign of an arrogant, unprofessional incompetent coach.

      10% of the time it improves them and the coaches takes the plaudits.
      90% of the time it makes them worse, and the coach blames the player.

  • Errr, I think somebody masquerading as me might have hijacked my username recently and defended Australia’s middle order. Preposterous! They are obviously crumblier than Mrs McCrumble’s Apple Crumble and I would never have written anything to the contrary…..

    Anyway, having established my recent track record of hopeless inaccuracy, but ploughing on regardless with a shamelessness that suggests I might have a career in the MSM ahead, I think Anderson’s side strain may turn out to be the most significant event today. All the TV commentators thought it looked serious (although they also said Wood would be the obvious replacement at TB and that his injury was not too bad). Anderson is the fourth England bowler (after Woakes, Ali and Jordan) to experience a side strain (or strain/tear an intercostal if you prefer) in the last six months which makes me wonder what’s going on.

    But that’s probably about as accurate as my thoughts on the merits of Adam Voges.

    • Very good Simon! I’m eating humble pie too. I wanted Wood to play and had no faith in Finn pre-match. The shame :-)

  • I must agree that if Anderson were out of the series it would quite lift the Australian side going into the last two tests who will still be a good chance of retaining the ashes. Much as I may have bagged Anderson at times he is also a match winner if he shows up. While Finn has been great this test will he continue to be without the pressure of having Broad and Anderson on song and a lot of pressure is put on Broad

    As for Aus it’s hard to see Voges holding his spot with S Marsh waiting in the wings. Starc must also be a question mark for replacement with Siddle. I feel his only chance of retaining his spot is if he can bat long enough to give himself a total to bowl at and then bowl with more control. Not saying he needs to win the match but just get some wickets with consistent bowling. He did this with the red ball in the Aus summer and I feel he just needs to re-find his rhythm.

  • Has Finn changed his action again – I can’t remember him straightening his arm that late in the world cup.

    His action strikes me as ugly but completely legal as his arm has straightened before it reaches the level of the shoulder. However, I have 2 Australian friends who are calling him a “chucker” (perhaps just to piss me off) and it was (briefly) discussed on a cricket blog back in January of this year. (https://cricistan.com/threads/does-steven-finn-chuck.35536/)

    I wonder if this reflect confusion amongst cricket fans over the current definition of a fair delivery. I also wonder if there will be more mutterings from opposition fans should Finn continue to bowl well and take wickets.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting