James Anderson Watch in Australia

[rentaghost]

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

Harris has bowled well but i dont think his average would be what it is if he had bowled in the flattest wicket ever produced for a test match in Brisbane in which we got 500/1. The comparison would be reasonable if he had played all 3 games.

How much of the cricket have you watched live?

In para 3 of the above link provided by me did Boycott say that Anderson bowled very well in the match?

 

[Steak Pie]

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

I thought you were joking.

How did he get on in the 1st and 2nd Tests?

 

[essex boy]

Harris has bowled well but i dont think his average would be what it is if he had bowled in the flattest wicket ever produced for a test match in Brisbane in which we got 500/1. The comparison would be reasonable if he had played all 3 games.

How much of the cricket have you watched live?

In para 3 of the above link provided by me did Boycott say that Anderson bowled very well in the match?

if your trying to now say that you can only be included for most consistent bowler of the series if you have played all 3 tests, then ONLY 4 bowlers on either side including Jimmy count????

Finn (test novice)
Swann (spinners dont do well in Aus according to you)
Siddle

Harris has consistently looked the most threatening bowler on either side

 

[Steak Pie]

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.

It passes the time, plus we should all be grateful for the idea for the 'Saj Watch' thread. If England play well and win in Melbourne, my joy will be tempered by EB going in to hiding again.

 

[rentaghost]

if your trying to now say that you can only be included for most consistent bowler of the series if you have played all 3 tests, then ONLY 4 bowlers on either side including Jimmy count????

Finn (test novice)
Swann (spinners dont do well in Aus according to you)
Siddle

Harris has consistently looked the most threatening bowler on either side

If you have bowled in two games only and been great in one and went for 45 per wicket in the other in a game you have been destroyed in i'm not sure how you can use the word consistent - effective definitely but not consistent. Perhaps if he had two decent performances from 3 or performed well in both games you could say so. Hes had one great match as has Mitchell Johnson.

Anyway how would you know having not even watched the cricket

 

[essex boy]

If you have bowled in two games only and been great in one and went for 45 per wicket in the other in a game you have been destroyed in i'm not sure how you can use the word consistent - effective definitely but not consistent. Perhaps if he had two decent performances from 3 or performed well in both games you could say so. Hes had one great match as has Mitchell Johnson.

Anyway how would you know having not even watched the cricket

so whats the point of asking who has been the most consistent bowler when only 4 have played the 3 games, one test novice and one a spinner

if you asked a neutral to pick a bowling attack from the 2 sides to win the next test, it would be Finn, Johnson, Harris and Swann

Johnson is a big game player who swings it so would get in ahead of Jimmy as he bats as well

says it all really

Jimmy is having a good tour but statistically still isnt either the first or second best seamer, says it all.

 

[Steak Pie]

Harris has consistently looked the most threatening bowler on either side

Apart from the 1st Test where he didn't play, and the 2nd Test when we racked up 600, or the 3rd Test when he took the new ball. So when you say 'consistently', you obviously just mean two a bit sessions.

Easy mistake to make.

so whats the point of asking who has been the most consistent bowler when only 4 have played the 3 games, one test novice and one a spinner

if you asked a neutral to pick a bowling attack from the 2 sides to win the next test, it would be Finn, Johnson, Harris and Swann

Johnson is a big game player who swings it so would get in ahead of Jimmy as he bats as well

says it all really

Jimmy is having a good tour but statistically still isnt either the first or second best seamer, says it all.

You must be logged on to see external links

Apart from England coach Andy Flower, obviously.

Serious question. What do you get out of this? Is it a 'getting bites' type thing, or is it just to be contrary to stimulate a bit of banter? Because that's a few posts now where you're just making stuff up and referring to them as fact, it's just silly.

 

[essex boy]

Apart from the 1st Test where he didn't play, and the 2nd Test when we racked up 600, or the 3rd Test when he took the new ball. So when you say 'consistently', you obviously just mean two a bit sessions.

Easy mistake to make.

You must be logged on to see external links

Apart from England coach Andy Flower, obviously.

Serious question. What do you get out of this? Is it a 'getting bites' type thing, or is it just to be contrary to stimulate a bit of banter? Because that's a few posts now where you're just making stuff up and referring to them as fact, it's just silly.

When we racked up 600, Harris emerged from the game with credit and was the only Aussie bowler to look like taking a wicket, as many media outlets referred to

Its ironic that you use Finn & Swann as leaking runs and offering no support to Jimmy, yet when the same happens to Harris, you conveniently forget this point that he got no support at Adelaide

I get nothing out of repeatedly telling you that we will never be number one in the world with Jimmy in the ranks. Its painful watching us struggling to beat the worse Aussie side in 30 years

 

[dangermows]

When we racked up 600, Harris emerged from the game with credit and was the only Aussie bowler to look like taking a wicket, as many media outlets referred to

Its ironic that you use Finn & Swann as leaking runs and offering no support to Jimmy, yet when the same happens to Harris, you conveniently forget this point that he got no support at Adelaide

I get nothing out of repeatedly telling you that we will never be number one in the world with Jimmy in the ranks. Its painful watching us struggling to beat the worse Aussie side in 30 years

why do you only focus on one match the match we lost?
is it because you are thick or just a tedius fucker?

why is it down to jimmy you idiot? why not focus on the other bowlers, the ones bowling worse than him ffs.

the only time its painful for you is when we are winning. hence you werent on here for the 2nd test you coward in all honesty it is painful watching you get proven wrong time and time again whilst you pathetically avoid the questions, cos you simply have no answer.

