James Anderson

[Goughy]

Sorry here's the article
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,,2089826,00.html

Cheers

 

[FBU]

Lancs v Yorks - 14 international players in the game.

Good bowling on a placid wicket. 33.3-7-98-5. Three catches dropped off Anderson's bowling. The only other seamer to get a wicket in this game was Cork. Rashid also took 5 wickets 28-2-114-5.

 

[tooextracool]

What do people make of the new Anderson? Im not talking about the one that took a hatrick against Pakistan in 03 but the one we have seen over the last year or so with a remodeled action? I've watched him bowl a fair bit recently and tbh he just lacks that something that would make him a good bowler. He doesnt have the genuine outswinger that he used to have when he first burst on the scene, although given that his action is less side on than it was from 02-05, I'm not surprised. His performances in ODIs recently have been quite ordinary as well, other than the odd good game.

 

[Richard]

Most of his ODI performances since 2003 have been pretty ordinary really, his golden-arm just faded after that summer.

Mind, I thought he was better in ODIs in the winter (both parts) than usual.

 

[tooextracool]

He went alright in Australia for a couple of games really, and then the odd game in the world cup. By and large he was still a disappointment and honestly he just doesnt look like taking wickets anymore. His accuracy is probably a bit better than it was a few years ago, but his wicket taking ability has dropped remarkably in recent times. Even when he was bowling accurately in the Ashes in 06/07 he just didnt look like taking wickets.

 

[wpdavid]

I wouldn't write him off, but I agree that he's not the real deal yet. At the risk of oversimplifying things, I think he's still suffering from not playing nearly enough cricket over the last few years, especially if he's trying to get to grips with a new action. I thought he was on a hiding to nothing in the Ashes. IIRC he hadn't played any FC cricket for ages, and conditions in the 1st 2 tests were hardly going to help him, especially against the best side in the world. Ultimately, it wasn't his fault that he should never have been selected for those games.

He's shown glimpses. The first odi against WI, when apparently he was swinging the ball in the high 80's. A very good performance in Aus when Lewis got more wickets but Anderson was the pick of the crop. I remember him bowling very well against NZ in one game too. And you read things like the post about the recent Roses match. But we won't get consistency until he's bowling a lot more overs.

 

[FBU]

I wouldn't write him off, but I agree that he's not the real deal yet. At the risk of oversimplifying things, I think he's still suffering from not playing nearly enough cricket over the last few years, especially if he's trying to get to grips with a new action. I thought he was on a hiding to nothing in the Ashes. IIRC he hadn't played any FC cricket for ages, and conditions in the 1st 2 tests were hardly going to help him, especially against the best side in the world. Ultimately, it wasn't his fault that he should never have been selected for those games.

He's shown glimpses. The first odi against WI, when apparently he was swinging the ball in the high 80's. A very good performance in Aus when Lewis got more wickets but Anderson was the pick of the crop. I remember him bowling very well against NZ in one game too. And you read things like the post about the recent Roses match. But we won't get consistency until he's bowling a lot more overs.

Both Lewis and Anderson played in 4 matches -

Anderson 8 wickets at 20.62 econ 4.45 s/r 27.75
Lewis 5 wickets at 32.20 econ 4.31 s/r 44.80


http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/282051.html

 

[wpdavid]

Both Lewis and Anderson played in 4 matches -

Anderson 8 wickets at 20.62 econ 4.45 s/r 27.75
Lewis 5 wickets at 32.20 econ 4.31 s/r 44.80


http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/282051.html

Sure, but I was talking about one particular game - sorry if I didn't make that clear. I can't recall the exact details, but IIRC Lewis picked up 4 wickets, which slightly flattered him, and Anderson took a couple, which had the opposite effect.

Interesting stats for their 4 games though, and a good effort by Jimmy against Aus & NZ.


EDIT
This must have been the game I was thinking of.
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ausveng/engine/match/249233.html

 

[FBU]

Sure, but I was talking about one particular game - sorry if I didn't make that clear. I can't recall the exact details, but IIRC Lewis picked up 4 wickets, which slightly flattered him, and Anderson took a couple, which had the opposite effect.

Interesting stats for their 4 games though, and a good effort by Jimmy against Aus & NZ.


EDIT
This must have been the game I was thinking of.
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ausveng/engine/match/249233.html

Lewis 10 2 36 4 econ 3.60
Anderson 10 3 29 2 econ 2.90

Anderson has had so many bowling partners it is beyond funny but one bowler he said he liked bowling with was Lewis. Either Lewis kept it tight one end and Anderson took wickets or as in this match Anderson kept it tight and Lewis got the wickets. They were settling in well together before both headed home. He really needs to have a settled bowling partner.

