Anderson vs. Neesham

[straw man]

Anderson gets injured a lot, so we'll probably see more of Neesham by default.

I also loved the self belief evident in Neesham's big knocks to date, the hundreds he scored (one on debut) and the 80 in the last match. You can't fake that self belief. That said, Neesham's drives and slashing swats outside off look suspect and he was lost in the UAE, though Anderson was only marginally better.

Think Neesham would struggle unfurling those long limbs against real pace, while I'd love to see Anderson use pure forearm power to flick Johnson's short ball into the mid wicket stands. Pity Johnson would have him after a few balls in the channel or a little further outside off.

Since they both bat at six it's acceptable right now that the bowling is a work in progress. I'm not sure why everyone talks up Anderson's bowling (even to a moderate degree). Medium pace, some spells very inaccurate, doesn't swing it like Watson, looks like a tank like Doug Bracewell but injuries mean don't want to give him too many overs. Not a lot of room for improvement. Neesham's accuracy is obviously pretty poor a lot of the time but I'm banking on him improving that. Ultimately though both should be able to 'do a job' and bowl ten accurate overs per day as fifth bowler.

Would love to see them both continue in the side, but I don't know how.

 

[Kippax]

I would say the opposite - Anderson has a wider variety of shots than Neesham. He looks magnificent both sides of the wicket

The intent is certainly there to hit some nice shots through the off side....

 

[hendrix]

Anderson does have a glorious pull but he doesn't really have a cover drive.

I still think Neesham has more shots but Anderson has a tighter defence (although still not particularly convincing) and is a better batsman and bowler at this point.

 

[Hurricane]

Mean spirited Hurricane says - Neesham had the opportunity to do a grafting innings today in the clutch and did not bat appropriately. He appears to have one gear to his batting which is more tuned in with down hill skiing.

More generous natured Hurricane says - Neesham needs to learn about tight test match batting at a lower SR when situations demand it like today. That said I don't think any tactic or approach was likely to yield a lot of runs out there today so lets see how he goes second dig.

 

[SteveNZ]

Anderson is/was the best pure batting talent we've seen in this country since Jesse Ryder IMO. If he doesn't end up averaging 40 or more with the bat in test cricket I'll be disappointed. That's coming from someone who wanted him in the test team two years ago though with almost nothing behind him.

I'm a Neesham fan too though, just think he'll end up being the lesser of the two.

Pure batting talent or pure hitting talent? Two different things in a Test environment. I still think Neesham is the better equipped skills-wise to be our batting all-rounder at 6. Whether that comes to bear relies on a fair bit more than that, however.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah there's no way Anderson is a better batting talent than Latham.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah there's no way Anderson is a better batting talent than Latham.

Depends on the individual's definition of 'batting talent'. Presuming Howsie is going for hitting talent, because you really could name others who are more purely 'batting' talent (in my own take on it). Ie Williamson, arguably Latham, in my opinion Neesham etc. But for pure hitting talent, yeah Corey is up there with Jesse, and possibly even better than Jake Oram was. But he's definitely got a lot of faults.

 

[Hurricane]

I would like to say that in the due course of time Howsie and I will be proved correct and Anderson will be the incumbent all rounder, however I suspect that Anderson will be a walking injury for much of his career and that Jimmy will play by default.

If I were Anderson I would take up Yoga for flexibility. He is a massive unit and needs to build some resilience.

 

[hendrix]

Stretching etc doesn't reduce the risk of injury.

 

[Howsie]

Pure batting talent or pure hitting talent? Two different things in a Test environment. I still think Neesham is the better equipped skills-wise to be our batting all-rounder at 6. Whether that comes to bear relies on a fair bit more than that, however.

Yep, hitting talent. Someone like Williamson obvs has him in spades in batsmanship, but 'pure' talent, not so much.

 

[Hurricane]

Stretching etc doesn't reduce the risk of injury.

Sure it does.

Not all injuries. No amount of stretching is going to stop you from twisting your ankle.

