M Atherton: McGrath one of the real greats (18 October 1998 )

18 October 1998

M Atherton: McGrath one of the real greats

By ex-England captain Michael Atherton

THE first ball of the Ashes series I received in 1993 off Merv Hughes, I guided with soft hands, rather well I thought, to third man for four. As I trotted to the other end I received the normal torrent of abuse. Referring, I assumed, to my naive and unsuccessful attempts at Test cricket in 1989, he snarled "Jesus Christ, you've not got any better in four f*****g years."

Merv, of course, was a sledger par excellence. Not all fast bowlers go in for it: I have never heard Curtly Ambrose utter one word to me, apart from the obligatory "Alright skipper" first thing in the morning. Some would say that I am usually out before he gets his vocal chords warmed up and, while that was certainly true last winter, it has not always been so.

No, Curtly's just a quiet sort. I remember some years ago the journalist David Norrie trying to get an interview with him. Tentatively, he approached one of Curtly's team-mates to see how amenable he might be. When Curtly heard about this second-hand approach he got unusually annoyed and told Norrie in no uncertain terms that if he wanted an interview he should ask him for it first hand. Two days later the journalist tried that tact only to be told "Curtly talks to no-one".

When it comes to sledging, Glenn McGrath is not from the Merv Hughes school of quick bowling. But he is not from the Ambrose school either. His body language is as hostile and unwelcoming as the large tracts of bush in New South Wales he has just bought. Our first look at him during the 1994-95 series suggested there was nothing special to come and he was promptly dropped. He bounced back at Perth during the last match of that series and played a key part in ending West Indies' long unbeaten run at home as he established a stranglehold over their star performer Brian Lara. During the 1997 Ashes summer he was mightily impressive.

During the fateful summer he dismissed me fairly often. Any batsman will tell you that going back to face a bowler who has had success against you is a psychological challenge, and so it will be for me this time around. His success and therefore my lack of it, contributed to England's often poor first innings totals and so to our ultimate defeat.

The first step to solving any problem is to confront it full on. How did he get me out? Was there a pattern? Were they good balls or persistent technical failings? Thankfully from my point of view, I think I am playing far better now than for the previous 12 months - basically stiller and taller than before and more beside the ball than behind it. Had I been playing that way against Australia, I am sure I would have done well.

However, it was the excellence of McGrath's bowling which was able to exploit those weaknesses. Like Angus Fraser, he keeps it pretty simple: close to the stumps, great accuracy and a well-directed bouncer. He does not move the ball around that much, but from that close to the stumps a little is enough. Fitness permitting that excellence can be taken for granted and will have to be dealt with - hopefully for the better this time.

All the best teams have new-ball bowlers that hunt in pairs and, if fit, Jason 'Dizzie' Gillespie will be an equal handful. Slightly quicker than McGrath, he looks to swing the ball more but as a result can bowl more bad deliveries. Memories of his seven wickets at Headingley are warning enough not to underestimate him.

The confrontation up front will be a key one. The new ball is especially important in Australia as the bounce tends to be steeper. And the ball only swings for an hour or so. After that, on the generally good pitches, the bat can dominate. If the openers can get through the new ball it gives the middle order - the fancy dans - more chance of success and, importantly, the freedom to be aggressive, especially if McGrath and Shane Warne manage to strangle the game as they did so effectively in England last time in 1997.

Any Test match opener knows he will have to face plenty of "chin music". Ambrose and Walsh last winter, Donald and Pollock this summer and McGrath and Gillespie this winter. Fine fast bowlers all.

Accuracy, like technique for batsmen, I would take for granted in a top-class fast bowler. Added to that I reckon they need two or three things: pace, movement and bounce. The shorter, skiddier types have to be utterly exceptional like Malcolm Marshall and even then he had pace and movement aplenty.

Pace sets bowlers apart, it unsettles batsmen. Some play it better than others and some relish the challenge but no-one really likes it. A quick look at the all-time wicket-takers list tells you also that pace wins Test matches. One of the biggest problems in our domestic games at the moment is the lack of it. There are only a handful of genuinely quick English bowlers. Before the first Test of this summer, I had not faced a single bouncer.

When you ally pace with movement, seam or swing, and bounce that constantly hits the splice of the bat and has you pegged back then, as a batsman, you know you are in for a rough ride. That then is the ideal prototype of a fast bowler: tall, accurate, quick and clever.

But a great fast bowler has to have more than that and to find it you have to get beyond the bowler and into the man. Of all the disciplines in cricket, fast bowling is physically the hardest. After the Old Trafford Test this year, I saw Allan Donald after 2.5 days in the field. I do not think I have ever seen a more exhausted-looking cricketer - he had given his all.

And how many times have Walsh and Ambrose delivered, raising their game to carry West Indies to victory against the odds? Heart, pride, call it what you will - Ambrose, Donald, Wasim Akram and McGrath, the four best of my generation, all have it and would be immeasurably lesser without it.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)