England's fast-bowling woes
The wayward bowling of Steve Harmison has become a cause for concern
ESPNcricinfo staff
25-Feb-2013
Getty Images
The wayward bowling of Steve Harmison has become a cause for concern. Liam Plunkett seems to be afflicted with the same inconsistency. Mike Brearley writes in The Observer on England's wayward duo.
Harmison was all over the place. It was so bad as to go beyond criticism; one could only pity. It was like the shift from viewing one's relative as irritatingly cantankerous to hearing the tragic diagnosis of dementia.
Liam Plunkett gave a different impression. Had the camera shown him running in to bowl, delivering, following through, but with batsmen's orientation and stumps deleted, one might have thought he was in excellent order. The ball swung, bounced, was often on a good length. His speed was generally above 85mph. The only trouble was direction. Mostly, the ball was two feet wide on either side.
In the Sunday Telegraph, Mike Atherton writes a scathing piece on the over-influence of the bio-mechanists - with a particular nod to Liam Plunkett.
I was interested to talk to Peter Hartley, the third umpire, before the start of play. He umpired some of Plunkett's early matches and recalled a "beautiful sideways-on action"' as opposed to the mechanical front-on, and flawed action we are now witnessing.
This is the curse of the bio-mechanists, who reckon that a front-on action (feet, shoulders pointing down the pitch) is the best way to prevent injury without any recognition that it might not be the best to prevent waywardness.
A front-on action means that the left arm cannot be used as any kind of consistent guide. Bio-mechanists should be sent back to the laboratories where they belong.
And for Harmison, Atherton maintains that England's fast bowler is still terrorised by the horrors of Brisbane.
Ashok Ganguly is an editorial assistant at Cricinfo