James Anderson Watch in Australia

[3.142]

Fred Flintoff was Englands best bowler 3 years ago.....I dont get your point

Flintoff was forced to retire through injury. The three Aussies who were ranked #1 are in the batting line-up at the moment ... goes to show that they are not as hopeless as you like to make out. Weren't you on about class being permanent not so long ago???

Of course they are weaker than they were, but this is a hugely successful tour and the coming of age of Cook and Trott, the emergence of Tremlett, and the confirmation that Swann and Anderson are excellent bowlers. And farewell to Colly.

 

[Slol]

why would I not be a supporter of the English team?

just becuase I dont the share the English disease of getting carried away by beating dross. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best.

Get to fuck man, how many years have we waited to do this to them on home turf.

 

[Mainze]

Leading wicket taker......tidied :-D

 

[NWC300372]

Leading wicket taker......tidied :-D

Still one test to go. Still time for EB to say he was always right and because Jimmy wasnt leading wicket taker.

What was the average he said would be acceptable? 35? Anyone know Jimmy's average so far?

 

[Big Bad Bri]

Still one test to go. Still time for EB to say he was always right and because Jimmy wasnt leading wicket taker.

What was the average he said would be acceptable? 35? Anyone know Jimmy's average so far?

I doubt EB will come on here to tell you so here it is:

1st Test: 2 for 99 and 0 for 15
2nd Test: 4 for 51 and 2 for 92
3rd Test: 3 for 61 and 1 for 65
4th Test: 4 for 44 and 1 or 71

This gives overall figures of 17 for 498 at an average of 29.

Very respectable I would say and it's also worth noting that his economy rate has usually been between 2.5 and 3.1 per over which has helped to frustrate the Aussies even when he has not been taking wickets.

 

[NWC300372]

I doubt EB will come on here to tell you so here it is:

1st Test: 2 for 99 and 0 for 15
2nd Test: 4 for 51 and 2 for 92
3rd Test: 3 for 61 and 1 for 65
4th Test: 4 for 44 and 1 or 71

This gives overall figures of 17 for 498 at an average of 29.

Very respectable I would say and it's also worth noting that his economy rate has usually been between 2.5 and 3.1 per over which has helped to frustrate the Aussies even when he has not been taking wickets.

Cheers BBB.

So unless he has an utter nightmare in the last test he will get an average good enough to make EB admit he's played well.

 

[Big Bad Bri]

Even if Jimmy takes 10 wickets for next to nothing in the final test EB will not admit that he has bowled well.

He now claims it only counts if you bowl well against the worlds best and no doubt he will have another excuse ready by the end of the series.

 

[rentaghost]

I doubt EB will come on here to tell you so here it is:

1st Test: 2 for 99 and 0 for 15
2nd Test: 4 for 51 and 2 for 92
3rd Test: 3 for 61 and 1 for 65
4th Test: 4 for 44 and 1 or 71

This gives overall figures of 17 for 498 at an average of 29.

Very respectable I would say and it's also worth noting that his economy rate has usually been between 2.5 and 3.1 per over which has helped to frustrate the Aussies even when he has not been taking wickets.

His statistics read well and on pitches that England have scored 500+ in an innings in 3 tests out of 4. Probably more significant than his figures, which are good is the fact that in our two test wins he has played a really significant part.

Cheers BBB.

So unless he has an utter nightmare in the last test he will get an average good enough to make EB admit he's played well.

No because the Aussies were worse than EB thought and the pitches that England managed to score 500+ on in 3 tests out of 4 were like Derbyshire in April.

 

[essex boy]

as ive previously said, easy to jump on the bandwagon in hindsight, just surprised that nobody picked him as leading wicket taker....

 

[Big Bad Bri]

as ive previously said, easy to jump on the bandwagon in hindsight, just surprised that nobody picked him as leading wicket taker....

I chose Broad as leading wicket taker because I thought the Aussie pitches would suit his bowling better but I still thought Jimmy would have a decent series. He has performed slightly better than I expected and probably a long way better than you thought. It would be nice of you to acknowledge that without looking for lots of flimsy excuses.

None of us on here have ever said Anderson is the worlds best bowler but we all seem to have noticed that his game has improved tremendously over the last few years and that he is definitely worth his place in the England team.

The fact that you can't accept this only proves that you are either on a huge wind-up or you're not big enough to admit you were wrong.

 

[essex boy]

I chose Broad as leading wicket taker because I thought the Aussie pitches would suit his bowling better but I still thought Jimmy would have a decent series. He has performed slightly better than I expected and probably a long way better than you thought. It would be nice of you to acknowledge that without looking for lots of flimsy excuses.

