The great Tait debate
Mon Jul 05 12:37
Shaun Tait is a match-winning paceman, and they are a very rare breed, so the Australian's fragile body makes for an intriguing debate as to how he should be employed.
It is a common misconception that Tait has slammed the door shut on playing Test cricket and, as he said after the final ODI at Lord's, he has not announced any form of retirement.
The paceman hit 100.1mph at the home of cricket, and his four-for proved yet again that he can be the difference, with a quick flurry of top-order wickets ripping out the heart of the opposition.
Of course Australia can get by without Tait for some matches, but the prospect of him bowling 100mph at the WACA or in Brisbane is frankly irresistible.
The clamour for the fast bowler to play in the Ashes will increase steadily and, if Australia are brave enough to persuade him to play in the series against Pakistan, he could even be fit enough to do so.
Tait has not played a first-class game since late 2008; but even if he could get through 15 overs at full pace, his potential impact would be well worth the drawbacks.
Ricky Ponting admitted he would love to have Tait in his side for the Ashes, and that all depends on the balance of his pace attack as a whole.
If the likes of Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Johnson and Peter Siddle can rattle through a hefty number of overs between them, it would allow Tait to play purely as a strike bowler.
Whoever else Australia pick in their pace attack, they would have to be the economical, work-horse type what could enable Tait to fly in with short, sharp and destructive spells.
It is in these situations that coaches need to be brave, and Tim Nielsen will know that if Tait is asked to play in the Ashes he would surely do so - but is he courageous enough to pick his side accordingly?
Tait's strike rate is quite incredible, and he finished with eight wickets at 12.37 in the three matches he played in the series, coinciding with Australia's resurgence.
What is quite clear is that a bowler of his pace and talent can have a significant bearing on the course of a Test series if he is employed in an intelligent way.
The legendary former England captain Mike Brearley has often talked about picking your best players and managing them accordingly, and that is the task which is before Ponting now.
Test cricket is crying out for a fast bowler of Tait's pace and aggression, and the game cannot afford to lose such rare talent just because too much is being demanded of him.
Australia should accept Tait for what he is, support and encourage him, then reap the rewards of the performances he can provide.
One thing is for sure: England will be absolutely delighted if he is not persuaded to return for the Ashes in November.
Having watched Tait in this ODI series he is someone england should be very wary of, and could be the difference if we go to Australia and he plays. However, I think the aussies would be taking a huge risk playing him. Siddle and Hilfenhaus are good bowlers, but can be wayward and throw the team off, and Johnson is as injury prone as Tait. If they play these four at one of the pace-friendly grounds in the series, and loose one of their bowlers to injury, they will be in serious trouble as Tait cant bowl 25 overs in a day!
From haribosweets on Mon Jul 05 12:54good post haribo
From rameez_535 on Mon Jul 05 15:26get rid of the spam n the scum dat is u british morons on dis page , y thorpey r u afraid he wil scare d shiiiite out of ur team UR RITE
From the_spanishwaiter on Mon Jul 05 15:30Tait provides Australia with the very same problem that Brett Lee did last summer. He is simply not capable of pulling his weight as a member of a four man attack. In addition to that, how many decent overs could Australia expect to get out of him in a test, 15-20? In 3 over spells? In test cricket the batsmen could simply shorten their backlift and see him off and then get their runs off the other three overworked bowlers. Remember that, quick though he is, Tait is not exactly the most versatile bowler. Being a side-arm hurler, he'll never get much bounce.
Tempting for Australia to call him up but surely not worth it unless they are really desperate.
Bobito
From bob.edge64 on Mon Jul 05 15:37All the speed in the world won't overcome the disability of a constrained action which puts undue strain on the bowler and restricts his range of deliveries. To get the pace he does, Tait has to confine himself to a small set of variations produced with obvious strenuous effort. He is also unable to bowl longish spells of 8 or 10 overs, but needs a lie-down every 2 or 3. Quality batsmen should be able to ride out the storm; he will always sweep away less-able batsmen, but as a punt for Ashes stardom I'll only say - please!
Bobito, I bow to your figures on Pietersen's England appearances, but haven't changed my opinion.
Mirandola aka RobFrom bretorne on Mon Jul 05 16:50I agree with Bobito and Mirandola on this one. Tait would be a really desperate gamble from the Aussies in a test series. I'm afraid he hasn't proved anything yet beyond quick bursts which just won't cut it in proper cricket.
