What on earth is wrong with James Anderson?

[HeathDavisSpeed]

NZ are ****ty.

Since when has P-r-e-t been censored?

Is it since Ini Kamoze released the cracking dance hit, Here Comes the Hotstepper to accompany the film Pret a Porter??

 

[Woodster]

As has been said already, in such helpful conditions Anderson has the armoury to be a real handful. He bowls with good pace and has the ability to swing the ball both ways now, and possesses a sharp and well directed bouncer. If he gets his length right, which he did on the whole yesterday, he will undoubtedly take wickets.

Of course it is when conditions are not as favourable that Anderson needs a plan B, an alteration of length so he does not repeatedly get driven to the boundary. His judgement appears cloudy when conditions don't suit and he seems unsure exactly where he should be bowling with a mixture of short and over-pitched.

I also think Anderson will generally be inconsistent throughout his career, but lets enjoy him when he bowls as he did yesterday, those two that removed McCullum and Redmond were an absolute joy to watch!

 

[Craig]

He has always been able to bowl killer balls. He just cant bowl them often enough to make up from for the fact that he sprays it all over.

Cant (and will not) be able to ever be a consistent Test bowler.

Recent figures are helped by the fact that he has played in some pretty helpful conditions and NZ are ****ty.

He has always been able to bowl the odd magic ball but it is so one dimentional and Test bowlers need more depth than that.

Did you see the balls that got out Redmond and McCullum (I know he isn't a number 3), but he would of done damage to highly superior players. I just think they were geniune wicket taking deliveries.

It is funny I was laughed at 5 years ago when I made comments about his head position. So I consider my correct, even if my name isn't Goughy.

 

[wpdavid]

Of course, Anderson isn't the only England bowler of recent vintage to need helpful conditions: Hoggard, Sidebottom & Caddick spring immediately to mind as guys who are thoroughly insipid when conditions don't suit, but are generally held in reasonably high esteem. And before anyone writes off yesteday's 6-for as being entirely down to the conditions, perhaps they should look at his opening partner, who really would have been expected to clean up with that amount of swing. A bit of credit where due never goes amiss.

I found manee's comments particularly interesting. I guess we'll have a better idea by the end of the SA series whether there is a genuine improvement.

 

[Debris]

Huge inconsistencies in bowling like this suggests some flaw in technique that he is not able to recognise. He probably needs to go away and really analyse his bowling action so that he can pick it up when something is going astray. Or his coach should do it for him.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Technical deficiencies = inconsistency

I have to agree, Dr Evil.

 

[Manee]

Technical deficiencies = inconsistency

For Anderson or always, in your opinion?

 

[Manee]

Of course it is when conditions are not as favourable that Anderson needs a plan B, an alteration of length so he does not repeatedly get driven to the boundary. His judgement appears cloudy when conditions don't suit and he seems unsure exactly where he should be bowling with a mixture of short and over-pitched.

True, but it is not as though he does not possess a Plan B, against India in the ODIs, he often made the decision to bowl short of a length (and with success) if the ball wasn't swinging.

 

[TT Boy]

Did you see the balls that got out Redmond and McCullum (I know he isn't a number 3), but he would of done damage to highly superior players. I just think they were geniune wicket taking deliveries.

It is funny I was laughed at 5 years ago when I made comments about his head position. So I consider my correct, even if my name isn't Goughy.

I saw the McCullum one; it pitched on middle and hit off, so presumably if McCullum played straight (like you should do in such instances) he would not have been bowled but rather caught behind. Also, apparently Redmond got a similarly ball and like McCullum played far too early and tried to work into onto the onside instead of playing late and looking to play straight.
If the ball pitched on legstump and then hit off (Dale Steyn 'style') then fair play the batsman could do nothing about it but the batting wasn’t as good as it could have been for mine.

 

[Richard]

No worries. To an extent there is an obligation to still love and defend a team even when they are short on class (see England early 90s)

Late-80s more like. England were inestimably better 1990-1992 than they were 1986-1989.

 

[Richard]

I saw the McCullum one; it pitched on middle and hit off, so presumably if McCullum played straight (like you should do in such instances) he would not have been bowled but rather caught behind. Also, apparently Redmond got a similarly ball and like McCullum played far too early and tried to work into onto the onside instead of playing late and looking to play straight.
If the ball pitched on legstump and then hit off (Dale Steyn 'style') then fair play the batsman could do nothing about it but the batting wasn’t as good as it could have been for mine.

If McCullum and Redmond had played straight they'd have defied most instincts of batsmanship.

 

[Richard]

Of course, Anderson isn't the only England bowler of recent vintage to need helpful conditions: Hoggard, Sidebottom & Caddick spring immediately to mind as guys who are thoroughly insipid when conditions don't suit, but are generally held in reasonably high esteem.

Cork too, sadly. Though he is, wrongly, not held in the esteem Hoggard tends to be.

 

[TT Boy]

If McCullum and Redmond had played straight they'd have defied most instincts of batsmanship.

Which is to work everything onto the onside?

 

[Richard]

Which is to work balls that appear to be heading past leg-stump to leg.

 

[Craig]

I saw the McCullum one; it pitched on middle and hit off, so presumably if McCullum played straight (like you should do in such instances) he would not have been bowled but rather caught behind. Also, apparently Redmond got a similarly ball and like McCullum played far too early and tried to work into onto the onside instead of playing late and looking to play straight.
If the ball pitched on legstump and then hit off (Dale Steyn 'style') then fair play the batsman could do nothing about it but the batting wasn’t as good as it could have been for mine.

So they still would of been out regardless.

 

[silentstriker]

Playing straight is a sign of moral rectitude.

 

[Burgey]

Which is to work balls that appear to be heading past leg-stump to leg.

But they didn't look like they were going down leg (different perspective from the camera behind the bowler obviously).

With the ball swinging around as it was, I'd have thought they would have been playing straighter, but they were two good balls. Your chances of keeping them out would increase if you played them straight though.

Still, the virtue of it all is Anderson cements a place in the England side, hopefully for long enough to still be there come next year's Ashes series.

 

[FBU]

From The Independent
But I have probably bowled better – against New Zealand in Wellington, perhaps, and against India at Lord's last year. But here I just got the nicks even though I did not bowl as consistently as I would have liked. But I'm definitely on the right track.

 

[roseboy64]

Since when has P-r-e-t been censored?

Is it since Ini Kamoze released the cracking dance hit, Here Comes the Hotstepper to accompany the film Pret a Porter??

Like that song.

 

[Richard]

But they didn't look like they were going down leg (different perspective from the camera behind the bowler obviously).

With the ball swinging around as it was, I'd have thought they would have been playing straighter, but they were two good balls. Your chances of keeping them out would increase if you played them straight though.

If it was one batsman, yeah, you might expect it. But two totally different batsmen in almost every respect both making the exact same "error" suggests no to me.

AFAIC, those balls were heading near as damn it if not completely damn it past leg. Nothing wrong with trying to work them to leg, little in the way of poor batting, simply superb deliveries. I've bowled a few of them myself (obviously nowhere near as quick) and it'd annoy me greatly if anyone started saying it was a bad shot because that does, to whatever small extent, attempt to take away credit from the delivery.