None of us on here have ever said Anderson is the worlds best bowler but we all seem to have noticed that his game has improved tremendously over the last few years and that he is definitely worth his place in the England team.

The fact that you can't accept this only proves that you are either on a huge wind-up or you're not big enough to admit you were wrong.

I wont admit I am wrong. I have always maintained that we wont be ranked 1 in the world when Jimmy is leading the attack. I have queried his ability to get top class batters out on flat wickets. There is no Aussie in the worlds top 10 batsman and no Pakistani or Bangladeshi in the worlds top 20 batsman. These arent opinions these are facts.

 

[rentaghost]

I wont admit I am wrong. I have always maintained that we wont be ranked 1 in the world when Jimmy is leading the attack. I have queried his ability to get top class batters out on flat wickets. There is no Aussie in the worlds top 10 batsman and no Pakistani or Bangladeshi in the worlds top 20 batsman. These arent opinions these are facts.

Hmm you seem to argue that world rankings are meaningless when Jimmy and Swann are 2 and 3 in the world but they mean something if they dont include Hussey, Ponting and Clarke.

 

[essex boy]

Hmm you seem to argue that world rankings are meaningless when Jimmy and Swann are 2 and 3 in the world but they mean something if they dont include Hussey, Ponting and Clarke.

Bowling is much harder work which is why the likes of Bond, Lee, Tait etc all sacrifice test careers for one day cricket. Its a lot harder to get to number one in the world batting than bowling. MUCH HARDER

 

[Mainze]

Bowling is much harder work which is why the likes of Bond, Lee, Tait etc all sacrifice test careers for one day cricket. Its a lot harder to get to number one in the world batting than bowling. MUCH HARDER

Of course it is due to the strains involved on the knees etc. But real reason all of the above packed in is because of the money involved in the IPL.

 

[essex boy]

Of course it is due to the strains involved on the knees etc. But real reason all of the above packed in is because of the money involved in the IPL.

I agree, but then thats why I advise caution when wanking ourselves silly over Swann and Jimmy. There is v little competition.

The test system is a mockery as well. We play far more tests per calender year than most other sides....how is that fair?

 

[Mainze]

I agree, but then thats why I advise caution when wanking ourselves silly over Swann and Jimmy. There is v little competition.

The test system is a mockery as well. We play far more tests per calender year than most other sides....how is that fair?

It because the English cricket team home or away, whether in good form or bad are the biggest attraction in World Cricket. Everyone wants to beat us, we get huge crowds at home, and we take the most fans on our travels.

 

[essex boy]

It because the English cricket team home or away, whether in good form or bad are the biggest attraction in World Cricket. Everyone wants to beat us, we get huge crowds at home, and we take the most fans on our travels.

Its also down to the fact that were the only country who play home games May-August (its other countries winters)

 

[dangermows]

Aussies arent all that anymore im afraid. Apart from the nostalgia of beating the auld enemy, dont mean a lot in world terms.

As a South African journalist said, apart from Aussies/English who else in world cricket cares about two middle of the road sides competing for the Ashes. It doesnt catch the world's attention like 2005, as the quality is rank ordinary.

is this England team better than the one that won the 2005 series? (and i mean at the stages the players were at at the time). the likes of vaughan was past it as a batsman, harmy was hit and miss, giles unable to turn it as per.....

be interesting comparing the two line ups, man for man. i guess the 2005 will shade it, but not by as much as you'd initially expect.

 

[rentaghost]

is this England team better than the one that won the 2005 series? (and i mean at the stages the players were at at the time). the likes of vaughan was past it as a batsman, harmy was hit and miss, giles unable to turn it as per.....

be interesting comparing the two line ups, man for man. i guess the 2005 will shade it, but not by as much as you'd initially expect.

as a snapshot in history for one series in isolation the 2005 team was better and it was mainly down to a great pace attack. The problem being that the 2005 team effectively lost Jones immediately and as you correctly pointed out from that point onwards Harmison became a poor performer in international cricket. Batting was even - Bell and Vaughan werent big contributors back then despite Vaughan scoring one great hundred while Collingwood hasnt contributed at all this time around and of course the 2005 team had to face a much better Aussie attack.

Also the 2005 Ashes team saw winning the Ashes as the ultimate goal while hopefully it is just a stepping stone to better things for the current lot.

 

[essex boy]

is this England team better than the one that won the 2005 series? (and i mean at the stages the players were at at the time). the likes of vaughan was past it as a batsman, harmy was hit and miss, giles unable to turn it as per.....

be interesting comparing the two line ups, man for man. i guess the 2005 will shade it, but not by as much as you'd initially expect.

mate, if you think there wasnt much in it, fair enough, I dont feel its worthy of a response tbh. The fact Jimmy couldnt get a game says it all