• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

James Anderson Watch in Australia

Status
Not open for further replies.
rentaghost said:
Its a nonsense point coward. You have a team of bowlers that took 20 wickets for less than 600 runs and Jimmy took a credible 4 for 120. He was tremendous in Adelaide and good here. You believed he would get hit to all corners of Australia he has proved you wrong in every game.
Click to expand...

it wasnt a 600 over two innings wicket, thats why we got hammered and opted to bowl first due to the amount of movement and swing that was on offer

Series Averages

Tremlett - 8 wickets @ 18.75
Jimmy - 12 wickets @ 31.91
Finn - 14 wickets @ 33.14
Swann - 11 wickets @ 38.63

Harris - 11 wickets @ 17.27
Johnson - 9 wickets @ 28.00
Siddle - 7 wickets @ 42.57

I would say Harris has been the best bowler on both sides by some considerable distance
 

essex boy said:
it wasnt a 600 over two innings wicket, thats why we got hammered and opted to bowl first due to the amount of movement and swing that was on offer

Series Averages

Tremlett - 8 wickets @ 18.75
Jimmy - 12 wickets @ 31.91
Finn - 14 wickets @ 33.14
Swann - 11 wickets @ 38.63

Harris - 11 wickets @ 17.27
Johnson - 9 wickets @ 28.00
Siddle - 7 wickets @ 42.57

I would say Harris has been the best bowler on both sides by some considerable distance
Click to expand...

It certainly was and England and any team would have killed to be given that at the start of day 1. Two massive factors in that game was a remarkable spell of top class late in swing bowling in the first innings by Johnson and some very brittle batting by us in our second and our batsmen being extremely poor on a pitch that had bounce. Ther reason that is reported by just about every media outlet isnt because of a conspiracy against you you cowardly get its simply because its true.

12 wickets at 31 in Australia with an economy of 2.4 is good stuff over 3 test matches. The difference between Anderson and Finn is that when we have had the Aussies under pressure Finn has released that pressure.

If there was any truth in your point that Anderson goes missing when the going gets tough then you would be the person to recognise it.
 
Last edited:
rentaghost said:
It certainly was and England and any team would have killed to be given that at the start of day 1. Two massive factors in that game was a remarkable spell of top class late in swing bowling in the first innings by Johnson and some very brittle batting by us in our second and our batsmen being extremely poor on a pitch that had bounce. Ther reason that is reported by just about every media outlet isnt because of a conspiracy against you you cowardly get its simply because its true.

12 wickets at 31 in Australia with an economy of 2.4 is good stuff over 3 test matches. The difference between Anderson and Finn is that when we have had the Aussies under pressure Finn has released that pressure.

If there was any truth in your point that Anderson goes missing when the going gets tough then you would be the person to recognise it.
Click to expand...

when you have an under pressure opposition 60 for 5 day 1, when you have put them in, they shouldnt get 650 in both their innings, if you cant see that, it just goes to show how deluded you are

With the Ashes in our grasp and a bowler down with no Broad Jimmy went missing and put in his worse performance of the tour to date
 
essex boy said:
when you have an under pressure opposition 60 for 5 day 1, when you have put them in, they shouldnt get 650 in both their innings, if you cant see that, it just goes to show how deluded you are

With the Ashes in our grasp and a bowler down with no Broad Jimmy went missing and put in his worse performance of the tour to date
Click to expand...

Around 450 different media links online reporting the cricket find one that criticies Jimmy Anderson for this result and i'll find 449 that blame the batsmen - then we will see who's deluded as well as a coward.

Jimmy was very good in this game - i suppose Boycott is deluded as well who thought both Anderson and Tremelett did very well. Actually be honest (i know this is tricky) Are you actually watching the cricket? I'm sure you indicated that you werent seeing much if any :lol:

Aus scored 577 runs for 20 wickets why lie?
 
Last edited:
rentaghost said:
Around 450 different media links online reporting the cricket find one that criticies Jimmy Anderson for this result and i'll find 449 that blame the batsmen - then we will see who's deluded as well as a coward.

Jimmy was very good in this game - i suppose Boycott is deluded as well who thought both Anderson and Tremelett did very well. Actually be honest (i know this is tricky) Are you actually watching the cricket? I'm sure you indicated that you werent seeing much if any :lol:

Aus scored 577 runs for 20 wickets why lie?
Click to expand...


Boycott actually said the bowlers let us down first day and when we had the Aussies on the wrack we let them off the hook. He said you can blame the batsman as much as you like, but ultimately we lost the test on that first day...

I will find Boycotts comments to back up the point

650, 577 whatever it was, it was far too many to be giving away
 
essex boy said:
Boycott actually said the bowlers let us down first day and when we had the Aussies on the wrack we let them off the hook. He said you can blame the batsman as much as you like, but ultimately we lost the test on that first day...

I will find Boycotts comments to back up the point

650, 577 whatever it was, it was far too many to be giving away
Click to expand...

Theres a huge difference between 577 and 650. One is the truth and one is a massive lie to try and emphasise a point. I dont argue that they scored more runs that we needed in the first innings because after having them 5 down Finn and Swann went for 5 an over when the greeness left the pitch in the afternoon. This wasnt 'Lords in May' as you would put it it had plenty for both bowlers and batsmen if you applied yourself properly. Hussey, Watson and Bell didnt look flustered and the SA's would have filled their boots on that pitch against any attack in the world.

Any bowling team would take 577 for 20 on that pitch and it would win you a test match 4 times out of 5.
 
essex boy said:
Boycott actually said the bowlers let us down first day and when we had the Aussies on the wrack we let them off the hook. He said you can blame the batsman as much as you like, but ultimately we lost the test on that first day...

I will find Boycotts comments to back up the point

650, 577 whatever it was, it was far too many to be giving away
Click to expand...

So are you not watching it then? Really? No wonder.....
 
rentaghost said:
Theres a huge difference between 577 and 650. One is the truth and one is a massive lie to try and emphasise a point. I dont argue that they scored more runs that we needed in the first innings because after having them 5 down Finn and Swann went for 5 an over when the greeness left the pitch in the afternoon. This wasnt 'Lords in May' as you would put it it had plenty for both bowlers and batsmen if you applied yourself properly. Hussey, Watson and Bell didnt look flustered and the SA's would have filled their boots on that pitch against any attack in the world.

Any bowling team would take 577 for 20 on that pitch and it would win you a test match 4 times out of 5.
Click to expand...

''However, the home side didn't extend the advantage without further top-order failures as Steven Finn and Chris Tremlett caused problems although by stumps Shane Watson was unbeaten on 61 and the lead was 200.''

''Conceding an advantage of 81 on a lively surface left England playing catch-up, but they aren't without hope if the bowlers can leave a target under 350''

''Phillip Hughes was worked over for the second time in the match before edging to third slip off Finn, who went for 14 in his first over but continued the knack of picking up wickets. ''

Where were you Jimmy??

gone missing yet again
 
essex boy said:
''However, the home side didn't extend the advantage without further top-order failures as Steven Finn and Chris Tremlett caused problems although by stumps Shane Watson was unbeaten on 61 and the lead was 200.''

''Conceding an advantage of 81 on a lively surface left England playing catch-up, but they aren't without hope if the bowlers can leave a target under 350''

''Phillip Hughes was worked over for the second time in the match before edging to third slip off Finn, who went for 14 in his first over but continued the knack of picking up wickets. ''

Where were you Jimmy??

gone missing yet again
Click to expand...

You would know!

Funny how this refers to the second innings bowling when all of your prior arguments was about them getting too many in the first.
And doesnt that in itself suggest that it was Englands batsmen that gave their bowlers too much to do by conceding a deficit of 81. If doesnt take anyone else to argue with you - give yourself enough rope and you will trip yourself up :-)
 
Last edited:
rentaghost said:
And doesnt that in itself suggest that it was Englands batsmen that gave their bowlers too much to do by conceding a deficit of 81. If doesnt take anyone else to argue with you - give yourself enough rope and you will trip yourself up :-)
Click to expand...

win the toss on a lively wicket with an opposition shorn of confidence, having them 60 for 5, they should be getting bowled out for 150, 200 absolute top whack
 
Rentaghost has caned EB on this.

He rightly points out it was the likes fo Finn and Swann going for too many which allowed the Aussies to score too many.