From soul.limbo on Mon Jul 05 18:06I simply do not agree with the assertion that just raw pace decimates batting teams - it does not. And it's pointless comparing ODI to test matches. Tait could be the very opposite of Thorpe's assertion - a complete liability who breaks down after a day or two. Shows how much Australia miss fatty and pidge.
From sommiewoman on Mon Jul 05 18:08By the way, can anyone enlighten me as to exactly what speed this camera is measuring? Speed from the bowler's arm, speed from the pitch, speed at the batsman's point of contct (or not) ? If it is (a), its irrelevant; if (b) it could be relevant, or not, depending on other conditions; if (c) it would be relevant, but short of a sensor inside the bat I don't see how you could measure it. More Media nonsense, methinks.
From bretorne on Mon Jul 05 19:07One other thing to consider is this. Let us assume, as Thorpe is suggesting, that Tait plays as one of a four seamer attack. What would happen if one of the stock bowlers, Siddle or Hilfenhaus, got injured? Niether are known as iron men, indeed both are injured at present. Johnson and Tait might give you 30 overs a day between them, the remaining seamer perhaps 25 (pushing it) but that leaves 35 overs of Watson's medium pace filth, Katich's dodgy chinamans and Hussey's dibly-dob nonsense.
Time for Strauss and Flower to start making comments about how much they fear Tait and are glad that he is unlikely to play a part in the Ashes perhaps. Talk him into that Aussie team.
From bob.edge64 on Mon Jul 05 19:16Mirandola - it is apparently the speed of tha ball as it leaves the bowler's hand, measured over the first few feet of flight. It's a highly unreliable piece of kit in any case. I remember a Chris Cairns slower ball once being clocked as 87mph. I was also at Wimbledon a couple of weeks ago and they use a similar device to measure the speed of serves. One serve from British girl Elena Baltacha was displayed as being 148mph, that's a full 13mph faster than Roger Federer's fastest.
Take these figures with a pinch, nay a fistful, of salt.
From bob.edge64 on Mon Jul 05 19:23I remember the Cairns one - I think many people were stunned at the 'readout'. I should add that I think sheer pace - while it is intimidating (to a batsman) and impressive (to watchers-on) isn't necessarily a particularly effective weapon, unless allied with other variations. I think we both agree that Malcolm Marshall was one of the greatest bowlers we will ever be privileged to see - and many of his wickets were won by craft, variation of line and length, surprising top batsmen with the concealed slower ball ... ah, what a genius the man was!
From bretorne on Mon Jul 05 19:34Mirandola you are speaking of my all time favourite player now and the man I regard as the greatest fast bowler of them all. He was, as you say, a tremendously skillful bowler but he was also extremely quick. I once saw him at a Hampshire v Gloucestershire match bowl a bouncer at one of the tail enders. The fellow made no attempt to play the ball but just tried to get out of the way. The ball hit him on the glove, flew over the keeper's head, smacked into the sightscreen for 6 and the batsman retired hurt with a broken finger. Beat that Mr Tait!
From bob.edge64 on Mon Jul 05 19:42Bobito - it's not a fair comment, but put Tait in the same basket .......
From bretorne on Mon Jul 05 19:50And may I add that one of the really great things about Malcolm Marshall was (is)
that he is a great gentleman of the 'old school', who wouldn't enter into stupid Media-inflamed debates.
If you heard an opinion from him, it was 100% genuine. We could do with a few like him now - not just for the bowling, but more for the personal self-respect.From bretorne on Mon Jul 05 19:59Time dims the memory but I will always be convinced,technology notwithstanding,that Tyson was the fastest I ever saw. Marshall I agree was a very great bowler but spare a thought for Lillee,who in my opinion,was a top man too. Thompson,although not as clever,had the ability to rip through a batting line- up with sheer pace/
Most of these out and out speedmen seem to put the wind up batsmen for a few seasons but I would be hard put to think of one who maintained it for any great length of time.Too much like hard work,methinks.
