Sanjay Manjrekar
Former India batsman; now a cricket commentator and presenter on TV

The difference the threat of injury makes

Mitchell Johnson has brought the forgotten art of bowling to intimidate back into focus

Sanjay Manjrekar

January 11, 2014

Comments: 101 | Text size: A | A

Kevin Pietersen avoids a short ball from Mitchell Johnson, Australia v England, 4th Test, Melbourne, 2nd day, December 27, 2013
Mitchell Johnson: a throwback to the '80s © Getty Images
Enlarge

Various theories are now doing the rounds as to why England have lost the Ashes so badly. And typically, the cricketing intelligentsia have thrown up some impressive suggestions that seemingly connect the dots in English cricket. But very often we will ignore the simple things that lead to an occurrence in a simple game of bat and ball.

I believe there was a just one straightforward reason that England lost 5-0 in the Ashes, and that reason was Mitchell Johnson. Not so much because he bowled quick but because of where he bowled those quick deliveries. Johnson bowled a total of 464 short balls in this series, most aimed at the ribs of the batsmen, which means of the total of 1132 balls he bowled, 41% were meant to intimidate the batsman physically. That, by modern standards, is an exceptionally high percentage, when bowling in the "right areas" and in the "channel outside the off stump" is the norm.

Johnson made the English batsmen fear for their lives, and once the survival instinct took over, they became easy pickings to balls pitched up. Not just for Johnson but for Ryan Harris and Peter Siddle, who may have been pleasantly surprised to see how effective their full and good-length balls had suddenly become. They need to thank Johnson for that.

Glenn McGrath, a truly great fast bowler of our generation, started a new trend in cricket sometime in the mid-'90s. He bowled a narrow channel outside the off stump and rarely did anything else. By bowling in the right areas and in the channel, he picked up 563 wickets at an average of 21.64. There was no reason to dispute his tactics and a whole generation followed suit. Bowling in the right areas and staying patient became classic clich├ęs for seam bowlers, and there was not a single interview of a young seam bowler I heard in this time that did not have the phrases "right areas" and "being patient" in it.

Mitchell Johnson in this series, I thought, went back in time. Skipping the whole McGrath generation, to the time in the '80s when the great West Indian fast bowlers spread fear among batsmen in world cricket. Batsmen in the '80s were wary of those West Indians because they could seriously hurt you with at least two balls in an over - two balls that were aimed at your ribs, before that slightly fuller ball would come and do its work. Putting fear of physical hurt into the batsman's head was a wicket-taking tactic for them; in fact, it was their chief weapon. But the generation after McGrath seems almost to have forgotten about this weapon.

Johnson, by his deeds in this Ashes, may just have sent a strong reminder to all the fast bowlers around the world of this very potent wicket-taking tactic. For Test cricket's sake, I hope young fast bowlers take a cue. With their bodies well protected now, the chances of batsmen getting seriously hurt are slim. But as we have seen in the Ashes, it just makes for a more severe test of a batman's ability in a format that is called Test cricket for a reason.

Someone like Morne Morkel, especially, can take a leaf out of Johnson's book. Morkel has the perfect gifts to emulate Johnson, frightening batsmen with pace and bounce, but he generally tends to bowl like a "good boy" and uses the bouncer only as a variation, not in a genuine attempt to put fear into batsmen's minds. A batsman quickly senses when a bouncer from a fast bowler is just a token variation and when it is more than that.

When Johnson was bowling his bouncers you could see he was intent on attacking the body, forcing batsmen to take protective action. This makes all the difference. When a batsman is consumed by thoughts of protecting his body, protecting the stumps is not a preoccupation anymore.

I don't agree with the view that Australia have the three best fast bowlers in the world. What they have is one bowler who has rediscovered the tactic of physical intimidation, thereby making the job of Harris and Siddle that much easier. Instead of Johnson, think for a moment of another seam bowler in his place this series, one bowling in the right areas and in the channel outside the off stump. England would have looked a far better batting line-up than they did. Batsmen like Carberry and Cook for example, would have got their front foot further down the pitch with greater confidence. Enough to make Harris and Siddle have to work that much harder for their wickets.

Former India batsman Sanjay Manjrekar is a cricket commentator and presenter on TV. His Twitter feed is here

RSS Feeds: Sanjay Manjrekar

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by CM1000 on (January 15, 2014, 11:15 GMT)

@RednWhiteArmy - the problem is that, while they are skillful bowlers and great in English conditions, the English bowlers aren't consistently quick enough generally, or good enough in fast bouncy conditions, to do what Johnson did. Broad maybe, briefly, but the rest were cannon fodder most of the time they bowled short, especially against such attacking batsmen. Sanjay's article left out a critical point, that there are very few bowlers, if any, in the world today that could do what Johnson did, because of his extreme pace, his left arm angle, and his low point of delivery and skiddy action. Very good article, but I also disagree with Sanjay about Harris - he was the best bowler in England last series and awesome in this series, and the pressure he, Siddle and Watson helped build enabled Johnson to do what he did with such success. I do agree though that the 5-0 result had much more to do with how good Australia's bowling was than how bad England's batting is - cause & effect.

Posted by   on (January 14, 2014, 10:06 GMT)

Sanjay makes some great points here. In recent years, there have been very few out and out fast (as opposed to fast medium) bowlers. When you add in padding, this means batsmen haven't been in fear of being hurt (unlike, say, facing Marshall, Garner and Holding). I don't want to see batsmen hurt, but they should have to take the possibility into consideration. It disturbs their concentration, and brings uncertainty into their footwork. McGrath was an exceptional bowler, using a method that worked brilliantly for him (Walsh and Ambrose used it towards the end of their careers too), but it doesn't work (or need to work) for everyone. For example, in the SA attack, Philander uses the "McGrath method", Steyn generally bowls full swingers, and Morne should be used as an intimidating bowler to help the other two get wickets.

Posted by popcorn on (January 14, 2014, 8:01 GMT)

Silly of Sanjay Manjrekar to think that Australia does not have the best fast bowling attack in the world. He wants us to think that Mitchell Johnson ONLY intimidated - he forgets that he got the highest number of wickets, and he got the Man of the Series Award NOT for Intimidation, but for taking the maximum number of wickeets.

Posted by Cruzan on (January 13, 2014, 17:31 GMT)

Exceptional fast bowlers throwing hostile stuff makes the game negative. It is just defend and wait and wait for a lose ball to play cricket shot. Game changed, dont know if there can be good cricketing shots !~

Posted by BRUTALANALYST on (January 13, 2014, 14:59 GMT)

Good article. I believe Test cricket needs more bowlers like Johnson to survive as nothing beats the adrenaline and excitement of watching a fast bowler with the ability to seriously injure batsman. Test cricket had become rather mild of late I hadn't seen so much excitement in a long time for all people to watch the game and that was almost entirey down to Mitch.

Posted by RednWhiteArmy on (January 13, 2014, 6:07 GMT)

England should have bowled so many beamers at Johnson

Posted by   on (January 13, 2014, 5:59 GMT)

I thought English intention to stay on the wicket was missing, probably they were trying to counter attack.

Posted by   on (January 13, 2014, 4:44 GMT)

I agree with what Sanjay says in parts. The biggest threat of Mitchell Johnson was to the tail and you could see how Broad, Swann while he was there, Anderson and Bresnan just folded up . In fact that was one of the key differences between the sides. I remember Rob Key the English batsman on the Ashes show reiterating that Mitchell Johnson is the no 1 pace bowler in the world ahead of Steyn just now. Whether he will continue to be as lethat is a moot point. Australia might still lose to south africa because of their weak batting but I think the australian pace atttack works better as a group. I saw the south africans struggle against India in the first game as it is very dependent on Steyn and he was neutralised in the first game. Interesting series in the offing . Ramanujam Sridhar

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Sanjay ManjrekarClose

    'It's scary to think I actually have a Test hat-trick'

New Zealand allrounder James Franklin remembers all his stats, and likes to take his five-year-old to watch football and rugby

Pup gets a grilling

The Cricket Monthly: Do cricketers know what they did last summer (and before)? We put Michael Clarke to the test

    'I didn't have the D/L sheet during the Durban World Cup game'

Shaun Pollock talks to Alison Mitchell about career highs and lows

    From support act to lead role

Numbers Game: Over the last four years, Rangana Herath has become Sri Lanka's strike bowler

The Phillip Hughes debate never ends

Russell Jackson: He makes buckets of runs but cannot hold his place in the Test side. What needs to work for him going forward?

News | Features Last 7 days

How bad must a defeat be to be unacceptable?

A gutting loss to England, after leading the series 1-0, has thrown up some glaring inadequacies in the Indian team but there is little being said or done in terms of improvement

Time to liberate MS Dhoni

After 8-0, MS Dhoni could look forward to building a team from scratch; now, there is nothing left for him to contribute. Free him from the Test captaincy and he could yet give back in other ways

Dhoni's control test

For all MS Dhoni's many trophies and accomplishments, Test cricket continues to resist his magic and indefinitely postpone his motorbike ride into the sunset

Perfect Herath leads SL dominance

Sri Lanka's marks out of 10 following their 2-0 series win against Pakistan

'You should not be embarrassing your country'

Former players react to India's humiliating 1-3 series defeat in England

News | Features Last 7 days

    How bad must a defeat be to be unacceptable? (142)

    A gutting loss to England, after leading the series 1-0, has thrown up some glaring inadequacies in the Indian team but there is little being said or done in terms of improvement

    Time to liberate MS Dhoni (116)

    After 8-0, MS Dhoni could look forward to building a team from scratch; now, there is nothing left for him to contribute. Free him from the Test captaincy and he could yet give back in other ways

    Dhoni's control test (75)

    For all MS Dhoni's many trophies and accomplishments, Test cricket continues to resist his magic and indefinitely postpone his motorbike ride into the sunset

    The two faces of James Anderson (60)

    Why does the man who is possibly England's greatest fast bowler occasionally turn into Mr Hyde on the field?

    One-day barrier to Indian Test progress (56)

    With too great an emphasis on limited-overs cricket, MS Dhoni's side have a set of skills and a level of concentration that are not commensurate with the necessities of Tests