His opening partners (figures in brackets consecutive matches)
Kirtley, Caddick (13), Gough (8), Johnson (2), Kirtley, Johnson, Gough (2), Wharf, Harmison (2), Flintoff (2), Harmison, Ali (2), Mahmood, Hoggard (2), Mahmood, Harmison, Mahmood, Lewis (5), Plunkett (2), Mahmood (6), Plunkett (2), Sidebottom, Plunkett

 

[Richard]

And me, I thought he was opening too early. How many bowlers seriously open the bowling on their ODI debut (having played 3 List-A-OD matches)?

I'm always happier for a junior bowler to bowl first- or second-change initially, then graduate to the new-ball if worthy. Most of those above bowlers shouldn't even be playing for England, never mind opening the bowling.

You just wonder what might have happened had Gough been picked solidly, and someone else (maybe Lewis, but I've never been 100% convinced of him in ODIs and he's certainly not always demanded selection as his List-A-OD record is no more than just-about-OK) been available who did a solid job.

Even though we were hardly crash-hot in ODIs between 1993 and 2003, we always had someone (sometimes 3 or even 4) who you could usually rely on to bowl 10 pretty decent overs early-ish on. If it wasn't Fraser it was Mullally. If not Mullally then Caddick. Or sometimes 2 of the 3, and for a time Ealham too. And Gough, up to 2000, was usually very tidy, both at the start and end. Since Caddick's retirement, we've had not a single one. I've been hoping for a couple of seasons now that Tom Smith might be the next one, but 1) certainly not yet and 2) no gurantee at all.

Had Anderson not opened in 2003, of course, he probably wouldn't have had the remarkable success he did, but I've come to think that maybe, just maybe, that might have been a good thing. After the ODIs in June and July 2003, too much was expected of him. Had he been only moderately successful, and had the chance to burn-in slowly, maybe (and only maybe) things might have gone better.

Of course, injuries such as he's happened can happen any day to someone with a natural weakness, and not much can be done about those regardless of on-field success.

 

[FBU]

And me, I thought he was opening too early. How many bowlers seriously open the bowling on their ODI debut (having played 3 List-A-OD matches)?

I'm always happier for a junior bowler to bowl first- or second-change initially, then graduate to the new-ball if worthy. Most of those above bowlers shouldn't even be playing for England, never mind opening the bowling.

You just wonder what might have happened had Gough been picked solidly, and someone else (maybe Lewis, but I've never been 100% convinced of him in ODIs and he's certainly not always demanded selection as his List-A-OD record is no more than just-about-OK) been available who did a solid job.

Even though we were hardly crash-hot in ODIs between 1993 and 2003, we always had someone (sometimes 3 or even 4) who you could usually rely on to bowl 10 pretty decent overs early-ish on. If it wasn't Fraser it was Mullally. If not Mullally then Caddick. Or sometimes 2 of the 3, and for a time Ealham too. And Gough, up to 2000, was usually very tidy, both at the start and end. Since Caddick's retirement, we've had not a single one. I've been hoping for a couple of seasons now that Tom Smith might be the next one, but 1) certainly not yet and 2) no gurantee at all.

Had Anderson not opened in 2003, of course, he probably wouldn't have had the remarkable success he did, but I've come to think that maybe, just maybe, that might have been a good thing. After the ODIs in June and July 2003, too much was expected of him. Had he been only moderately successful, and had the chance to burn-in slowly, maybe (and only maybe) things might have gone better.

Of course, injuries such as he's happened can happen any day to someone with a natural weakness, and not much can be done about those regardless of on-field success.

When Anderson first started at Lancs he opened the bowling with Peter Martin.
Anderson's successful period was opening with Caddick and then Gough when Caddick retired. Then Harmison had that purple patch in the Tests in the West Indies and he opened with Gough and Anderson came on first change. Harmison doesn't usually take wickets in his first spell in Tests and in the West Indies just starting his ODI career didn't either and Gough was economical wasn't the strike bowler that he once was with the new ball. The batsmen would be set when Anderson came on to bowl and I think he found that much harder and after that series he was 12th man as Vaughan wanted a bowler that could bat. He only got back into the side because Harmison didn't want to go to Zimbabwe. Shortly after that Vaughan was injured and Fletcher had him opening again.

I think we had a good bowling combination of Caddick,Gough,White, Ealham and Giles. They would all take wickets but these days Mascarenhas, Dalrymple,or Yardy don't look very threatening and we keep trying different combinations that are never going to work.

