James Anderson Watch in Australia

[essex boy]

I dont recall you banging on about consistency with Harmison where you could make even bigger arguments about his performances at home and abroad. Only the absolute true world class performers of their day - Wasim and Waqar, the Ambroses and Walshes could you say were consistent on all surfaces in all conditions. Even the likes of McGrath and the West Indies quartet of the 70s struggled in the sub continent.

Jimmy is no more or less consistent that your normal decent opening test match bowler.

Career average over 30 is high for a seamer who bowls on green tops half the year. Its also high in relation to the general quality of test nations as it stands. As per the article from SC, have we ever known the Windies, Zimbabwe, New Zeland, Pakistan and to a lesser extent the Aussie all being so poor for a sustained period at the same time.

 

[The Breen Machine]

I dont believe he has proved this. We were lucky to scrape a 1-1 draw in SA and similarly if we lose the Ashes, he will have just proved that as a leader of the attack we are not capable of taking more than 20 wickets once on foreign soil against the test powerhouses.

In order to be the best, you have to beat the best in their own backyard

He still has 2 tests to prove this and he has done very well so far. His first innings spell in Adelaide went a long way to putting us in command of the test match and he bowled excellently in Brisbane without any luck. He's averaging 31 which is in between the 20 and 40 it was said he would need to average in order for us to win the series.

 

[rentaghost]

Career average over 30 is high for a seamer who bowls on green tops half the year. Its also high in relation to the general quality of test nations as it stands. As per the article from SC, have we ever known the Windies, Zimbabwe, New Zeland, Pakistan and to a lesser extent the Aussie all being so poor for a sustained period at the same time.

It isnt and he doesn't - I thought we had put this to bed. The wickets in England have got flatter in recent years and particualrly early season they have been flat as a pancake over the last 3 years. 45 county batsmen averaging 40+ by the end of May last year and this carried on throughout the season. Oposition is generally weaker and this is counteracted by the fact that pitches around the world are flatter than they have ever been. 30 is a good average better than Flintoff, better than Harmison, better than Broad etc etc.

 

[essex boy]

He still has 2 tests to prove this and he has done very well so far. His first innings spell in Adelaide went a long way to putting us in command of the test match and he bowled excellently in Brisbane without any luck. He's averaging 31 which is in between the 20 and 40 it was said he would need to average in order for us to win the series.

Jimmy has come up against an inform Hussey and Watson and the rest havent been great. North is generally a solid county performer but not test class, Clarke is clearly not fit, Ponting hasnt hit the heights for a while and at 36 years of old is way past his best. Katich came into the series not fully fit and has paid the consequence. Im sorry if I dont share your opinion that Jimmy has bowled excellently. He has been solid without ever looking like he was going to rip through a side, which he is going to need to do if we are to win the Ashes.

Jimmy should be outperforming Finn and Tremlett having the experience they dont and also by being the leader of the attack.

It isnt and he doesn't - I thought we had put this to bed. The wickets in England have got flatter in recent years and particualrly early season they have been flat as a pancake over the last 3 years. 45 county batsmen averaging 40+ by the end of May last year and this carried on throughout the season. Oposition is generally weaker and this is counteracted by the fact that pitches around the world are flatter than they have ever been. 30 is a good average better than Flintoff, better than Harmison, better than Broad etc etc.

the wickets last summer were not flat due to the inclement weather

 

[The Breen Machine]

Jimmy has come up against an inform Hussey and Watson and the rest havent been great. North is generally a solid county performer but not test class, Clarke is clearly not fit, Ponting hasnt hit the heights for a while and at 36 years of old is way past his best. Katich came into the series not fully fit and has paid the consequence. Im sorry if I dont share your opinion that Jimmy has bowled excellently. He has been solid without ever looking like he was going to rip through a side, which he is going to need to do if we are to win the Ashes.

Jimmy should be outperforming Finn and Tremlett having the experience they dont and also by being the leader of the attack.

He is outperforming Finn, just because Finn has a few more wickets counts for nothing given they have come at a higher average, his economy rate is poor and a lot have been lower order players.

Anderson was never going to rip through a line up in Australia, not many bowlers would, but he bowled a spell on the first morning which was world class and sent their 2 best batsman, in form or not, back to the shed. That is what you want from the leader of your attack and the other bowlers, whether it be Finn, Tremlett, Broad or even Swann, nedd to replicate the same sort of pressure, which didn't happen in Perth and they got away from us.

