"Get ready for a broken ^%& arm" there was a reason that comment disgusted everyone and went viral. True, there were probably plenty that weren't disgusted but thats beside the point!

Every express bowler has talked up their intimidation - from the windies of the 80s to Mitch Johnson and Jeff thompson. We could list many more. But lets call a spade a spade, its not just the a few short balls against a 6-3 offside field and some inappropriate bloodthristy comments like many pace bowlers dish out. Not only does Wagner bowl about 40% of his deliveries at the body, within some spells that number spikes for a sustained period of time against a 6-3 legside field. The field setting make it much more likely that the player allows themselves to get hit rather than risk a shot

At the moment its just Wagner, but what happens if this anti-cricket tactic spreads? Or worse, if it spreads to lower grades where techniques are worse and injury will be more likely. People have brought up his pedestrian pace, but 135-140kph is what 10% less speed than the quickest in the world. Glen mcgrath broke Kevin Peitersons ribs at that speed and Abbott is hardly express and killed a player. There really isn't much difference in terms of force. The much more likely risk is the concussions. A couple of concussions over a career and you probably laugh about it over a beer at the end of your career over how scary some bowler was. Concussions have a cumulative effect over a career, and if the number you sustain climbs, there will be serious long term health damage. Once you have enough concussions you end your career regretting you ever played. The current tactics employed by bowlers world wide delegates concussions to be rare and deaths to be confined to the freak accident category - about as common as a car crash on the way to cricket training.

An employee that risks their long term health to perform better at their job is heroic and a dream employee. Every player for every country fits that mould of heroic dream employee and we rightly respect the guts and determination of players that are willing to get hit rather than lose their wicket. However, an employer that takes advantage of that without making reasonable accommodations to make the job as safe as possible is exploitative. Cricket Australia are not their only employers, we paying fans are in a way also their employers and we are exploitative if we don't call it out. Any former union members on the forum?

Besides, who else can call this out? As I mentioned cricket has a machismo culture so all the pressure is to pretend that the tactic is fine lest you come across as scared or a whinger. Australia has the additional problem of being recently caught at cheating and would be wary of being accused of hypocrisy if they called this out. Of course cheating to win is not the same as cheating to hurt. It is, after all, just a game but the people out there will have 40-50 years left of their lives to live with any health problems they acquire from the game. It needs to be called out for the anti-cricket it is before we start seeing this nonsense at the under 17 level

When Wade was interviewed before play he said he admired Wagner’s approach with his aggressive bowling. 

You’ve raised some very good points though, Grazor. 

Baggers agrees it is close to bodyline, but didn't Paine negate the tactic?

It's alright. The kiwis wouldn't do it if it was against the spirit of the game, they're gentlemen. So instead, they got a bloke who couldn't get a run with the Saffers to do it. :) 

I really don't think Wagner banging them in in the 120's constantly is as dangerous as someone like Midge Johnson slinging them short randomly at over 150 kph, and we don't complain about that. I don't think it's all that effective either. So far it isn't. He's a far better bowler when he bowls normally. Certainly got some stamina though.

Something about it seems like raising the white flag early at that pace. More like trying to buy wickets with half trackers, than to a menacing type of short fast bowling. 

Some of the kiwi bowling tactics make for a boring game at times though. I suppose they think it's their best shot, and regardless it's all being played within the rules. 

as I said all the incentives are for the players to not call it out

after the sandpaper incident they are cautious about their image.
Also they don't want to come across as scared. To be fair they probably aren't scared, its a little bit like driving a car where you forget about the risks for a while. Driving isn't safe and neither is cricket but its an important to minimize the risks. But we've all had a friend who is a reckless driver and justifies it by saying something idiotic like "I've never had a crash so its perfectly safe"

in a scoreboard sense the whole team did in both matches. Obviously I'm not saying its cheating in a match winning sense. Wagner averages mid 20s like many other bowlers in test cricket (and if they cut out this nonsense they would be just as succesful with a world class attack of ferguson boult and southee barring injury). The current anti-bodyline rules make it no more effective than conventional cricket tactics which is why no one has done it since the 30s. The problem is its freaking dangerous to make the short ball your stock ball rather than a change up and shocking sportsmanship from an otherwise nice country. Apparently he's been doing it for years. I hope there aren't any kiwi kids getting sconned on the weekend trying to emulate him

fortunately I've only seen southee do it and then just briefly. Lockie ferguson has one of the best short deliveries in the world since his action doesn't really give away the pitch early (a bit like cummins) so luckily I haven't seen him do it

