Will Macpherson posted a fascinating article ($$) the other day on the latest iteration of the ECB’s project to develop more quick bowlers for England international teams.
It is an intriguing insight into the development philosophy at the ECB, but it does pose some interesting questions.
- Pace first, then variations, then accuracy?
- Every bowler is an individual…but they have to fit the pace blueprint!
- What incentive is there for Counties to nurture (and play) these young pace prospects, when they (the bowlers) are being encouraged to view accuracy & control as secondary skills?
Bowl fast!
Young bowlers will be encouraged to bowl fast, first, and not worry about control and accuracy until later.
But hasn’t this always been the way? Maybe not for Pathway and Academy coaches?
Bowl fast. Spin hard. That’s quite enough to be going on with.
After pace, develop variations. Only then work on control.
That seems counter productive. I appreciate that the importance of the “stock ball” is much reduced in the T20 era, but if you can’t rely on one delivery, how little faith can you have in a suite of variations?
If a young bowler can bowl fast, but gets caned every week, why should a County persist in picking him? What franchise will sign her?
No play. No pay. What future?
7 steps to ultimate pace
There is a distinct contradiction in the article when it comes to development models.
“[T]here is no one-size-fits-all” versus “bowlers will be ranked against the ECB’s 7 point pace blueprint.”
- optimal run-up speed
- high front arm
- heel strike
- chest drive
- delayed bowling arm
- braced front leg
- flick of the wrist
All identifiable components of the bowling actions of great fast bowlers.
But how many of the greats consistently scored highly on all seven?
“The most important thing about working with bowlers is remembering that there is no one-size-fits-all…Everyone is unique and has different bodies…”
And yet, where a bowler ranks less well on one factor this will be an indication of “which part of an action we might want to focus on.”
Which seems to ignore the fact that successful bowlers have individual, idiosyncratic bowling actions.
Mess with one part of the action, and the rest of it can fall apart.
Who pays?
I can fully understand why County coaches might be too conservative for the ECB’s pace project. They have a job to do — develop players to win matches for their County. And that means getting those players in the XI so they can perform.
Will the ECB insist that the Counties keep them on the books, in the certain knowledge that if the player does become an international and/or franchise star, that his workload will be managed and he will hardly ever play for the County again? Or one of the “bigger” Counties will snap him up?
Perhaps future England players will emerge, not from Academies and the County game, but from the algorithms and stats of the performance analysts.
It’s beyond Moneyball, and overlooked playing stats. Now release points and “looking right” (i.e. scoring on the 7-point checklist) count for more.
Will the ECB directly subsidise these prospects, even when their Counties daren’t give them a game for fear of destroying their confidence? Not quite a central contract, but some sort of “development contract”?
The Teesra 
Leave a reply to Andrew Beaven Cancel reply