Cricket Player Manager
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: Jimmy Anderson: Imminent revival or terminal decline?

  1. #16
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swimming in the cry water of Antarctica
    Posts
    29,511
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    TC, you've been on fire recently with your analysis
    Yeah I've said this on another forum but TC is my favourite analyst on CW and is my first port of call for anything Australian Cricket.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  2. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    just this side of cool
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    As with when Australia was struggling and all the blame was pinned on the bowlers, the problem isn't with the bowlers.
    How many Test series are these bowling figures going to win a team regardless of how well you bat?

    England bowling averages :

    Broad 17 wickets at 26.8
    Tremlett 4 wickets at 30.0
    Bresnan 5 wickets at 41.2
    Anderson 11 wickets at 45.6
    Stokes 7 wickets at 47.3
    Swann 7 wickets at 80.0
    Panesar 3 wickets at 85.7
    Last edited by Hooksey; 29-12-2013 at 06:24 PM.

  3. #18
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,333
    Context. Please god, apply some context.

  4. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    just this side of cool
    Posts
    958
    To win Test matches on a regular basis you need a bowling attack capable of getting 20 wickets on a regular basis. Plainly such an attack needs to do a whole lot better than this over 4 Test matches :

    Broad 17 wickets at 26.8
    Tremlett 4 wickets at 30.0
    Bresnan 5 wickets at 41.2
    Anderson 11 wickets at 45.6
    Stokes 7 wickets at 47.3
    Swann 7 wickets at 80.0
    Panesar 3 wickets at 85.7

    54 wickets in 4 Test matches and for far too many runs - not good enough.
    Last edited by Hooksey; 29-12-2013 at 06:55 PM.


  5. #20
    International Debutant Adders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ***RIP THE PRINCE***
    Posts
    2,699
    I think that is the 4th or 5th time you've posted those figures Hooksey and you are not showing anything we all don't know.......seriously mate, what is the point here??

  6. #21
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,333
    To take those numbers in isolation and not apply any context is beyond stupid. In the first innings of this series so far:
    England bowled Australia out for 295 in 1st test (mainly due to a 6 wicket partnership)
    570 in the 2nd test which was obviously a very poor performance (although not helped at all by drops on day 1)
    385 in the 3rd test (not a great performance but not terrible really)
    204 in 4th test

    All in all those aren't horrific returns, but when the batsmen then get blown away in 52 (1st test), 68 (2nd test), 88 (3rd test) and 61 (4th test) and give up massive leads or hand opposition the advantage it is virtually impossible for the bowlers to do well given the position of the game. Printing out numbers and statistics in that situation is daft.
    hendrix likes this.

  7. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    just this side of cool
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Adders View Post
    I think that is the 4th or 5th time you've posted those figures Hooksey and you are not showing anything we all don't know.......seriously mate, what is the point here??
    Posted in response to this quote :

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    As with when Australia was struggling and all the blame was pinned on the bowlers, the problem isn't with the bowlers.
    Thanks again for asking though.

  8. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    just this side of cool
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by 91Jmay View Post
    To take those numbers in isolation and not apply any context is beyond stupid. In the first innings of this series so far:
    England bowled Australia out for 295 in 1st test (mainly due to a 6 wicket partnership)
    570 in the 2nd test which was obviously a very poor performance (although not helped at all by drops on day 1)
    385 in the 3rd test (not a great performance but not terrible really)
    204 in 4th test

    All in all those aren't horrific returns, but when the batsmen then get blown away in 52 (1st test), 68 (2nd test), 88 (3rd test) and 61 (4th test) and give up massive leads or hand opposition the advantage it is virtually impossible for the bowlers to do well given the position of the game. Printing out numbers and statistics in that situation is daft.
    To win Test matches on a regular basis you need a bowling attack capable of getting 20 wickets on a regular basis.

    England have taken 54 wickets in 4 Test matches and for far too many runs. It's that simple and that's what the bowling figure table clearly demonstrates.

  9. #24
    International Debutant Adders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ***RIP THE PRINCE***
    Posts
    2,699
    Hooksey, read what 91Jmay just said.

    Our bowlers figures aren't good but they are skewed by second innings batting from the Aussies with zero pressure after they've had no rest up. The comment that the problem is not the bowlers it is the batsmen stands true.......and anyone that understands cricket would get this.

  10. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    just this side of cool
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Adders View Post
    Hooksey, read what 91Jmay just said.

    Our bowlers figures aren't good but they are skewed by second innings batting from the Aussies with zero pressure after they've had no rest up. The comment that the problem is not the bowlers it is the batsmen stands true.......and anyone that understands cricket would get this.
    The English bowling AND batting AND wicketkeeping AND fielding AND field placements are their problem!

    But if they can't take 20 wickets they won't win too many Test matches. Particularly if the number of runs they pay for those wickets is excessive - as is the case in this series.

  11. #26
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,333
    So in the Lords test in England it was Australia's bowling that was the problem as well as the batting then?

  12. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    just this side of cool
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by 91Jmay View Post
    So in the Lords test in England it was Australia's bowling that was the problem as well as the batting then?
    England 361 and 7-349 defeated Australia 128 and 235.

    Australia batted poorly twice and failed to dismiss England in their second innings before they were able to compile 349, declare and set Australia 582.

    So you've chosen a random match to prove what exactly?
    Last edited by Hooksey; 29-12-2013 at 08:32 PM.

  13. #28
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,333
    I am asking you because Australia couldn't take enough wickets, does that mean there bowlers were poor ? Or perhaps is it possible that because the batting had been so hopeless, the bowlers were so far behind the game it made bowling a thankless task which coupled with a lack of rest was in reality a better explanation for the figures.

  14. #29
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,598
    It's just like in the 2010/11 series; we spent more time watching our bowling, gives you more time looking at their issues.

    They weren't as big as the batting, but as much stewing over them.

  15. #30
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,728
    Quote Originally Posted by 91Jmay View Post
    I am asking you because Australia couldn't take enough wickets, does that mean there bowlers were poor ? Or perhaps is it possible that because the batting had been so hopeless, the bowlers were so far behind the game it made bowling a thankless task which coupled with a lack of rest was in reality a better explanation for the figures.
    Yeah. Often 2nd innings bowling in these situations are entirely meaningless - as has been the case in basically all three Tests before this one (4th innings are never meaningless). The English bowling as a unit has done its job, their main problem has been their inability to dislodge Haddin and the tail.

    Anderson-Broad-____ should still run rampant against most sides at home.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    forever 63*

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 19-10-2012, 07:20 AM
  2. Jimmy Anderson -Finally World Class?
    By Xuhaib in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 11-12-2010, 11:13 AM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 02-09-2010, 06:23 PM
  4. Jimmy Anderson - drink less miss less video
    By katie in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 06:25 AM
  5. Is spin terminal?
    By Tony in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 29-01-2008, 12:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •