James Anderson

[Perm]

James Anderson has a lot of potential in the ODI arena but I don't think he will get too many chances as a regular in the Test side, not if England have all their bowlers fully firing and fit. Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard, Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff are all pretty much assured of their bowling spots and I seriously doubt whether the selectors would drop a quality spinner like Monty Panesar.

[Richard]

I doubt they'd drop an un-quality seamer like Harmison, either, TBH.

[Perm]

Well, not if he still has some quality left inside him.

[steds]

I seriously doubt whether the selectors would drop a quality spinner like Monty Panesar.

Yes. Because the selectors have been oh so faithful to old Monty before.

[Perm]

Well, now that he has basically established himself as England's top choice ODI spinner and showed the selectors his worth when selected for those last three test's I think it's a lot more likely he will be retained for England's next test series.

[Nishant]

I doubt they'd drop an un-quality seamer like Harmison, either, TBH.

thats actually true and quite concerning TBH! Even if he has a bit of quality in him...i still think that Hramion should be england's past now...surely there are better bowlers than him! I would at least try anderson b4 harmison!

[Perm]

I'm not too sure that Anderson should be tried over Harmison in the Test arena, we all know what Harmison is capable of and he has delivered in the past so the selectors must have a little bit of faith in him. James Anderson is still relatively unproven at Test level and should remain as the first choice backup for any of the seamers, atleast until he starts taking wickets regularly for Lancashire or until one of the established bowlers loses form and the selectors confidence.

[Richard]

Well, yeah - but that past was 3 years ago now!

[Richard]

Yes. Because the selectors have been oh so faithful to old Monty before.

Links corrected, BTW.

I honestly can't see another spinner being picked ahead of Panesar in the immidiate future.

[Gloucefan]

Well, yeah - but that past was 3 years ago now!

Exactly you can't pick him based on the fact he runs through a team on his own every two years on a pitch that suits him. When he's potent he is deadly but that is very rare.

[Perm]

While he was disappointing during the Ashes, I don't have a problem with Harmison being selected if he is picking up 2 or 3 wickets in most innings and then occasionally, when the pitch and conditions suit he will be able to run through a side. However, if he isn't taking wickets then get rid of him for a while. Still, I don't feel that it is fair to toss him aside if he is picking up wickets with some sort of regularity.

[Richard]

But he's not.

Here are Harmison's match-figures for the past 28 Tests for England (Bangladesh games excluded):
42-150-2 - abysmal
19-93-1 - abysmal
37-134-2 followed by a few end-of-innings wickets to get 2.4-3-3 - poor in my book
31-121-9 - good figures (didn't actually bowl particularly well, but we'll leave that for there)
39-142-1 - abysmal
47-153-5 - decent enough
45-137-1 (and should've been 0 - that 1 came just before the declaration) - abysmal
26.5-89-0 - abysmal
33-138-2 (and again should've been 0 - those 2 came just before the declaration) - abysmal
39-97-8 - good figures (but most wickets were end-of-innings - just 2 top-order batsmen who weren't batting with the tail)
28.3-110-2 - abysmal (and even then it should have been just the 1 wicket)
32-114-2 - exactly as above
39-141-4 - poor (and was still extremely flatted - 2 wickets were tailenders, the other 2 poor decisions)
22.4-87-1 - abysmal
36.1-89-6 - looks good, but was actually no more than OK, and didn't really bowl that well
43.4-146-5 - looks OK, but again didn't really bowl that well
43-154-1 - abysmal
44.2-123-3 - abysmal (again, massively flattered by the figures, 2 of those wickets came when the bat was being thrown)
32-70-2 - actually reasonable enough
44.3-137-4 - not too bad
31.1-76-11 - excellent figures, but mostly just poor batting if you look at the wickets
45-204-1 - absolutely bloody dreadful
30.5-125-4 - loooks OK, but in truth was just a load of end-of-innings wickets... again
42.1-177-1 - abysmal
29-111-0 - abysmal
43-164-5 - boosted by 2 tailend first-innings wickets, very poor in reality
28-69-2 - not great
28-93-2 - very poor

So you see? Harmison has very, very rarely been effective since that short purple patch in March, April, May and June 2004, and given that the times he has have mostly been due to bad batting, there's no way of guessing when the next one will be.

[Perm]

To be fair, I wouldn't care how he was getting wickets aslong as he was actually taking them (not just tailenders mind you), it's a bit the same as someone scoring runs but not actually looking comfortable whilst doing so. It's what is in the paper on Monday morning that counts.

But you are right, he has been very poor since destroying the West Indies. Mind you, I'm always of the opinion that for the start of a new season you should field what appears to be your stongest team and stick with the incumbents, give them a chance to perform and if they are bad then replace them. It's probably just a personal preference, but if England had a Test series directly after the Ashes then I wouldn't have played Harmison. But given that their next series is a little way in the future, I would have him in my starting XI unless Anderson does something to prove his value.

[Richard]

I'd guess most people will feel the same way - time lends disperspective and all that.

It will be interesting, though, if Anderson starts the season well (though obviously there isn't going to be that much chance for him to play with the WC running so crazily deep into the season).

As to how the wickets are taken - it's completely different to looking uncomfortable and scoring runs IMO - because as I say, if a bowler only takes wickets when the batting's bad there's no predictability to it, it's just completely random. It can and does go without happening for 5 and 6 games in a row.

[FBU]

Anderson's place in the ODI side should be nailed down and he should get better as he is only 24. They should also decide very quickly who his opening partner is and stick with him. I see three contenders - Lewis, Plunkett and Broad. Once that is settled and the bowlers learn to bowl together as a unit we can progress. At the moment it is one bad game and try someone else. We have had Gough, Johnson, Harmison, Hoggard, Ali, Lewis, Jones, Chapple, Plunkett, Broad, Flintoff, Anderson and Mahmood opening the bowling. I would like to see Anderson, Lewis and Plunkett all bowling. No wonder we have trouble bowling sides out with just Anderson, whoever and Flintoff. Australia have McGrath, Bracken, Tait and Watson as their fast bowlers. South Africa have Pollock, Ntini, Langeveldt and Hall as theirs. New Zealand Bond, Franklin, Gillespie and Oram.

Anderson should carry on playing county cricket until there is an injury in the opening bowling department. When he has opened in 10 Tests he has taken 35 wickets and as first change 6 Tests 11 wickets.

I see the replacements in Test cricket, if there is injury or loss of form -

1. Harmison - Broad - Tremlett,
2. Hoggard - Anderson - Lewis - Kirtley
3. Jones - Plunkett - Mahmood - Onions

Kirtley and Onions are in the A team so I guess they have to be considered but some other names could come into contention Shreck, Silverwood, Sidebottom etc. The ECB identify players and invest in them and usually stick with them.

I don't think Anderson bowled very well in the last game. I think the bowlers were unhappy they didn't get the best conditions. So trying to get the ball to swing and reverse swing (when there wasn't any) showed up with the wides and Vaughan kept telling the bowlers what to bowl. He is naturally a full length bowler and banging it in half way down is a waste for time. Heavy strapping on his finger can't have helped either. Mahmood was bowling well and economically and Vaughan has a chat and the runs started coming. Hussain had a habit of telling the bowlers what to bowl and now Vaughan is starting it. Bowlers are picked because they take wickets and should be left to read what the batsmen are up to and use their own brains.