so, super grim era this lads......
Archer bowls with one of the least durable actions I've seen, which gave England two options. They could have tried to remodel it, but that's always a difficult process. Lots of the "science" behind which bowling actions cause injury is a bit fake, and there are at least as many disaster stories as success stories. I also think that psychologically a player usually needs to have experienced quite a bit of injury to fully commit to overhauling their action.Do we think part of Archer’s injury issues are down to Root overbowling him?
I mean tbf just after that ashes we said **** it and just played cumm-starc-haze 4 matches in a row vs India, whArcher bowls with one of the least durable actions I've seen, which gave England two options. They could have tried to remodel it, but that's always a difficult process. Lots of the "science" behind which bowling actions cause injury is a bit fake, and there are at least as many disaster stories as success stories. I also think that psychologically a player usually needs to have experienced quite a bit of injury to fully commit to overhauling their action.
The other option was to carefully manage his injury risk. There are lots of ways to do this - typically you would want a bespoke strength and conditioning program, and different physios would quibble over the details. But the most basic, well-established principle would be avoiding spikes of activity at a much higher intensity or length than the player is used to. And they're allowing him to come into his first test ever and bowl 10-over spells flat-out.
I don't know if you could say that it "caused" his injury problems, but it's indicative of a team culture that either doesn't have competent conditioning staff, or (much more likely) doesn't pay any attention to them. If Archer's bowling 10-over spells, there's a lot else they're not taking very seriously too. I don't want to be overcritical - there's a balance to be struck, because medical staff are always very risk-averse, and any decent top-level sports team will ignore them a lot. But if there's one player who should have been handled very carefully, it was Archer, and they didn't do it.
Australia have really got their **** together on this stuff lately. Archer's 10-over debut spell was in a series where their attack outlasted England's by using heavy rotation. It wasn't commented on much, but if they'd lost I think all of their rotation would have become a major talking point.
I think it's a more prevalent view than you may think, I remember Bumble babbling on about various bats getting out only being a technical problem, when he was leader. Seemed bizarre to me at the time, and TBH I still think it is.I remember Goughy (the poster, not Darren) had a unique take on Paul Collingwood. He thought he'd created a reputation as an honest grafter, but really he was too lazy to develop proper technique, and becoming a decent test batsman with such an ugly style just revealed immense hand-eye co-ordination that was going to waste.
I don't know if it was true, but it really changed how I think about talent. Crawley is thought of as talented because his form is so good when he plays attacking shots, but maybe that's actually a sign that his talent is maxed out. If there were technical issues you could fix them, but if he's technically not bad but keeps getting out because his eye isn't sharp enough, where do you even go from there?
It's an interesting one isn't it, do they take the victory as a sign this side is great and we can remain unchanged, or just give a few a chance. As much as I love him Leach underperformed here, not sure bringing back moeen is going to help things in the long run, give Parky another game.Surely Crawley can't get another life now?
What better time to blood a newb when the series is already tucked in your sky rocket?
Although I note Compton failed in his last innings; only scored 80, the hack fraud.