James Anderson

[Richard]

dont know much about sidebottom TBH....but wouldnt it be better if england just developed the set of players they have at the moment instead of trying new faces again?

If someone doesn't perform, you've gotta try someone else. Simple as, really.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, and Graham Gooch could solve our thorny top 3 problem.

Trouble is, Gooch was 53 at the time the Cup started. Ealham was 37. One is not a reasonable age to be making an international comeback; the other is.

 

[Richard]

Taking wickets is by far the best way to slow the run rate down.

Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!! They both work off of each other!

I was replying to a statement off someone else that suggested it doesn't work the other way round, I was merely suggesting it does!! Read the previous posts!

But the fact of the matter is that it is neither just about taking wickts nor just about restricting the run rate. Both are equally important and are intrinsically tied to one another. My disgust was at both your and Richard's view.

Edit: Nevermind, you weren't the original poster of the "its about wickets" comment.

I simply do not agree that taking wickets in itself slows the rate. The only way to do that is to bowl more accurately than you have been doing previously. If you take wickets and bowl waywardly, your economy-rate will still be high. It won't matter, of course, if you bowl your oppo out, but that's a different matter.

Slowing down the run-rate in a one-day game will just about invariably lead to wickets falling, unless the batsmen at the crease are completely stupid.

Sure, taking wickets in addition to bowling more accurately than previously will mean that the run-rate slows more than it would if you just increased your accuracy, but if you bowl waywardly you will get the treatment. No matter how many wickets you take.

 

[Prince EWS]

I simply do not agree that taking wickets in itself slows the rate. The only way to do that is to bowl more accurately than you have been doing previously. If you take wickets and bowl waywardly, your economy-rate will still be high. It won't matter, of course, if you bowl your oppo out, but that's a different matter.

Slowing down the run-rate in a one-day game will just about invariably lead to wickets falling, unless the batsmen at the crease are completely stupid.

Sure, taking wickets in addition to bowling more accurately than previously will mean that the run-rate slows more than it would if you just increased your accuracy, but if you bowl waywardly you will get the treatment. No matter how many wickets you take.

The point you are missing though, is the fact that accurate bowling doesn't always result in low run-rates. If you are bowling reasonably accurately and still getting hammered for 6 runs per over, it will keep happening until you take a wicket. Once you take said wicket, it's quite probably that the batman at the crease might reign in their aggressive ways, as well a the high likelihood of the new batsman at the crease wanting to get set first. Hence, taking the wicket and then continuing to bowl with the same accuracy, in this situation, would still lead to the a drop in the run-rate.

Your theory works perfectly well in all levels except international cricket IMO, and probably would have worked perfectly well in international cricket 15 years ago as well, but given the shot ranges of the batmen in modern ODI cricket as well as the pitches that are being produced, you have to realise that accurate bowling still sometimes goes for lots of runs if it is innocuous. Rubbish bowling will always go for runs against international class batsmen, however accurate bowling will not always restrict runs against those same batsmen - as the risk of them being dismissed gets lower, the number of risks they take increase.

 

[Richard]

I never said it would. It's not that common for accurate bowling to get the treatment (though it does happen, especially with Hayden going as he has been of late), but obviously if it is taking wickets will help slow things down.

I did try to allude to that.

It's also worth remembering, though, that if you're bowling accurately and getting the treatment, it's gonna be a bit tricky to bowl wicket-taking balls, too.

 

[FBU]

With some batsmen like Gilchrist, Hayden, Smith, Ponting, Jayasuriya it doesn't matter how well you bowl they are going to attack the bowling and are willing to take risks. I am sure Pollock (10-0-83-0) and McGrath (9-0-62-1) in their last game were not bowling rubbish.

 

[Richard]

Such games are extreme rarities.

We all know they happen occasionally, but most of us realise they happen no more than occasionally.

Usually if you try playing like that you'll hit one straight up in the first couple of overs.

In any case, if they're playing like that it's not gonna be easy to get them out anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

I never said it would. It's not that common for accurate bowling to get the treatment (though it does happen, especially with Hayden going as he has been of late), but obviously if it is taking wickets will help slow things down.

I did try to allude to that.

It's also worth remembering, though, that if you're bowling accurately and getting the treatment, it's gonna be a bit tricky to bowl wicket-taking balls, too.

If you're bowling accurately and getting the treatment, giving a genuine wicket-taker the ball is the ideal option really - he'll still get the treatment as he always does and as the economy-focused bowler i getting - but he'll have more chance of taking a wicket due to his natural bowling style which lends to such. For example, Mohammad Hafeez could land the ball on a 5c piece but he'll occassionally get hammered anyway - in which case taking him out of the attack for someone like Malinga (who will get hammered for no more than Hafeez in this situation but will have more chance of taking a wicket..) would be desirable.

Picking an attack full of bowlers that take wickets but get smashed every game is certainly not desirable, but neither is picking an attack full of bowlers that restrict but can't buy a wicket, because something will give. Picking a set of bowlers that gives you both options depending on the situation is something I'd strive for - which selectors and forum members alike often seem to miss...