He actually bowls mid 130s which is as fast as mcgrath (who broke peitersons ribs) or abbott (who killed someone). Even 120s is dangerous enough. The camera foreshortening makes things look slower than they are but even in the 120s you can't see the ball as more than a blur and you are relying on your reflexes. Elite underage bowlers are usually low to mid 120s and on the footy show they once had the hosts face Nathan Bracken who was a 120s bowler and they couldn't even get the bat near the ball. Its plenty fast enough to cause a concussion. A few concussions over a career is a fun story about the big scary bowlers you faced. A dozen and you have permanent health problems over something that is ultimately just a game

as you say its not working in a cricket sense, we are way ahead in both games but its bloomen dangerous and would be quite frankly awful if it spread to underage leagues. I hope it hasn't in New Zealand!

Wagner can bowl 135, but mostly seems to be in the late 120's.

If you really look at it, I think the Aussies have had more success with the short ball (though have used it far less). The one Starc got CDG with in the first match was a brute, probably the best of the series so far. It now looks like Boult will be out of the last match with injury after getting a short one from Starc. So I don't think we can complain too much.

One problem is that the ICC might consider doing something with the rules to stop Wagner type bowling, because it's a very negative type of cricket and can get a boring as a spectacle.

Though you do make a good point re concussions and it's not a good thing to be hit even at Wagner's speed. There has been lots of research on concussions and brain damage. Read a neurological paper a while back that plotted Ali's career and used speech patterns to infer damage. Most seem to think he suffered damage right at the end of his career. Not so, one of the biggest and obvious changes was noted mid career, after his Frazier fight.

Though cricket isn't boxing, it is still dangerous. Would be a shame to remove short pitched bowling from the game altogether, then again, we don't want to see anyone hurt badly from a bouncer either. Not sure what the answer is.

Good post, FS.

Thommo, Johnson, Lee bowled "chin music.. smell the leather" deliveries..if they wanted to intimidate. This has become accepted as part of a bowler's armory.. whether some disagree with it or not. There are those that do not play the short ball well.. Our resident cricket "guru" Paddles says  Wagner is shorter and slower and his short stuff skids not flies.. so most balls are going to get up around rib/chest area. I agree with this but dont kid me that he is not deliberately aiming for that area.. he is. I have seen him bang it in with the ball flying over the batsman.. so he is also capable of impacting the head too.. specially on our bouncy decks. grazor you point out that his leg side rib area attack with a predominent leg side field is Bodyline leg theory .. If it aint I'd like to know what it is. Wagner bowls three or four of these rib tickers an over. This bloke is getting away with this controversial tactic.. because it is sanctioned.  Umps need to crack down on this the same way they only allow one over shoulder bouncer per over.  I want to see the law changed to make any ball that pitches outside the leg stump or is perceived to be outside when it hits the body.. to be wided.. same as is done in white ball cricket. If half of Wagner's deliveries are made null and void.. plus giving his opposition a further run.. he may just pull in his head and bowl conventionally. Then we'll see how many wickets he takes.

widing legside deliveries is a good idea

It's difficult to understand the kiwi bowling tactics in this series. They have been very negative and defensive, often choosing to bowl a long way from the stumps even when the ball is still doing enough. It's going to be difficult to get the required 20 wickets that way.

So far the biggest impact Wagner has had is by slowing the scoring. The batsmen either have to play constantly through a stacked leg side field to his short stuff, or be very patient. He might jag the occasional wicket but really only seems a threat when we have plenty of runs and so the batsmen are more inclined to take him on. Or he gets second innings wickets when we are batting to time our declaration for the bowlers. I don't understand why people think it's great, as the scores would indicate, he doesn't put any pressure on our batsmen when it matters.