 

[Dexter]

Jimmy should be outperforming Finn and Tremlett having the experience they dont and also by being the leader of the attack.

He is outperforming Finn though. Just because Finn has more wickets doesn't mean he's bowled anywhere near as well as Anderson and Tremlett has had one (albeit very good) game in conditions that suited him perfectly. That's hardly a fair comparison; if he outperforms Jimmy for the rest of the series then it's a better comparison to make.

 

[The Breen Machine]

It isnt and he doesn't - I thought we had put this to bed. The wickets in England have got flatter in recent years and particualrly early season they have been flat as a pancake over the last 3 years. 45 county batsmen averaging 40+ by the end of May last year and this carried on throughout the season. Oposition is generally weaker and this is counteracted by the fact that pitches around the world are flatter than they have ever been. 30 is a good average better than Flintoff, better than Harmison, better than Broad etc etc.

It's also just about on par with Matthew Hoggard, so all in all he's got a better average than 4 of our 5 man attack in 2005. Not saying he is better, but it shows some sort of ability and consistency.

 

[essex boy]

He is outperforming Finn though. Just because Finn has more wickets doesn't mean he's bowled anywhere near as well as Anderson and Tremlett has had one (albeit very good) game in conditions that suited him perfectly. That's hardly a fair comparison; if he outperforms Jimmy for the rest of the series then it's a better comparison to make.

Johnson was swinging it late. Therefore having had first use of a wicket where grass has been left on it, its a lame excuse to say Tremlett had ideal conditions. Its fast and bouncy and CT is 6 foot 7

Jimmy had the chance to get a 5 for 50 and blow the Aussies away on a helpful first day track. Instead he was solid with 3 for 61 and pretty ordinary second time round with 1 for 65.

4 wickets @ 31.50 is very ordinary as leader of our attack

If you pro rata that out its bowling the Aussies out for 311 twice. It was nowhere near a 311 wicket first up, more a 211 at an asbolute push.

Jimmy has bowled solidly in the first two tests but yet again without Broad with extra responsilbity on his shoulders he hasnt set the world alight and has been very average in the third test. He isnt expected to run through a side on a flat track, but when the skippers wins the toss on a pitch conducive to swing (as per Johnson, who never gets a mention when it comes to the best swing bowler in the world) he didnt step up to the plate and deliver and ultimately this will cost us the Ashes IMO

He is outperforming Finn though. Just because Finn has more wickets doesn't mean he's bowled anywhere near as well as Anderson and Tremlett has had one (albeit very good) game in conditions that suited him perfectly. That's hardly a fair comparison; if he outperforms Jimmy for the rest of the series then it's a better comparison to make.

id be very worried if he wasnt outbowling Finn. Finn has played 9 tests, Anderson has played 55

 

[The Breen Machine]

Johnson was swinging it late. Therefore having had first use of a wicket where grass has been left on it, its a lame excuse to say Tremlett had ideal conditions. Its fast and bouncy and CT is 6 foot 7

Jimmy had the chance to get a 5 for 50 and blow the Aussies away on a helpful first day track. Instead he was solid with 3 for 61 and pretty ordinary second time round with 1 for 65.

4 wickets @ 31.50 is very ordinary as leader of our attack

If you pro rata that out its bowling the Aussies out for 311 twice. It was nowhere near a 311 wicket first up, more a 211 at an asbolute push.

Jimmy has bowled solidly in the first two tests but yet again without Broad with extra responsilbity on his shoulders he hasnt set the world alight and has been very average in the third test. He isnt expected to run through a side on a flat track, but when the skippers wins the toss on a pitch conducive to swing (as per Johnson, who never gets a mention when it comes to the best swing bowler in the world) he didnt step up to the plate and deliver and ultimately this will cost us the Ashes IMO

But after his opening spells, the Aussies were 69/5. Are you really blaming Jimmy that they got to 268?

 

[essex boy]

But after his opening spells, the Aussies were 69/5. Are you really blaming Jimmy that they got to 268?

he took 1 wicket of the top 6, Tremlett took 3 of the top 6

 

[The Breen Machine]

he took 1 wicket of the top 6, Tremlett took 3 of the top 6

In which case Jimmy was doing what any other attack leader should do, keeping it tight and building pressure at the other end.

 

[rentaghost]

But after his opening spells, the Aussies were 69/5. Are you really blaming Jimmy that they got to 268?