 

[FBU]

Well fingers crossed for Anderson tomorrow to pick up three or four wickets that if he is picked to play. Bowling at Jayasuriya is enough to put any bowler off their breakfast. Vaughan better win the toss and bowl first.

 

[shortpitched713]

I simply do not agree that taking wickets in itself slows the rate.

You take a wicket and, unless the new batsman in is Afridi, the run rate for the next five overs goes down. Almost invariably. Obviously if the batsman gets set then the effect of picking up a wicket on the run rate wears off, but if you can continue to pick up wickets at regular intervals then you can effectively keep the run rate down for an indefinite period of time. Theoretically, with this modus operandi you wouldn't have to worry much at all about bowling restricting lines and lengths because unless the batsman is stupid hes not going to play very aggressively in the early part of his innings, and this is even moreso the case if many wickets have been lost in comparison to the number of overs that have been bowled.

 

[FBU]

If you are keeping the run rate down and the next couple of batsman in are big hitters why not make sure the bowlers don't take a wicket or in the case of England don't get any of the top three out.

 

[Richard]

You take a wicket and, unless the new batsman in is Afridi, the run rate for the next five overs goes down.

No, not almost invariably. The next man in can be Gary Kirsten and if you continue to bowl as poorly as you have been earlier, you WILL continue to get the treatment. Batsmen these days play shots from the word go if they think they can hit the ball in question and have done for the last 15 years at the very least.

Of course, there are times when taking a wicket can galvanise a bowler. On such occasions, he can pick-up his performance in his next few overs. This offers the illusion that it's the wicket that has slowed the rate. Equally, a similar thing happens if someone slows the rate for 4 overs or so, then a wicket falls as a result of that, the continues to fall, people will then mistakenly get the impression that the fall was a result of the wicket, when in reality it was the other way around. That pisses me off, TBH.

 

[Richard]

If you're bowling accurately and getting the treatment, giving a genuine wicket-taker the ball is the ideal option really - he'll still get the treatment as he always does and as the economy-focused bowler i getting - but he'll have more chance of taking a wicket due to his natural bowling style which lends to such. For example, Mohammad Hafeez could land the ball on a 5c piece but he'll occassionally get hammered anyway - in which case taking him out of the attack for someone like Malinga (who will get hammered for no more than Hafeez in this situation but will have more chance of taking a wicket..) would be desirable.

Absolutely.

Picking an attack full of bowlers that take wickets but get smashed every game is certainly not desirable, but neither is picking an attack full of bowlers that restrict but can't buy a wicket, because something will give. Picking a set of bowlers that gives you both options depending on the situation is something I'd strive for - which selectors and forum members alike often seem to miss...

You can only pick what's available, though. Bowlers who take wickets and go for runs are very rare. More common are those like Makhaya Ntini and Brett Lee who vary lots - either take wickets and bowl economically or go for a few and offer little threat.

On most surfaces, though, you can pick a load of accurate bowlers who tend to bowl few wicket-taking balls and you'll keep the totals down.

 

[FBU]

Flintoff has shot up the England World Cup wickets list -

30 - Botham
29 - De Freitas
18 - Willis, Flintoff
16 - Old, Anderson
15 - Gough
13 - Hemmings, Marks
12 - Illingworth
11 - Small
10 - Mullally, Ealham, Hendricks
9 - White, Reeve, Foster
8 - Pringle, Allott, Caddick, Cork
7 - Dilley, Lewis
6 - Embury, Grieg, Martin, Snow
5 - Boycott, Lever, Hick, Mahmood, Collingwood
4 - Smith, Panesar
3 - Arnold, Austin, Edmonds, Austin, Tufnell, Irani, Plunkett
2 - Cowans, Underwood, Giles, Blackwell, Bopara
1 - Fraser, Gatting, Gooch, Hollioake, Vaughan

I thought Anderson bowled well today, his pace was up, no wides and he is starting to get back to how he was bowling in the CB series.

Well done to Mahmood, his first 4fer and he has got his average down to 38.00.

Great to have Broad arriving. We must have one of the youngest bowling units with Mahmood 25, Anderson 24, Plunkett 22 and Broad 21.

 

[Richard]

Young != good.

 

[simmy]

James Anderson really is the future for England imo. Would also love to see Broad get a game.

 

[Prince EWS]

James Anderson really is the future for England imo. Would also love to see Broad get a game.

I actually liked the look of Broad. However he clearly isn't ready for international level yet IMO, and would benefit a lot more from a few solid seasons in county cricket. However, the same thing can be said for Mahmood and Plunkett (except for the fact that I don't like the look of Mahmood and expect him to be horrible for the rest of his career..). Jon Lewis should most definitely be in the ODI team opening the bowling with Anderson - can't beleive he isn't, tbh.

 

[Richard]

Aaah... but he's not a wicket-taker...

 

[Swervy]

Ealham was 37. One is not a reasonable age to be making an international comeback; the other is.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[Woodster]

Aaah... but he's not a wicket-taker...

Just out of interest, who, if anyone, do you believe England can call into the side to be a genuine wicket-taking threat ?