Our match defining partnerships have happily played right through his short pitched stuff, they've probably been helped by it as it eases the pressure by having no genuine line and length bowling to contend with. The same last time we played them, he cleaned up after we had already batted them out of the match. Basically he shuts the gate when the horse has already bolted (or the sheep have left the paddock as it may be lol). You'd think a look at the scores, and when he gets his wickets this way might indicate something to them, but no. Or a quick look at the way our quicks knocked them over in the first innings.

So aside from the safety factor of bowling hundreds of deliveries with the aim of hitting the batsmen, I would be unhappy if the Aussies played this way instead of trying to get wickets, unless they really were out of ideas, as it would look like they had given up. It's poor tactically. Long may it continue for the kiwis though. Who knows, one day it might even be successful for them. If they try it enough, it's got to be eventually. It really stands out so far that the kiwis lack a good fast quality strike bowler. They all seem to be trundlers who need very specific conditions, although they have had good conditions at times, and still not done much.

yeah its a good point it really wasn't effective at anything other than spreading bad sportsmanship (the kiwi crowd booed umpire decisions a couple of times. Booing players is par for course but its pretty bad sportsmanship to boo the ump). Have we ever seen a kiwi team this uncompetitive?

I suppose it could be an attractive odi tactic but perhaps the leg side wide (as baggygreen mentioned) could stop it

Good post! 

I didn’t mind the tactics employed by NZ. 

They were losing tactics as the Kiwis lost both Tests decisively. 

However, I totally agree with Grazor. Player safety is paramount. 

The Umpires have been very lenient to the kiwi bowlers in general, and Wagner specifically. With both width and height. 

They have the power to take action against negative and or unsafe bowling in general, it wouldn't have been out of place at times this series. At Wagners pace they mustn't consider it dangerous. Still quite negative though.

The problem would be changing the rules for one specific bowler. The tail wagnering the dog so to speak, not sure it's wise.

41.6 Bowling of dangerous and unfair short pitched deliveries

41.6.1 The bowling of short pitched deliveries is dangerous if the bowler’s end umpire considers that, taking into consideration the skill of the striker, by their speed, length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on him/her.  The fact that the striker is wearing protective equipment shall be disregarded. 

41.6.2 The bowler’s end umpire may consider that the bowling of short pitched deliveries, although not dangerous under 41.6.1, is unfair if they repeatedly pass above head height of the striker standing upright at the crease.  See also Law 21.10 (Ball bouncing over head height of striker).

41.6.3 As soon as the umpire decides that the bowling of short pitched deliveries has become dangerous under 41.6.1, or unfair under 41.6.2, he/she shall call and signal No ball. When the ball is dead, the umpire shall caution the bowler, indicating that this is a first and final warning, and inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen of what has occurred.

This caution shall apply to that bowler throughout the innings.

>>> Where Wagner gets off is the height. He isn't bowling at the head or over the head. He is actually just bowling mostly at a back of length that Patty Cummins often bowls. He just does noticably more than Patty, with a very obvious field. A very very obvious field. 

Good points raised, Grazor.

Again fair comments, FS.

If the umpires are allowing it to take place, they must think it isn’t too bad or too dangerous. 

it seems as though the majority of Wagner’s short balls are directed at the hips and chest area, not the head. 

Its not deemed dangerous when Cummins, Rabada, Nortje, Olivier (especially - he is a 150km/h bowler), MMorkel, M Johnson were doing it. So nothing will change now. 

Where Wagner excels especially, then Cummins, is the accuracy to not go over the head. I mean once Olivier, who is a brute of a bowler, sadly lost to test cricket, once he sends down two short ones, that are called, he has to stop and start pitching up. But he doesn't want too typically. He loves the middle of the pitch as much as Wagner. And with his extra pace, has the much superior strike rate.

Cummins has flown under the radar, as against say Wagner, or Kumara, or Olivier especially. But here are some cricinfo stats before this current series:





Duane Olivier misses the cut off by 2 wickets. He got 48 in ten tests at 19 SR just 30 before retirement at just 26. Took the money of English county cricket. :(

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/28175486/how-neil-wagner-wanged-way-top

http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/486679.html <<< Olivier - in case anyone is interested. He could have broken  strike rate records and all sorts had SA be able to its cricketers better wages.