Tom Smith could be another Flintoff but this season is not doing very well but his batting has improved.

 

[Richard]

I think we had a good bowling combination of Caddick,Gough,White, Ealham and Giles. They would all take wickets but these days Mascarenhas, Dalrymple,or Yardy don't look very threatening and we keep trying different combinations that are never going to work.

Tom Smith could be another Flintoff but this season is not doing very well but his batting has improved.

That lot only ever played together for about 2 or 3 games, IIRR. Ealham was more often someone who teamed-up with the Mullallys and Frasers of this World. Not that those attacks were shabby, either.

Ealham wasn't especially a wicket-taker, though, and didn't need to be. With Gough and White in a side, a team could be 150 for 2 after 40 overs and still didn't have a great chance of lift-off in the slog overs. Anyway, Gough often used to take early wickets, too.

The reason we keep trying different combinations, really, is that currently there is a dearth of talented OD cricketers in the country, and a few of the best ones (Robin Martin-Jenkins, Mascarenhas until very recently, Afzaal) don't get picked. And so, when we pick someone poor and he does poorly, we have to try someone else. It's indeed madness to pick people like Alex Wharf and Michael Yardy, but most of those selections have had the full support of those who've, with hindsight, criticised.

The truth is, though, that we're not currently blessed with bowlers of the calibre of Fraser, Caddick, Gough, Mullally, Ealham. Flintoff is currently the only one, and that doesn't make Anderson's task easy.

 

[aussie]

Injured for most of the past 2 years, but has never been that good a bowler in the short game anyway.

Disagree, Jones certainly showed some fair potential as a ODI bowler in the 2005 Natwest series especially as a death bowler.

 

[Richard]

Don't really think so, TBH, and his List-A-OD record is hardly flash either, is it?

 

[open365]

I don't think Jones would be anything special as a one day bowler, he seems more a longer form of the game man to me.

 

[aussie]

Don't really think so, TBH, and his List-A-OD record is hardly flash either, is it?

Thats irrelevant to me since not many English players either batsmen or bowlers who are in the current international set-up have had that outstanding FC figures before they got selected in the national side. What i saw of Jones in 2005 was far more potential than many of the young ODI bowlers that England have played recently, unfortunately his injury would have dented his improvement.

 

[open365]

Thats irrelevant to me since not many English players either batsmen or bowlers who are in the current international set-up have had that outstanding FC figures before they got selected in the national side. What i saw of Jones in 2005 was far more potential than many of the young ODI bowlers that England have played recently, unfortunately his injury would have dented his improvement.

I think i probably have more potential than the useless lot that have been bowling for the past 3 years

 

[Richard]

Thats irrelevant to me since not many English players either batsmen or bowlers who are in the current international set-up have had that outstanding FC figures before they got selected in the national side.

And is it coincidence that most of said bowlers have turned-out utterly rubbish?

 

[FBU]

,
The truth is, though, that we're not currently blessed with bowlers of the calibre of Fraser, Caddick, Gough, Mullally, Ealham. Flintoff is currently the only one, and that doesn't make Anderson's task easy.

I have only been following cricket from 1999 so I don't know what we were like before but since then we really we just haven't had quality ODI fast bowlers except for Gough pre 2004 and Flintoff.

 

[Prince EWS]

That lot only ever played together for about 2 or 3 games, IIRR. Ealham was more often someone who teamed-up with the Mullallys and Frasers of this World. Not that those attacks were shabby, either.

Ealham wasn't especially a wicket-taker, though, and didn't need to be. With Gough and White in a side, a team could be 150 for 2 after 40 overs and still didn't have a great chance of lift-off in the slog overs. Anyway, Gough often used to take early wickets, too.

The reason we keep trying different combinations, really, is that currently there is a dearth of talented OD cricketers in the country, and a few of the best ones (Robin Martin-Jenkins, Mascarenhas until very recently, Afzaal) don't get picked. And so, when we pick someone poor and he does poorly, we have to try someone else. It's indeed madness to pick people like Alex Wharf and Michael Yardy, but most of those selections have had the full support of those who've, with hindsight, criticised.

The truth is, though, that we're not currently blessed with bowlers of the calibre of Fraser, Caddick, Gough, Mullally, Ealham. Flintoff is currently the only one, and that doesn't make Anderson's task easy.

The madness FBU was trying to point out, though, was that Anderson and Lewis looked great together opening the bowling, then they weren't even favoured as the new ball combination when they were both fit - instead giving Plunkett and Mahmood a go (with Anderson).