 

[SteveNZ]

Stretching etc doesn't reduce the risk of injury.

Surely a flexible, well managed hamstring is less prone to tear/strain than a tight, neglected one?

Shane Watson benefitted greatly from yoga/pilates. He was still the same **** who didn't score runs (unless the pressure was off), but at least he was on the park.

 

[Hurricane]

Surely a flexible, well managed hamstring is less prone to tear/strain than a tight, neglected one?

Shane Watson benefitted greatly from yoga/pilates. He was still the same **** who didn't score runs (unless the pressure was off), but at least he was on the park.

Thankyou - I didn't know where to begin with refuting him.

 

[hendrix]

Surely a flexible, well managed hamstring is less prone to tear/strain than a tight, neglected one?

Shane Watson benefitted greatly from yoga/pilates. He was still the same **** who didn't score runs (unless the pressure was off), but at least he was on the park.

A stronger hamstring is less prone to tearing than a weaker hamstring.

Flexibility has nothing to do with it.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yep, hitting talent. Someone like Williamson obvs has him in spades in batsmanship, but 'pure' talent, not so much.

Definitely up there in terms of pure hitting talent. But much like a golf swing, it's very, very hard to change your tempo - not many guys have done it over the journey. That's his challenge in the Test arena.

 

[SteveNZ]

A stronger hamstring is less prone to tearing than a weaker hamstring.

Flexibility has nothing to do with it.

And pilates/yoga can make them stronger, yes?

 

[Hurricane]

A stronger hamstring is less prone to tearing than a weaker hamstring.

Flexibility has nothing to do with it.

Are you a doctor...

 

[Hurricane]

Flexibility Training - Improve Stability and Decrease Injury

Flexibility Training - Improve Stability and Decrease Injury


Flexibility is a joint's ability to move through a full range of motion. Flexibility training helps balance muscle groups that might be overused during exercise or physical activity. It's important to clearly understand the many benefits that result from a good flexibility program.

Improved Physical Performance and Decreased Risk of Injury
A safe and effective flexibility training program increases physical performance. A flexible joint has the ability to move through a greater range of motion and requires less energy to do so, while greatly decreasing your risk of injury. Most professionals agree that stretching decreases resistance in tissue structures; you are, therefore, less likely to become injured by exceeding tissue extensibility (maximum range of tissues) during activity.

 

[straw man]

We shouldn't decry so-called downhill skiing runs from either of these two at number 6. Unusually for us we have a reasonable 3/4/5 and that means sometimes Neesham or Anderson will come in at 180/4 or 300/4 when the ball is not new and the bowlers are tired. What turns a competitive score in the first innings into a test-winning score? A quick 70 or 120, that's what. Add a sprinkling of good bowlers and some talk of 'taking the momentum' and voila, that knock looks like a matchwinner. Neesham has already done this a couple of times. It's a vital part of the job.

 

[hendrix]

Are you a doctor...

Flexibility Training - Improve Stability and Decrease Injury

I'm a biologist with a mild interest in sport.

Injuries usually happen in the normal range of motion. Think of a spring: A force applied to a tight spring with a shorter range of motion vs a spring with a longer range of motion: Neither is more like to snap unless the the force extends to the longer range of motion. Even if that force does extend, it's still just as likely to snap the spring that extends to the longer range.

I believe that a healthy range of motion for a person (dictated by their limb proportions) is a good thing to maintain but that usually happens with exercise anyway. Obviously arthritic joints are bad, but I don't think that hyperflexible joints are necessarily good.

As far as I'm aware, there has not been a single scientific publication concluding that stretching prevents injury.

The proven method of injury prevention is to strengthen the muscles in the area. Strengthening the hamstrings has been proven to prevent injuries. Stretching hasn't, and in some cases could make it worse.

I also believe that tight hamstrings are often weak hamstrings: There's neurological compensation preventing a person from completing that range of motion as a self-preventative against injury because of its weakness.

Anyway, way off topic and I'm on my phone catching a flight tomorrow.