It's definitely an interesting discussion. I don't think it has been particularly successful, all it has done is slow down the run rate.

But honestly from a viewing point of view i think it has been utterly shit to watch. Everyone on the leg side boundary with almost every delivery being short. It is negative and crap to watch, but worse than that it is negative and doesn't work either.

I don't think anything needs to be changed in terms of number of short deliveries allowed, but if this 6 men on the legside stuff continues we may need some limited over rules, either with fewer people allowed to be on the legside so you can at least score on the short pitch crap or legside wides to be stricter.

I thought it was really brave for Starc to have three men out on the leg side boundary, leg gully, and short leg and bowling bouncers to a number 11 with a broken thumb, in face of all this criticism of Wagner. I think NZC and Wagner are all pleased with Starc's courageous display of solidarity with regards short pitch bowling today. 

Well done Starc, and well done Cricket Australia. 

Loved Cummins and Patto's 5-4 onside field to Phillips too. The leg theory seems to be catching on.

What an interesting article. Not good hearing Olivier retiring from Test Cricket at 26. Saw him bowl for Saffers and was impressed. 

Yeah, SA have lost a lot. Olivier wants to play tests for England. And there is an outside chance Abbott will too. Parnell possibly could too. MMorkel probably not. Simon Harmer has come out and said he wants to play for England as well...

These are the players SA has lost to county domestic cricket in England... (in the first 2 columns - everyone in the far right still recongises to be South African and not Kolpak or EU)



They have of course lost non intl players to NZ too like Conway (Sep this year) and Wagner.

So much talent lost early. Amla was done, tbf, but Abbott, Morkel, Olivier, Roussow, Parnell, far from it. 

After a losing series for the Kiwis, I wonder what the thoughts are in hindsight?

That it would be better with more than just 1 bowler doing it. Have 3 or 4 bowlers doing it.

Wagner was easily the pick of the touring bowlers to Aus this year, and I think 3rd for the decade behind Bumrah.

Smith clearly has a problem with the short ball. The real issue for mine is Labu, what is his weakness? Probably, it will be big spin - the kind you get in Asia.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Wagner's tactics. Every over he bowled two bouncers, two full ones outside off, and then two at the ribs. That's not illegal and it's not bodyline. That's just trying to get him to top edge one to fine leg. There's nothing wrong with that tactic, the West Indies did it all the time in the 80s. Every time they found a batsman was compulsively playing the hook shot, they'd bowl some short stuff from round the wicket and see if they'd bite. 

Bodyline was every single bowler hurling down six fast deliveries an over (or rather eight in those days) from round the wicket at the armpit or head, with five-seven fielders on the leg side, including several behind square. At every batsman. Plus - no helmets or chest pads. The only way any batsman could score a run was to hook it for six, and if he missed it he would have ended up in hospital with concussion. That's why it was banned - it provided the batsman with absolutely no opportunity to score runs and it was dangerous to safety. 

Smith never had more than two fielders behind square leg. At worst, he had a fine leg, a leg gully, a man standing just in front of square leg, and a silly mid on. He could have waited out the two bounders, let the two armpit balls go, and then scored off the other two fuller deliveries. Or, it he had a better technique, he could have found the boundary regularly.  If Ricky Ponting had been facing that stuff he would have dispatched most of it to the fence in front of square. 

You might notice that they didn't try the tactic to most other batsmen. They never tried it to Burns, or Labuschagne, because they both play the pull shot well. They also used it sparingly to Head, Warner and Paine. But they confused the hell out of Wade. 

For Smith, it's a technical weakness - he struggles to keep the pull shot down to left arm bowlers (or right armers from round the wicket). He's always looking to walk across to the off side to play that front foot flick through leg, so his bat starts low. When the bowler bowls it short, he has to bring the bat upwards from low down, almost guaranteeing he'll hit it in the air. Four times he hit one to backward square leg - and none of them were unplayable balls. 

It's a technical weakness and Wagner found it. 

I thought Smith also looked half way between back and front foot when he hooked or pulled in this series. 

The shot looked awkward.