Goughy have you read Ian Pont's new "The Fast Bowler's Bible" and if so what do you think of it?
Goughy have you read Ian Pont's new "The Fast Bowler's Bible" and if so what do you think of it?
This is going from memory.Originally Posted by Craig
Simon Jones is an interesting case as his action is different.
- It is obvious he has a weak left arm (it never gets high), but different to most who have this issue he DOES aggressivly pull it down in his action as any player should who wants to generate pace should. This means he only has 1/2 a problem but the lack of balance between arm going up and then down could have injury ramifications.
- Jones does not have a run-up, he ambles in and then explodes at the crease. In order to do this the legs have to be smashed into the ground and all the work is done by the right shoulder. This places a massive amount of excess torque on the body. The easiest way to bring the hips through and generate good pace is through a quick but rhythmical run-up. Jones does not have this and he struggles to bring the hips through and his pace is generated from the right shoulder (he is a strong boy). However, his strength could also be a reason for injuries as the force he imparts at the crease can affect his whole body.
- About his former injury. There is no doubt that his body will have been trying to protect it even subconsciously for a long time after coming back and with certain muscle wastage it is hard to get the definition the same. Even years after his body could be fighting itself to protect the injury and battle to balance different levels of strength in different parts of the body.
Do I think he will ever come back for a long period? I hope so but doubt it. As the injuries accumulate the explosive action with continue to cause problems. As his body gradually wears down his action will hurt him more. If he trys to dramatically change his action at this late stage he will never come close to repeating his results. The changes needed would be far greater than those DKL made.
I honestly think that his strength will prevent him being injury free in the future as he may well be now too strong for certain parts of his body.
Last edited by Goughy; 29-06-2006 at 07:24 AM.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
I have not. I saw a review of it on Cricinfo a few days ago but I do not know too much about it. It seems has a few similar ideas to myself but without reading the book I would not know for sure.Originally Posted by Autobahn
NOTE ON FAST BOWLING INJURIES
Fast bowling develops different parts of the body at different rates. Using myself as an example, I was a Right Arm Fast Bowler and even now after retiring my right shoulder and upper back is considerably more muscular and developed than my left.
Fast bowlers are always struggling with the muscular balance in the body. If your right side is far stronger than your left then there is extra force being exerted that can cause untold numbers of injuries.
Using myself again as an easy example, I used to suffer from hamstring problems. Why? is it because I did not warm up properly? No. It was because my quads were stronger than my hamstrings. When I got tired my hamstrings weakend first and my quads would still be fresh and they would put too much force on the hamstring and tear them.
Now the above issues can partially be remedied in the gym but it is impossible to get a perfectly balanced body as long as you continue to bowl. Unless a player quits bowling and purely does gym work this battle within the body will always exist.
All fast bowlers face these issues and some have a greater muscular imbalance between one side of the body than others. Its unfortunate and only partially fixable. It is proof of the fact that fast bowling is bloody hard work and a profession prone to doing the body damage.
I take it that's why a lot of bowlers cut down on their pace during a county season.Originally Posted by Goughy
Goughy, what do you think of the new crop of Indian seamers, particularly Munaf Patel, Sreesanth and Pathan (if you've seen enough of them, that is)?
I must admit I have not seen too much of them and the times I have Ive not really tried to break their actions down.Originally Posted by Dasa
Ill watch the 3rd Ind vs WI test closely and get back to you.
From what a read it should be a decent track for the quickies so it should be a good time to study them.
4th test, but yep that should be a good test to observe them if the rumours about the track helping fast bowlers are true. Kumble may not bowl 20 overs straight then.
As mentioned by a10khan in ***Official*** Pakistan in England thread
Again it comes down to technical issues in his action. The technical issues that I will talk about do not mean he is not a good bowler who can bowl at decent pace but that he will struggle for consistency and performance will vary from day to day.Originally Posted by a10khan
He has 2 issues that when put together cause this apparant "2 Razzaqs".
Firstly his backleg (right) is almost horizontal, nearly parallel with the crease whereas his his front foot is vertical, bisecting the crease. Now, this is not a massive problem (its a good way to generate pace) in its self but it causes a massive amount of torque and body rotation.
However, the above issue becomes a problem when factored in with the fact that he collapses his left leg in delivery.
What this means is that the collapsing left leg exagerrates the body rotation and makes it difficult for the body to move in a straight line. This in turn means that Razzaq has a tiny window in which to release the ball for it to be accurate before his action takes him towards the off side.
On a bad day he may be releasing fractionally too early or late and he would look nothing like the bowler he does when he gets it right.
Also any slight variation in the bend of the left leg or body rotation would change accuracy. This would explain why on certain days a small unnoticable change in these factors would throw him off.
Last edited by Goughy; 30-06-2006 at 09:26 AM.
W/E, there's still no way on earth you could make Liam PLunkett bowl 2 yards quicker in a couple of coaching sessions. At all.
Rather than just popping up and giving throwaway criticism on writing that takes research and knowledge, why don't you at least try to explain why he could not add on pace.Originally Posted by open365
Have a look at his action, read the changes I suggested and let me know why they would not work.
Im interested to know why you do not think they would work or whether you are just have a go without even thinking about it. At the moment you are just criticising without offering any suggestion why and that is what is called a baseless arguement.
Why does Chris Martin struggle on real flat wickets - like the type you find at Adelaide Oval where a one-eyed man with a stick of rubarb could get runs square of the wicket there?
I was thinking it is his action and from where he is from?
Just to add to the point about qualified coaches.
It is an absolutely erroneous belief that you need to be qualified to be a good coach. All you need is to have been coached by or worked with/under a really good coach (good not necessarily formally qualified) who understands the game and all its finer points.
Cricket techniques are very logical and scientific in nature. A real coach does not have to say to you, "do it just because I say so". He can easily explain in words and also demonstrate what he is saying and it always makes sense.
If you have worked with such a coach and lictened to him well and you have the same 'seeking' attitude, you will soon find that you are also able to pick up whats wrong with a player in the same manner.
My coach would go to the nets when a team would arrive to Delhi and come back to our club nets the next day and say, so and so is going to give a catch at short leg. We used to be stunned because it invariably happened. I clearlly remember an English batsman, I think Woolmer, of whom he said that anat the ground and within minutes he was gone.
Later I found myself telling fiends this guy will give a catch to on the off side there should be a shoirty extra cover for him. It was quite easy to see why.
This is a simple example but fromn there it can stretch to all aspects of the game.
I too feel like Gaughy and wish I get an hour with Harbhajan to get him to flight better.
This is not arrogance or silly over-confidence. It comes very easily to some.
Formal qualifications dont make you a good coach just llike reading 1001 ways to be a good salesman doesnt make you one.
I don't know it still just smacks of arm-chair coaching to me.
And i'm not saying as some people are suggesting, that being a good coach relies totally on qualifications but i'm saying that qualifications do have an important role in things such as injury prevention and most importantly proving that are a good coach.
i mean for example SJS if you tried to tell harby especially how to flight the ball better, there is a good chance he might tell you to get lost because you don't have that evidence of knowledge.
Would you like it if someone walked up to, who didn't have any provable experience or knowledge of your job and suddenly told you how to do it better?
What you miss is that qualifications don't do what you are suggesting. Provable knowledge and experience comes from working as a coach and understanding the game.Originally Posted by Autobahn
Coaching experience and playing at a good level is more important than a lower level qualifications. Read my edit to an earlier post. As someone who employes 40-60 coaches at a time experience is far more important than a qualification in making someone a good coach and employeble. A coaching qual. does not take anything away but it proves nothing unless you are dealing with the lowest level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)