James Anderson

[Richard]

Their actions don't really bear any similarity but in style and substance they resemble each other hugely.

Both very dangerous but very fragile bowlers. Need I say more?

[Athlai]

Exactly, totally different look, yet feel very similar. But to be fair to Anderson I think he's the better (due to being a little more reliable) bowler all be told.

[FBU]

Anderson's opening bowling partners

22.19 econ 3.98 s/r 33.42 (117.0-19-466-21) - Caddick (13 matches) 1.61 wickets per game
25.09 econ 4.82 s/r 31.18 (114.2-13-552-22) - Anderson - 1.69

41.00 econ 5.12 s/r 48.00 (16.0-2-82-2) - Kirtley (2 matches) - 1.00
31.66 econ 5.23 s/r 36.33 (18.1-95-3) - Anderson - 1.50

22.12 econ 3.75 s/r 35.40 (88.3-11-332-15) - Gough (10 matches) - 1.50
18.76 econ 4.47 s/r 25.14 (88.0-8-394-21) - Anderson - 2.1

20.66 econ 2.95 s/r 42.00 (21.0-3-62-3) - Johnson (3 matches) - 1.0
25.00 econ 3.00 s/r 50.00 (25.0-6-75-3) - Anderson - 1.0

30.00 econ 3.75 s/r 48.00 (8.0-1-30-1) - Wharf (1 match) - 1.0
00.00 econ 5.10 s/r 00.00 (10-0-51-0) - Anderson -

16.42 econ 5.00 s/r 19.71 (23.0-1-115-7) - Harmison (3 matches) - 2.33
31.25 econ 5.00 s/r 37.50 (25-4-125-4) - Anderson - 1.33

25.66 econ 4.05 s/r 38.00 (19-2-77-3) - Flintoff (2 matches) - 1.50
49.00 econ 5.34 s/r 55.00 (18.2-3-98-2) - Anderson - 1.00

23.75 econ 6.06 s/r 23.50 (15.4-1-95-4) - Ali (2 matches) - 2.00
33.66 econ 5.05 s/r 40.00 (20-1-101-3) - Anderson - 1.50

00.00 econ 6.94 s/r 00.00 (17-0-118-0) - Hoggard (2 matches) -
16.20 econ 4.26 s/r 22.80 (19-3-81-5) - Anderson - 2.5

30.85 econ 4.40 s/r 42.00 (49-5-216-7) - Lewis (5 matches) - 1.4
27.77 econ 5.00 s/r 33.33 (50-6-250-9) - Anderson - 1.80

28.55 econ 5.97 s/r 28.66 (43-1-257-9) - Plunkett (5 matches) - 1.80
27.42 econ 4.57 s/r 36.00 (42-3-192-7) - Anderson - 1.40

40.27 econ 5.82 s/r 41.45 (76-3-443-11) - Mahmood (9 matches) - 1.22
50.85 econ 4.73 s/r 64.42 (75.1-356-7) - Anderson - 0.77

32.00 econ 4.59 s/r 41.75 (55.4-4-256-7) - Broad (6 matches) - 1.16
19.69 econ 4.58 s/r 25.76 (55.5-9-256-13) - Anderson - 2.16

25.29 econ 4.20 s/r 36.05 (102.1-10-430-17) - Sidebottom (11 matches) - 1.54
60.11 econ 6.07 s/r 59.33 (89-7-541-9) - Anderson - 0.81

I would say that the minimum for a fast bowler would be 1.5 wickets per game. The best ODI bowlers like Bond average 1.92, Lee 1.80 and Bracken1.61. When Anderson has bowled with Hoggard, Gough, Broad, Ali, Caddick, Plunkett and Lewis he has done well (43 matches 80 wickets averaging 1.86) but not with Kirtley, Johnson, Harmison, Wharf, Flintoff, Mahmood and Sidebottom (28 matches 30 wickets averaging 1.07) though Harmison, Flintoff, and Ali have done well without much contribution from Anderson.

[Richard]

Truly mad, the number of bowlers he's opened with. Injuries and retirements (as well as resting in ODIs) will impact, undoubtedly, but that's still more than you'd expect in just 5 years.

[Lord Flasheart]

James Anderson is lucky to be a county bowler. The best he can hope for is rain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiT0kJ-POBw

[FBU]

Originally Posted by Lord Flasheart

James Anderson is lucky to be a county bowler. The best he can hope for is rain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiT0kJ-POBw

They don't have much energy do they....

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

Their actions don't really bear any similarity but in style and substance they resemble each other hugely.

Both very dangerous but very fragile bowlers. Need I say more?

Hard to see how thats the case when one is a specialist left handed new ball swing bowler, while the other is a quicker right arm bowler that can get the ball to reverse and occasionally get the new ball to swing as well.
The only similarity i see between the 2 is that both have potential, yet both have been especially ordinary at the international level.

[tooextracool]

Btw how tall is James Franklin? I reckon he should be a fair bit shorter than Anderson as well.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Lord Flasheart

James Anderson is lucky to be a county bowler. The best he can hope for is rain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiT0kJ-POBw

Please don't spam the forum.

[FBU]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Btw how tall is James Franklin? I reckon he should be a fair bit shorter than Anderson as well.

I thought they would be the same height but Franklin is 6'4.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Hard to see how thats the case when one is a specialist left handed new ball swing bowler, while the other is a quicker right arm bowler that can get the ball to reverse and occasionally get the new ball to swing as well.
The only similarity i see between the 2 is that both have potential, yet both have been especially ordinary at the international level.

Anderson's been far more ordinary than Franklin, really.

The similarity, as I say, is that both can of times be exceptionally dangerous, but you get the feeling that it only takes one small thing to go wrong and both of them can get absolutely belted by even mediocre batsmen.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FBU

I thought they would be the same height but Franklin is 6'4.

WoW, never realised he was anywhere near that tall TBH. Often looks exceptionally short when things aren't going well for him.

[Richard]

To return to this thread, with Anderson having been dropped from the ODI team for the first time, really, in his career (in 2004 he drifted out after being superseded by Wharfs and the like rather than actually being actively axed and stayed out until 2005/06 because of his poor Test bowling), Anderson's ODI record is simply becoming worse and worse and I wonder if anyone is finally waking-up to the realisation that he's just not good enough in the format.

Anderson in the winter of 2002/03, as a 20-year-old, debuted with some vague promise; in 12 games against ODI-standard sides he got plenty of tap plenty of times but also put in two of the best performances you're likely to see in an England ODI shirt - the 10-12-1 against Australia at Adelaide Oval and the 10-29-4 against Pakistan at Newlands. His overall figures, 5.16-an-over at 29.38, flattered him a little but hinted at some promise. And in the summer of 2003, everything went for him: the golden-arm become gold-plated, and despite going for 4.8-an-over against ODI-standard teams he averaged 17.61.

Thereafter, however, all has been far less rosy. He's played 67 games from 2003/04 onwards (drifting out for 18 months along the way, as I say, which was more down to Test inadequacies than anything) and his figures against ODI-standard sides read 5.24-an-over at 37.45. And this flatters him - I reckon in the 65 spells (he was subbed once and sent down just 2 overs for 6 which is neither one thing nor t'other in another) he's bowled genuinely well just 15 times. This is a damning indictment. And not all the times he's bowled badly has he been punished (though mostly he has).

Surely the time must be coming, soon, when Anderson is dropped, not just for a one-off in India, but for good?

And what's so remarkable is that he's gotten so much better as a Test bowler, which I imagine is more important to virtually everyone, in recent times.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Richard

And what's so remarkable is that he's gotten so much better as a Test bowler, which I imagine is more important to virtually everyone, in recent times.

Hmm, maybe the two things are connected

[ozone]

I said in another thread that I disagree with you over his selection in the ODI side so theres no point going back there again, but do you think England have the strength in depth to completely discard someone who quite clearly has a large amount of talent, at the age of 26?