 

[essex boy]

why do you only focus on one match the match we lost?
is it because you are thick or just a tedius fucker?

why is it down to jimmy you idiot? why not focus on the other bowlers, the ones bowling worse than him ffs.

the only time its painful for you is when we are winning. hence you werent on here for the 2nd test you coward

another who jumps on the bandwagon

Its down to Jimmy because he isnt a big game player and when you really need a stellar performance he doesnt deliver, never has and never willl

Johnson has been awful but IMO that spell on the 2nd day will be the decisive moment of this Ashes just like Broads inspired spell was the moment everyone remembers from the last Ashes (along with Freds run out)

 

[Steak Pie]

When we racked up 600, Harris emerged from the game with credit and was the only Aussie bowler to look like taking a wicket, as many media outlets referred to

Its ironic that you use Finn & Swann as leaking runs and offering no support to Jimmy, yet when the same happens to Harris, you conveniently forget this point that he got no support at Adelaide

I get nothing out of repeatedly telling you that we will never be number one in the world with Jimmy in the ranks. Its painful watching us struggling to beat the worse Aussie side in 30 years

I'm not saying anything regarding support for Harris. What I am saying is that his opening spell is Adelaide was poor, he came back pretty tight but only took 2/84. Bowled well in spells in Perth, but you're claiming he's been the most consistant, when in reality he's had 3/4 good spells in the Series.

Now in Brisbane, you said it didn't matter how well Jimmy bowled, how many times he beat the bat and how economical he was, it was wickets that counted. So why the difference with Harris?

And now you're saying that anyone would be dropping Jimmy for Melbourne, where the England coach is saying the opposite.

The only thing I'm drawing from your posts is that you either aren't watching it or are so blinkered towards Anderson that you're almost rabidly looking for anything that might score a point or two. Then when your points are blown up you start making stuff up, or going off in the huff.

 

[essex boy]

We will never be number one in the world with Jimmy in the side, lose the Ashes were back down to 5th

Il be back for Melbourne , win or lose

 

[NWC300372]

We will never be number one in the world with Jimmy in the side, lose the Ashes were back down to 5th

Il be back for Melbourne , win or lose

You said that yesterday and you're still here.

 

[essex boy]

You said that yesterday and you're still here.

as if by magic, Andy re-appears for this two penneth

 

[NWC300372]

as if by magic, Andy re-appears for this two penneth

Yep.

 

[rentaghost]

People debate on here within a broad spectrum of common sense. Contributors have different opinions, there are some players who some prefer to others. Even amongst expert summarisers its much the same, differences of opinion but all plausible comments where an argument can be made either way.

There will be no person watching the Ashes that wouldnt recognise that Anderson has bowled well, wouldnt recognise his massive contribution in the test we won and wouldnt have him comfortably in a combined attack between the two sides FFS

If EB can find anyone else in civilisation that would include Finn ahead of Anderson or would drop Anderson before Finn i'll gladly log off never to return yet he reckons anyone looking at it without bias would do so.

The kids a liar, a coward and as thick as whale spunk.

 

[Dexter]

If EB can find anyone else in civilisation that would include Finn ahead of Anderson or would drop Anderson before Finn i'll gladly log off never to return yet he reckons anyone looking at it without bias would do so.

The kids a liar, a coward and as thick as whale spunk.

The thing that's obvious in this is that he hasn't watched a single ball of the Ashes so far. He sees Finn with more wickets than Jimmy and Tremlett has a better average and sticks 2 + 2 together and then contrives every statement afterwards to make Jimmy look like some sort of pub bowler.

He is thecozmo of the cricket forum.

 

[rentaghost]

The thing that's obvious in this is that he hasn't watched a single ball of the Ashes so far. He sees Finn with more wickets than Jimmy and Tremlett has a better average and sticks 2 + 2 together and then contrives every statement afterwards to make Jimmy look like some sort of pub bowler.

He is thecozmo of the cricket forum.

It ignores the fact that Jimmy has a better average than Finn and that some of Finns wickets came when the Aussies were slogging out trying to score quick runs at the end of their innings in Brisbane.

He clearly hasnt watched the cricket - i'm just surprised he hasnt lied and said he has.

 

[The Breen Machine]

I'm still amazed he is slating Jimmy for the Aussie's getting away from 69/5 to score 268, when Finn leaked 75 runs at 5 an over, and also went for 5 an over in the 2nd innings.

Must be a complete wind up which gets more tedious by the day.

Jimmy is averaging just over 30, has the Indian sign over the Australian captain, and a very decent economy rate. Finn's 14 wickets have come towards the mid 30's average at a poor test economy rate and is releasing all pressure built up by the opening bowlers with his wayward spells.

I'd like EB to name some opposition swing bowlers from the last 20 years who have averaged 30 or less in a series in Australia, with of economy rate of 3-3.5.

 

[stephen cartwright]

possibly the second best spell in the series was bowled by anderson, in the first test iirc.

he bowled about 8 overs and how hussey and haddin survived was a total mystery and very lucky, indeed or the first test could have been an england win. every pundit, fan and media outlet agreed on that one

for saying the ashes are gone, i simply cant agree as it is 1-1 and half the aussie team has scored barely 100 runs in the series.

of course the last test was a disappointment but as in 2009 it can happen (headingley) aussies had all the momentum after that match, yet we won the last test.

we have two chances to retain/win the ashes and after the last quarter of a century in australia, you cant ask much more than that.

they played well, we have played well and both teams have performed poorly at times

look at englands test record over the last 3 years and nigh on all the series are so tight, that a spell here or a batting performance there, changes the momentum.

roll on boxing day