John,Spain.From p2jww on Mon Jul 05 20:10John - you have very good grounds for considering Tyson the fastest of all. Two generations before, it was Knox. What I'm looking at is ability to get wickets, not just pace alone. Pace will beat a lot of batsmen, but a good batsman will score quicker off extreme pace,, because the ball flies further & faster (if you can snick it ...). The thing Bobito and I are trying to get at, I think, is that mere speed means little or nothing unless it does something at the batsman's end ....
From bretorne on Mon Jul 05 20:18I hope they do play Tait.
All those extra overs from Watson.
Yummy.
From stevedon7 on Mon Jul 05 20:20#18 bretorne. Yes Rob,I take your point.Perhaps the biggest asset a bowler of this type is that he can soften-up and intimidate a batsman so that the more skilful bowler at the other end can clean him out.
The Hall/ Griffiths partnership comes to mind.There is no doubt that Charlie had the ability to intimidate a batsman,especially as there was some doubt concerning his legality but Wes Hall was by some distance,a better and more skilful bowler who ultimately,enjoyed more success .Was this due in part, to his scowling and ill-tempered partner at the other end?.
It seems doubtful however,that Tait has the stamina or resilience to take on a role of "enforcer"(can't think of a better word)
John,Spain.From p2jww on Mon Jul 05 20:42Raw pace can work if you have a skilful bowler at the other end. Lillie and Thompson were a great example of this but there have been others. But for it to work well, the extreme pace bowler needs to be able to keep going for long enough to allow his partner to get to work at the other end and they need bounce as well as pace. Tait, a side arm hurler who is knackered after 3 overs, ticks niether box. In any case, Australia don't have a Lillie to complete the partnership.
One of the best bits of pace bowlers working together that I've seen was way back in 1980. I seem to remember Holding and Roberts charging downhill and taking a pile of wickets at one end while from the other Joel Garner bowled right through the session conceding just a single.
Another player I have noticed that commentators are talking about seriously as a possible part of the Australian attack for the Ashes is this lad Smith. A leg spinner who gets a little bit of slow turn, has no variations and whose wickets in first class cricket have so far cost 49 runs apiece, can they be serious? Can they be that desperate?
Bobito
From bob.edge64 on Mon Jul 05 20:45It's an interesting one, John and Bobito; I said last Ashes series that that was the weakest Australian combination for many years; it's even weaker now. They have perhaps one and a half world-class batsmen, and not one world-class bowler (even in sight ...). I honestly think England will have to pull out all the stops to hand the Ashes back (but of course they are quite capable of that!)
More interestingly, the question of extreme pace: I remember my days batting in decent cricket, and I would always have preferred a madcap quickie to a bowler who knew what he was up to ....but that's maybe just me!From bretorne on Mon Jul 05 21:01I once had to open against a Windies quick by the name of Roy (Sonny) Gilchrist.Boy he was quick and I can honestly say that it was the only time I felt that a bowler was out to kill or at least,permanently injure me.I happened to middle his fourth ball and got it to extra cover boundary for a 4. I immediately wished I hadn't as his re-action was terrifying.
I may be doing him a disservice but I seem to remember reading some years later,that he had been banged up for inflicting GBH on his wife,with a flat iron.
John,Spain.From p2jww on Mon Jul 05 21:15Mirandola - to be perfectly honest, Australia's best attack this winter may be the very same one they fielded last summer, Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Hauritz. Johnson and Siddle will probably be more formidable foes on Australian pitches but the opposite may be said of Hilfenhaus and Hauritz. England, on the other hand, have made one significant gain in the bowling department, that of Stephen Finn. Finn could be ideally suited to Australian conditions but they must give him the new ball. One other thing that could play heavily in England's favour is having Australia's most reputable bowling coach on our side. David Saker knows Australian conditions and he knows how to get the best out of bowlers.
However, I wouldn't rule them out just yet. They still have the best batsman in the world in Ponting, a couple of fine quick bowlers in Johnson and Siddle and they will fight to the last man.
Evening John - Never saw Hall and Griffiths but their reputation is fearsome. I've seen photographs of Charlie Griffifth's action that would suggest that he would have made a fine javelin thrower or baseball pitcher.
Nocohere - Watson's bowling is indeed something to feast upon and grow fat with runs.
From bob.edge64 on Mon Jul 05 21:23John - The name Roy Gilchrist rang a bell so I looked him up. You were lucky to survive the experience my friend. It seems Gilchrist once bowled a bouncer that cleared the wicket keeper and hit the sightscreen on the full. He played 13 tests for the West Indies before being sent home halfway through a tour of the subcontinent for bowling beamers from 18 yards. The final straw came in the Fourth Test, after Indian batsman AG Kripal Singh had struck three consecutive boundaries. Gilchrist deliberately overstepped the bowling crease by six yards and delivered a bouncer which hit the Sikh batsman in the head and dislodged his turban. He later attracted attention while playing in the Lancashire League by removing a stump and striking an opposition batsman over the head with it.
You need not worry about a libel suit either. He was indeed found guilty of assaulting his wife. The judge in the case said: "I hate to think English sport has sunk so far that brutes will be tolerated because they are good at games."
Charming company you keep.
From bob.edge64 on Mon Jul 05 21:42The danger with a ""cafeteria" bowler like Watson is complacency.We have all seen batsmen go yum yum when a bowler of his type comes on,only to be dismissed very softly.Am I correct in thinking that Mark Butcher once turned in respectable figures in a test match?
John,Spain.
Evening,Bobito.From p2jww on Mon Jul 05 21:46Bobito,friend Sonny was briefly playing minor counties stuff.Bedfordshire I think it was but I may be wrong.I know he showed up later in the Lancashire League,where he was possibly more likely to get a smack in the mouth for his antics!
John,Spain.From p2jww on Mon Jul 05 22:01John - As you know I am a lover of the history of the game. You have therefore made my day. This fellow Gilchrist is quite something. Apart from being almost certainly the most vicious fast bowler of them all, he and a young Wes Hall were the first of a long line of West Indian quicks. I don't envy you the experience but you certainly have a story to tell there.
Here is a quote from the man himself: "I have searched the rule books, and there is not a word in any of them that says a fellow cannot bowl a fast full-@#$% at a batsman . A batsman has got a bat and they should get the treatment they deserve.
You might be right about his reception in the Lancashire League. The photo on his cricinfo page shows him with a heavy dressing, probably covering stitches, over his left eye.
From bob.edge64 on Mon Jul 05 22:58Made my day too! Many thanks to John and Bobito. LOL!
nocohereFrom stevedon7 on Mon Jul 05 23:32Nocohere - I just googled the fellow's name, John was the one risking life and limb.
One final tale from the career of Roy Gilcrest that deserves telling involves one of the greatest innings of all time. Test newcomers Pakistan were playing their first test against the West Indies in Bridgetown. The match began with WI scoring 579. Pakistan were then blown away for 106, leaving them the small matter of 474 to avoid an innings defeat. As if saving the match from such a position wasn't hard enough, it was a six day test. Enter 23 year-old Hanif Mohammed. His heroic second innings 337 saved the first Test. In the course of 16 hours at the crease, still the longest ever test innings, he faced 40 Gilchrist overs of balls whizzing just past his quickly withdrawn head.
Bobito
From bob.edge64 on Tue Jul 06 06:08Thankyou all you people for your very informative comments. As an ardent cricket fan but not very knowledgeable (and being quite old too) I really enjoy reading the old history. Please keep it up.
From patandbarbara on Tue Jul 06 08:01John - many congratulations on surviving the Gilchrist onslaught; but really, he was not just a tearaway quickie, he was a (proven, tried and convicted) homicidal psychopath who thought nothing of bowling deliberately to injure. Lillee once famously bragged that he wanted to make batsmen afraid to face him - but so far as I'm aware he never actually killed (or even tried to kill) anyone. Maybe your admiration for the sheer pace merchants was born in that Gilchrist incident? Personally, I always found quicks easy, as they rarely put up more than two balls you actually had to play (I've said, I was not at any time a hitter or even an accumulator. So long as I was not out I considered I'd done my job!)
From bretorne on Tue Jul 06 14:22
Comment on this article
Please sign in to add your comments.
Graham Thorpe
Sport Newsletter
Catch up with all the latest news
Sign up to our free daily newsletter to receive the latest news straight to your inbox. Make sure you don’t miss a thing.
Sign up now
Yahoo! News Network
This site is Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! and Eurosport. All rights reserved.
- Terms of Service
- Updated Privacy Policy
- Copyright/IP Policy
- Remarks and Suggestions
- Corporate info
- Jobs at Eurosport
Notice: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our Privacy Policy | About Our Ads.