Yet EB obsession with Jimmy continues (Jimmy is clearly responisble for everything when it comes to our bowling) :oops::lol:
 
essex boy said:
win the toss on a lively wicket with an opposition shorn of confidence, having them 60 for 5, they should be getting bowled out for 150, 200 absolute top whack
Click to expand...

You're not actually watching the cricket? f***ing hell, this lad gets better :lol::lol::lol::lol:

So have you just got yourself an agenda, and go around reading reports to find tenuous link that may support your 'argument'.

Brilliant.
 
dangermows said:
Rentaghost has caned EB on this.

He rightly points out it was the likes fo Finn and Swann going for too many which allowed the Aussies to score too many.

Yet EB obsession with Jimmy continues (Jimmy is clearly responisble for everything when it comes to our bowling) :oops::lol:
Click to expand...


I always get canned on here thats why I dont come on here much anymore.

Too many deluded posters who jump on the bandwagon without actually offering anything to the debate
 
essex boy said:
win the toss on a lively wicket with an opposition shorn of confidence, having them 60 for 5, they should be getting bowled out for 150, 200 absolute top whack
Click to expand...

Yes the excellent bowling on a helpful pitch by Tremlett and Anderson did get them 60 for 5 and yes if Swann and Finn hadnt let them off the hook by bowling far too many loose deliveries releasing the pressure we had put them under then we certainly would have bowled them out for 200 or less.

Had you bothered to watch it you would have realised that yourself - before typing something completely different.

essex boy said:
Boycott actually said the bowlers let us down first day and when we had the Aussies on the wrack we let them off the hook. He said you can blame the batsman as much as you like, but ultimately we lost the test on that first day...

I will find Boycotts comments to back up the point

650, 577 whatever it was, it was far too many to be giving away
Click to expand...

Read Boycott's summary of the bowlers in paragraph 3 after England had finished their bowling:

I though Tremlett and Anderson were very good in the heat

You must be logged on to see external links
 
to be fair to the bowlers, they bowled them out twice for just over 550.

england were terrible in the batting area in this match, as it should be possible to at least score around 550 in total from 2 completed innings.

this series is coming to an excellent finish and england are just as capable of playing like the aussies did, over the last few days

the aussies played better this test, which is allowed :lol:
 
Why is everyone insisting on arguing with EB. Judging by his evading of the question 'Are you actually watching the cricket?' would suggest he hasn't even seen a ball being bowled and then he finds these stats which don't even back up his ludicrous point anyway. :lol:

Aside from Harris Jimmy has been the most consistent bowler on either side. Finn might have 14 wickets but he's bowled fairly poorly and his economy rate is shocking. Tremlett has only played one match on a pitch which suited him perfectly; and before his injury Jimmy was outbowling Broad quite comfortably.

The batsmen are to blame for the defeat. Even if it wasn't a 260 first innings pitch it still doesn't excuse the batsmen for failing to make 190 in either innings.
 
Dexter said:
Why is everyone insisting on arguing with EB. Judging by his evading of the question 'Are you actually watching the cricket?' would suggest he hasn't even seen a ball being bowled and then he finds these stats which don't even back up his ludicrous point anyway. :lol:

Aside from Harris Jimmy has been the most consistent bowler on either side. Finn might have 14 wickets but he's bowled fairly poorly and his economy rate is shocking. Tremlett has only played one match on a pitch which suited him perfectly; and before his injury Jimmy was outbowling Broad quite comfortably.

The batsmen are to blame for the defeat. Even if it wasn't a 260 first innings pitch it still doesn't excuse the batsmen for failing to make 190 in either innings.
Click to expand...

was nice of me to point out that infact Harris has been the most consistent of the bowlers. Even the most one eyed posters on here havent tried to argue that one....yet (despite earlier saying that Jimmy was the most consistent)

Where does consistency get you? In the last Ashes, Autralia consistently scored more runs and took more wickets over the 5 tests and still lost the series.

I would argue we are doing the same this time around but in roles reversed. Johnson and Australia won the big moments in this Perth test.

England have played the better cricket over the 3 tests but are 1-1 with 90,000 Aussies baying for blood next week.

Ashes are gone Im afraid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top