I never noticed anything particularly wrong with Andrew Flintoff's action, then again, I never really focussed in on his bowling. Even on those odd occasions when I did pay any attention. That's about to change.
Spanky Roebuck has ponced ... err ... pounced:
Andrew Flintoff's bowling action is provoking concern. His action has deteriorated since he returned from his latest injury and now contains an unmistakable jerk.
Before long, the roughness of his style is bound to attract the attention of observers prepared to remove their eyes from a harmless tweaker suspected, at worst, of reverse-throwing at a mild pace.
It is extraordinary that so much fuss has been made about a spinner at a time when heads are being clattered and wickets taken by men whose menace goes beyond an ability to turn the ball at right-angles. The delivery that felled Brian Lara in Hampshire was the clearest throw since the ball that removed Marcus Trescothick in Perth not so long ago.
Cricket is trying to find its way through the scientific and legal quagmire that illegal bowling has become. Not that the issue was any more satisfactorily dealt with in the past.
Such is the prevailing confusion that the danger arises that bowlers of all sorts will feel free to send the ball down without taking heed of the restraints supposedly imposed by the rules of the game.
Every country has strong opinions about all bowlers except their own, a habit also detected during the outbreak of corruption that bedevilled the game a few years ago. But then, corruption is not merely a matter of money and, as usual, the International Cricket Council is left holding the baby - an overrated activity.
Flintoff's action requires attention. Of course, he might not be conscious of the roughness that has crept in over the course of a few months during which his career has caught fire in the manner of an Olympic flame.
Make sure you read the rest, but before you do, a few points.
It's hard not to respect Roebuck for his willingness to tackle issues "off the square", I pretty much always read his articles, but given his history with chucking, one wonders whether he has any credibility vouchers left in the kit-bag.
1) Has a seizure in the Boxing Day commentary booth when Daryl Hair first calls Murali.
2) Grudgingly admits the obvious that, yes, Murali does have a problem. "Of course the Doosra's dodgy, but all he needs to do is drop it".
3) Murali is merely -- merely is Murali? -- a "harmless tweaker suspected, at worst, of reverse-throwing at a mild pace".
4) "It dosn't matter, others do it too"
5) Flintoff's "rough" action is more a chuck, than Murali's "reverse throwing".
All. Over. The. Place.
I hate to labour a point, but the delivery that felled Brian Lara in Hampshire was not the clearest throw since the ball that removed Marcus Trescothick in Perth. That dubious honour goes to the ball that removed Matthew Hayden LBW in Kandy.
Never the less, there's a sense of relief it's a non-Australian who is criticising Flintoff's action. Imagine the squawks if it was Daryl Hair.
Only time I've seen Freddy this year is in the ICC trophy; didn't look like there was anything wrong to me. Shoaib's action seems okay too.. there might be a problem with the odd quicker ball, but if there is, I've never seen it.
Its too late in the day for Spanky or anyone else to cry about illegal actions now. If the international cricket community had done something about Murali in 1994/5 when he first emerged, it might have been a different story. But the ICC failed the test then, and cricket is still paying the price for that.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 01:20 PM
Just give it back to the umpires to call it as they see it.
Posted by: Tony.T | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 01:24 PM
Fox will be covering the England vs SA tests this summer won't they? They usuall do the England games.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 01:25 PM
Hope so. Be interesting to see where the Yarpies are at. They've been remarkably low-profile of late. Are they still any good?
More hopely so, I hope the BCCI get their act together by next week for the Aus/India telecast. Mighty pissed of if we miss out.
Posted by: Tony.T | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 01:29 PM
I'm pretty sure Australia will be okay, the dispute is about who broadcasts in India.
Yarpies are shithouse- Shrees gave them a fair beating, without Murali too.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 01:51 PM
The only 'unmistakable jerk' is clearly old Spanky himself who is quite plainly just trying to stir up some controversy prior to the Ashes (copywright Australia) Even i have to admit to seeing nothing remotely wrong with Flintoff's action and some observers are looking for 'kinks' and 'uncertainties' in many bowlers with no problems whatsoever. Freddie may cause us afew problems with the bat in his hand but not TOO many with the ball, he bowls a lot of short stuff which will be meat & drink to some of our blokes.
Tony, actually the Yarpies are not shaping up too bad. I reckon their batters will more than hold their own against the Poms, Ntini will rattle some skulls and take wickets, but Kallis could be their trump card. Will he make the difference ?
Posted by: Brett Pee | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 09:19 PM
Yarpies good AND bad. I say they're somwhere im between. That should cover us.
Posted by: Tony.T | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 10:44 PM
Well, soap and water have never covered the sarfficans .
Posted by: Brett Pee | Saturday, October 02, 2004 at 11:05 PM