Blame it on the Cooley

A couple of days ago we questioned whether England’s former bowling coach, Troy Cooley, was right to tinker with Jimmy Anderson’s action. Now the Aussies are questioning Cooley’s work with media punch-bag, Mitchell Johnson.

According to Brett Mortimer, Johnson’s mentor in Queensland, the Australian coaches haven’t treated him right: ‘there are so many hangers-on around Mitch … the problems with his action look pretty easy to fix to me’. In that case, why haven’t they fixed him? This backbiting is all rather amusing from an England point of view. It’s like an X-Factor rivalry between coaches.

Cooley generally made a good impression when he was in England. He transformed the likes of Steve Harmison into match winners, increased Matthew Hoggard’s effectiveness, and got Andrew Flintoff to start moving the ball away from the left-handers. However, the demise of the unorthodox Anderson, who went from boy wonder to boy blunder under Cooley’s tutelage, was the one major blemish on his record.

The fact that Cooley has struggled to get the most out of Mitchell Johnson, who is another unorthodox bowler, is intriguing. Is a pattern emerging? Perhaps Mitch would be better off seeking the advice of someone like Geoff Thompson, who was similarly known for chucking it down as fast as he could with little sympathy for orthodox, or even stylistic, sensibilities.

Our theory, of course, is that coaches should leave cricketers with unique styles alone. Bowlers like Lasith Malinga are all the more effective for their quirkiness – and I doubt Fidel Edwards would generate much pace with an orthodox action.

As for Johnson, his future looks uncertain. Maybe Mortimer is right when he claims his  protégé is ‘burned out’ and ‘needs a month away from the game’. The problem from England’s point of view is that the Ashes finish in just over a month. We want Australia to keep picking him.

At the moment, Mitch’s presence in the Aussie XI seems to reflect England’s psychological dominance. However, my gut feeling is that Johnson will retain his place – if only because they don’t have anyone else to bat number eight.

6 comments

  • It was Dennis Lillie’s fault a couple of days ago. Make your minds up. ;)

    From what I’ve seen of Johnson, his problems seem to be in his head. Looked as if it started in England last year, and he just hasn’t got back where he was. Harmison seemed quite similar – a bloke with natural talent and pace, but whose own mental issues seemed to be the deciding factor in whether he would bowl well or not.

    Troy Cooley took four talented but under-performing bowlers and turned them into the most formidable pace attack in the world – one of the most formidable in decades. He was clearly doing something right with England, Anderson or no.

    I saw Ryan Harris when I was in Australia. Fairly classic outswing bowler, not terrifyingly quick, but a nagging line. Bollinger’s as ugly as sin. He looks like the bloke they locked in the basement in The Goonies. He is, however, quite a good bowler, unfortunately, but not much with the bat.

    Even if they improve their attack by dropping Johnson, it may well be compensated for by weakening their batting, and the deflationary effect of dropping your no. 1 bowler after the first game.

  • I actually defended Dennis Lillee! Some Aussies are obviously blaming Cooley for Mitchell Johnson’s lack of form, but it’s hard to tell from where we are. I can’t even tell what’s outside my kitchen window at the moment due to ice / snow. I think you’re right mate. Dropping Johnson after one match would be a huge psychological blow. What would the Aussies think if we dropped Swann for Adelaide? Panic!

    • Yeah, but you and Maxie are using the same log-in, so I can’t tell which one of you is making the comments. ;)

      I’ve been reading the Sydney Morning Herald to check the Aussie take on the cricket over the last few days, haven’t noticed any criticism of Cooley, but lots for the selectors.

      I think Cooley has a record which should make him almost bullet-proof, and England’s management was criminally negligent in letting him go (according to Duncan Fletcher’s autobiography, all he wanted was to have his contract confirmed for a year, instead of being a temp – no big money demands or five year contracts – and England said no and lost him to the Aussies. And England’s attack fell apart soon after).

      As the likes of Harmy have proved in the past, though, coaches can only do part of the job, and can only work with the cooperation of the players. Harmy and Johnson are all about what’s in their heads, and coaches can only do so much about that.

      The cruel side of me (the side which spent sixteen long years watching England getting thrashed by boorish Australians with huge ‘tashes) hopes that Johnson, North, Doherty and, most of all – even though he’s not under threat – Clarke, keep their places, and England thoroughly destroy them mentally, needling them at every opportunity.

      In 2005 it was sad to see Gillespie, a fine cricketer and a decent bloke, by all accounts, have his game fall apart and become a figure of fun. Reality was, though, he was the weak link, and he was happy to play in a side which prided itself on ‘mental disintegration’, so he was fair game. Sides which fight with themselves are too busy to fight with the oppo, So far, the Aussies are being very England. Long may it continue.

  • It must be hard in any sport to be a technical coach and not get involved to try and improve a player’s technique. Sometimes, I guess the most important attribute is to be able to assess a player and state that there is nothing you can do for them. However, its not good for job security if you are not seen to be doing something with a player. I have some sympathy for coaches such as Cooley who look at Anderson, Flintoff and Johnson and see a significant professional challenge to change and improve their actions.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting