Comparing Stuart Clark with Glenn McGrath
December 31, 2007
The fact that Clark is good enough to merit such a comparison is, in itself, no small achievement. He is accurate, can move the ball both ways, is patient and seems able to bowl long spells. Indeed, these were some of the hallmarks of McGrath himself.
However, there was a lot more to McGrath. Srivaths pointed out that Clark’s natural length is a bit fuller than McGrath’s and consequently he is unable to generate the same bounce that McGrath did. Now, this is not a difference to be glossed over lightly! Accuracy and movement are great, but when allied with bounce, they become doubly potent. Just compare, in your mind’s eye, Curtly Ambrose as we know him and a Curtly Ambrose without the bounce that he generated. The case is made.
Apart from natural bounce, McGrath had an extremely effective bouncer that would invariably pitch on middle-and-off and hone in on the batsman’s head off the pitch. He was also a master of the short ball outside off that would tempt a batsman to hook thereby increasing the chances of a top-edge. Added to that was a perfect yorker that could be called upon at will (not in the Wasim-Waqar-Shoaib class but as good as anyone could bowl at 135 kph). With the old ball, he could generate occasional reverse swing and make the ball dip in late. There was also the split-finger slower ball that he employed profitably at times in Test cricket. Thus far, I have not seen these qualities in Clark.
Besides, McGrath’s pace was just about perfect for his kind of bowling (~ 135 kph). Clark’s average pace seems about 5 kph slower than ideal. During the Boxing Day Test, Gilchrist even stood up to Clark to keep the batsmen in their crease. He has filled the role of the third seamer beautifully. However, it’s hard to imagine him leading an Australian pace attack with the new ball in the manner in which McGrath did.
Clark is a very, very good bowler. If he wasn’t, he would not have had as impressive a Test record as he does so far (against good opposition too). But he is not great, at least not yet. Great bowlers perform in all conditions and in all forms of the game. Clark has been unable to come to terms with limited overs cricket and we haven’t seen him bowl in subcontinental conditions. His success so far has come in Australia and South Africa. He still has to undergo the test of bowling in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Aside: In a purely aesthetic sense, McGrath’s bowling action and follow-through were silken smooth and a pleasure to watch. Personally, Clark’s seems a bit clumsy. He also does something disturbing with his fingers just before he delivers the ball. Strangely, he brings his third and fourth fingers close to the seam and pushes the ball inside the back of the hand as he gets into his delivery stride. Although it doesn’t seem to affect his final release, it does look awkward. Fast bowlers are supposed to keep only their first two fingers behind the seam and not push the ball into the palm (especially in their delivery strides!).
[Update: This picture illustrates this point to some extent]
Glenn McGrath is the most accomplished fast bowler I have seen. Clark does not come close to challenging that status.
January 1, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Your points are well taken but I still hold Clark is closer to the great man than you give him credit for. The relative lack of bounce is no small matter but the problems he poses are very similar in nature to those posed by McGrath. In fact, I think he gets the ball to move a little more than McGrath did although there is no evidence yet that that is going to fetch him any more wickets. And is he really any slower than McGrath? In general, it seems to be easier for ‘keepers to stand up to medium pacers who bowl a fuller length like Clark, Vaas and Pathan.
In the few glimpses I caught of him in the MCG test, he seemed to possess a very accurate bouncer too; at the batsmen’s head or a little outside off as you described. And as for McGrath reversing the old ball, he did it very rarely. (That was touted as the difference in the 2005 Ashes when all the English bowlers reversed it while the Australians came a cropper. In fact, the Australians seemed to pick it up for the ‘06-’07 Ashes once Cooley came on board).
McGrath’s action was easier on the eye but Clark’s seems to be quite effective given what he tries to do with the ball. Limited overs cricket and the subcontinent have yet to be conquered although I’m confident he’ll do well in Asia.
In sum, what I’m trying to say is Clark is much closer to McGrath than MacGill was or ever will be to Warne.
January 1, 2008 at 11:41 pm
The technical point you make about the fingers is very interesting but I will have to plead ignorance on the matter. One thing that struck me was that Pathan too holds the ball in his palm and the commentators went to town in ascribing that as the reason for his drop in pace. Irfan palms it much more I think.
February 7, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I thought Irfan’s problems were more biomechanic; the bowling hand going behind the head slowing momentum and the bowling arm among other deficiencies. By the way, I just came across your blog. Great stuff.
February 8, 2008 at 3:46 am
The biomechanics angle is interesting. I wish some expert came out and explained clearly what’s wrong with Irfan’s bowling and did a technical comparison between his bowling now and four years ago.
February 8, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I am no expert, but I can tell you what I know: Fast bowling biomechanics are broadly based on direction and alignment. Direction is based on running forward. The biomechanical components of the human frame – arms, legs, head, chest must together be moving forward at all times. Even during the leap, rock-back or gather position. When running in, the arms must be tucked in with elbows high. At the crease, the bowling arm should go forward and up, never back or above or back and behind the head, or up at a height that will impede forward momentum. The back leg should not be bent upon impact.Neither should the front foot. The fast bowler should get off the back foot as soon as possible onto a stable front foot. Note that the premise is ‘forward momentum’
I hope that explains the direction part of it with an idea of arm and leg movement mechanism. Let’s go forward to alignment:
The direction of the fast bowler should be aligned with the stumps he is aiming at. This means he has to run in as straight as possible. This also means that when the left foot ( for a right hander) hits the front crease, the toes must point to the batter’s stumps, the bowling arm must be aligned with the batter’s stumps. The follow through should take the bowler straight down the wicket. Stopping means there is a kink in the bomechanics or technique – both intertwined.
I hope the above lines provide some idea of a science that has evolved and advanced over the decades. I have personally applied the basics at club level with great results. Please look at youtube videos of Alan Donald who i think epitomizes the perfect biomechanical action for a fast bowler. Brett Lee is ot too bad either and Stuart Clark has very strong basics as did Glenn McGrath before him.
You could also do a google search on ‘Biomechanics Fast Bowling .pdf’ to get one or two fantastic resouorces on this subject.
February 9, 2008 at 6:37 pm
SVA: Firstly, I am tamil and yet your handle makes no sense to me. What gives.
I have not played the game at any appreciable level and so I am going to be groping in the dark here. I could have sworn that when Irfan started losing his pace, the commentators cited his palming as the reason. But the evidence does seem to bear out your reasoning: his bowling arm seems to be going back much less in 2003 and 2008 than in 2006. From my (layman’s) perspective, I thought the problem with Irfan was his getting into the vicious cycle of consciously dropping pace to “concentrate on line and length” following which batsmen tonked him around even more. (Worryingly, Munaf also seemed to be getting into this same rut. But he seems to be a different kind of headcase.)
But if moving back to a biomechanically consistent action is the solution, let’s have more of it. I thought the notion of using biomechanics to aid fast bowlers began with an eye on injury prevention. But even teams which have tried to use it (such as England) do not seem to have had any more success on the injury front. Mike Atherton and Angus Fraser have more than once pointed to James Anderson as being the poster-child of the failure of biomechanics. He lost his swing and did no better with injuries although he does not since seemed to have had an injury as serious as a stress fracture on his back. I wish someone like Cooley would come out and debate them.
In any case, many thanks for raising the standard of debate around here.
February 9, 2008 at 8:33 pm
SVA, I think this is most fascinating. With respect to Irfan, the key sentence, for me, is this one: “At the crease, the bowling arm should go forward and up, never back or above or back and behind the head, or up at a height that will impede forward momentum. ”
After having read your comments on biomechanics, I see that you are quite right about Irfan’s action here. Two questions that came to me were: 1) Is there a difference between Irfan’s bowling actions when he was bowling well (2003-04) and when his pace slipped away? 2) What other bowlers have similar biomechanical defects?
The videos posted by Srivaths go some way in answering the first question quite nicely. The perfect anti-thesis to Irfan is Lee’s action which is perfect. And also McGrath and Donald as mentioned. In fact, Lee’s action was the one that naturally came to mind after reading the first two paragraphs of your comment.
I was also trying to think of other fast bowlers whose actions could be classed as biomechanically flawed based on what you described. Shane Bond probably pulls his bowling arm too far back behind his head – which might explain all his injuries. Venkatesh Prasad had that awkward pull-back before delivering which probably “impeded forward momentum”. Who else?
Oh, and I was curious about your name too. And let me express my thanks as well. It’s not everyday that you learn something new about the game.
February 10, 2008 at 5:40 am
My brothers, your points and example make every bit of sense and fill in the gaps in my comment. I say that James Anderson can only go so far and is usually at his best in ideal swing conditions. Observe his head at the crease and you will see that it falls away and down, because of this, his non-bowling arm becomes malaligned ; it points towards the slip cordon instead of at the keeper. Further, it opens his chest out a tad too soon. When he finishes, his face is pointing towards the ground instead of at the batsman! He doesn’t know where the ball pitches because he has no eyes on top of his head! When he is bowling really well, these flaws become less visible.
Shaun Tait of course, is an absolute biomechanical disaster as much as Dale Steyn is a marvel. Both started their careers around the same time. Steyn continues to go forward while tait has taken a big step back by quitting cricket.
Venkatesh Prasad had a natural looking open chested action that let him bowl big inswingers at a lively pace. This was the Prasad I saw at the nets in 1990. Then he went to MRF where they told him to go side-on and that is why you see him with that ‘awkard pull-back’
By the way, the name SVB just came to my head. So did Reverse Tyagaraja, Thengul R. Swaminath-dhan Iyer and Dr. Crispus Crishnamurthy
I stuck with SVB for no particular reason
February 10, 2008 at 5:42 am
I am very impressed by Ishant Sharma who is a biomechanic’s delight.
January 17, 2009 at 5:33 am
abe,slow motion main side on action ka video dekha do,