He clearly didnt watch the test IMO. Jimmy did everything required of him - the damage was done by Swann (who was terrible by his own admission) and Finn who fed Hussey his favourite shot time and time again. He bowled well theres only EB in the entire modern world that would say otherwise.

 

[essex boy]

In which case Jimmy was doing what any other attack leader should do, keeping it tight and building pressure at the other end.

while someone like Finn was taking the wickets, of which he is getting criticsed for because he was too expensive :roll:

id rather have a wicket taking bowler than one who keeps it tight but never looks particuarly threatening

Next two tests will be a bowl out

He clearly didnt watch the test IMO. Jimmy did everything required of him - the damage was done by Swann (who was terrible by his own admission) and Finn who fed Hussey his favourite shot time and time again. He bowled well theres only EB in the entire modern world that would say otherwise.

so it was down to Jimmy that we had them 69 for 5 even though he only took 1 wicket

 

[The Breen Machine]

while someone like Finn was taking the wickets, of which he is getting criticsed for because he was too expensive :roll:

id rather have a wicket taking bowler than one who keeps it tight but never looks particuarly threatening

Next two tests will be a bowl out

The same unthreatening bowler who had the Aussies 2/3 in Adelaide.

So far in this series, and particularly at Perth, Jimmy has done the strangling and when the grip needs to be maintained or tightened, Finn usually has let them loose. If you'd rather have Finn getting Hussey and Watson after they have both scored nigh on 100, than Jimmy making Ponting his bunny and regularly taking early wickets, then I don't think this sport is quite for you squire.

 

[rentaghost]

while someone like Finn was taking the wickets, of which he is getting criticsed for because he was too expensive :roll:

id rather have a wicket taking bowler than one who keeps it tight but never looks particuarly threatening

Next two tests will be a bowl out



so it was down to Jimmy that we had them 69 for 5 even though he only took 1 wicket

Anderson has looked threatening plenty of the time and tight when he hasnt been. Finn has been expensive, never really looked threatening but picked up surprise wickets often when batsmen have taken risks because Anderson / Broad / Tremlett have been so economical.

 

[The Breen Machine]

He clearly didnt watch the test IMO. Jimmy did everything required of him - the damage was done by Swann (who was terrible by his own admission) and Finn who fed Hussey his favourite shot time and time again. He bowled well theres only EB in the entire modern world that would say otherwise.

I hope for his sake that he didn't, as to form an opinion like his after actually watching it suggests he struggles to understand cricket.

 

[rentaghost]

while someone like Finn was taking the wickets, of which he is getting criticsed for because he was too expensive :roll:

id rather have a wicket taking bowler than one who keeps it tight but never looks particuarly threatening

Next two tests will be a bowl out



so it was down to Jimmy that we had them 69 for 5 even though he only took 1 wicket

He was pretty influential in that yes. Tremlett was tremendous but 69/5 was down to pressure being applied at both ends. Jimmy was threatening, took a key wicket and built up pressure.

 

[essex boy]

I like the fact that I know nothing yet seem to have this nack of being able to engage both of you in long indepth conversations.

Usually when you come accross a poster on the SMB who knows nothing, you ignore them. However, in this instance you two dont seem to be able to resist engaging in conversation.

You have repeatedly told me X,Y & Z about Jimmy but keep coming back

 

[The Breen Machine]

I like the fact that I know nothing yet seem to have this nack of being able to engage both of you in long indepth conversations.

Usually when you come accross a poster on the SMB who knows nothing, you ignore them. However, in this instance you two dont seem to be able to resist engaging in conversation.

You have repeatedly told me X,Y & Z about Jimmy but keep coming back

Because you od occasionally raise valid points then let yourself down with sheer rubbish. How can you say Jimmy hasn't been threatening at all this series?, it's laughable.

 

[essex boy]

Because you od occasionally raise valid points then let yourself down with sheer rubbish. How can you say Jimmy hasn't been threatening at all this series?, it's laughable.

but I know nothing about anything

yet again, I said Jimmy wasnt threatening in the last test and was solid in the previous two tests.

When your skipper wins the toss on a wicket with grass left on it you should be blowing the opposition top order away not relying on test novices to take the wickets.

He cant handle the pressure and have seen nothing as of yet to change my mind. If he bowls us to the Ashes over the next two tests I will eat my own words

Because you od occasionally raise valid points then let yourself down with sheer rubbish. How can you say Jimmy hasn't been threatening at all this series?, it's laughable.

lets be honest if Rentaghost had had has way with the test team, id doubt any of Cook, Bell, Prior etc would still be in the team