James Anderson Watch in Australia

[essex boy]

im going to morph into you for a minute. what use was vaughans knock ultimately? we got absolutely humped.



very good post.

didnt monty absolutely tear through pakistans top order (of classy batsmen)?so he will no doubt go down as an all time great

Interesting you make reference to Monty, his stats on the last Ahes tour werent much higher than Swanns. If you consider the two batting lines up Hayden, Langer then etc Hughes, Smith now, it either doesnt say much for Swann or the abuse aimed at Monty is unfounded

cant have it both ways

This isnt a dig at you I promise however the point you make is only really valid to people who have little or partial interest in the game. Career defining moments mean nothing - Mark Butcher will be remembered for his 173 against the Aussies but in the scheme of things its what you do over your career. Dean Headley will be remembered for a great match winning performance in Sydney and Peter Taylor the Aussie spinner picked from oblivion will be remembered for taking 10 wickets in a match beating England. Jimmy Anderson has played a key role in winning and retaining the Ashes with game changing performances in 3 test match wins at Lords, Adelaide and Melbourne. Hes bowling better than ever and has more successes to come.

cricket anorachs will remember it but the vast majority of cricket supporters in 20 years time will not.

Most people such as myself rember 1981 for Beefy and Willis, ask me about what happened in the other tests I couldnt tell you.

If someone such as yourself are swatted up on it in 20 years good luck to you, the majority wont.

What someone will remember about this series in 20 years is Cooks series runs. You may disagree but the vast majority will

 

[rentaghost]

Interesting you make reference to Monty, his stats on the last Ahes tour werent much higher than Swanns. If you consider the two batting lines up Hayden, Langer then etc Hughes, Smith now, it either doesnt say much for Swann or the abuse aimed at Monty is unfounded

cant have it both ways



cricket anorachs will remember it but the vast majority of cricket supporters in 20 years time will not.

Most people such as myself rember 1981 for Beefy and Willis, ask me about what happened in the other tests I couldnt tell you.

If someone such as yourself are swatted up on it in 20 years good luck to you, the majority wont.

What someone will remember about this series in 20 years is Cooks series runs. You may disagree but the vast majority will

Whart people remember and what actually are the key contributions to winning a series arent mutually exclusive. In any case theres a world of difference between what Beefy achieved in 1981 and Broad in 2009

 

[essex boy]

Whart people remember and what actually are the key contributions to winning a series arent mutually exclusive. In any case theres a world of difference between what Beefy achieved in 1981 and Broad in 2009

another tour ticks by and Jimmy still has only three 5 wicket hauls in his 8 year test career against

SA
Australia
India
Sri Lanka

(those sides who have been consistently ranked the top sides over his career)

Broad has two in his two year career

 

[dangermows]

another tour ticks by and Jimmy still has only three 5 wicket hauls in his 8 year test career against

SA
Australia
India
Sri Lanka

(those sides who have been consistently ranked the top sides over his career)

Broad has two in his two year career

serious question here.
which player is knocking over the better batsmen?

 

[rentaghost]

ok so when has Jimmy ever ran through sides every game in a series against the top ranked side at the time when everyone else has struggled..


answer - he hasnt

Are you suggesting Broad has when Swann took 8 wickets to his 6 in the match at the Oval and Broad like Anderson bowled utter crap in the second innings?

 

[essex boy]

Are you suggesting Broad has when Swann took 8 wickets to his 6 in the match at the Oval and Broad like Anderson bowled utter crap in the second innings?

Its what I dont like about this board now, too many people jumping into debates to add their tuppenceworth and you lose track of which debate your having with which person

 

[rentaghost]

another tour ticks by and Jimmy still has only three 5 wicket hauls in his 8 year test career against

SA
Australia
India
Sri Lanka

(those sides who have been consistently ranked the top sides over his career)

Broad has two in his two year career

Broad has just stared his 4th year in test cricket which would give Jimmy the edge if we were playing silly games

Again just daft stats for the undeucated. For example if someone gets 5 wickets twice and then nothing are they better performers than someone who gets 4 wickets many times. Is someone who scores 100 and then fails 5 times in a row better than someone who consistently gets 99?

 

[essex boy]

Broad has just stared his 4th year in test cricket which would give Jimmy the edge if we were playing silly games

Again just daft stats for the undeucated. For example if someone gets 5 wickets twice and then nothing are they better performers than someone who gets 4 wickets many times. Is someone who scores 100 and then fails 5 times in a row better than someone who consistently gets 99?

ITS UNEDUCATED

daft stats they maybe, but commentators often make reference to 5 wicket hauls

its what separates the good from the class acts

 

[Mainze]

Invalid/outdated Link Removed

A few thoughts....

 

[essex boy]

Invalid/outdated Link Removed

A few thoughts....

SEB mate

Rentaghost posted it yesterday

The rankings would dictate that Morkel and Steyn are the best quicks around

Monty was ranked 32 in the world

He hasnt played for about 3 years

 

[rentaghost]

ITS UNEDUCATED

daft stats they maybe, but commentators often make reference to 5 wicket hauls

its what separates the good from the class acts

No it isn't - Having 5 wickets and 3 figures batting are part of cricket heritage and as a result players love to get them however a player who gets 4 wickets in a innings every time he goes out to play is a class act much more so then a player that gets 5 wickets now and again and nothing in between. Stats in cricket are no more than a useful guide just like you pointed out with Vaughan / Collingwood.

SEB mate

Rentaghost posted it yesterday

The rankings would dictate that Morkel and Steyn are the best quicks around

Monty was ranked 32 in the world

He hasnt played for about 3 years

Best bowler in the world is taking it to the extreme almost as much as you believing he shouldnt be in the England team.

 

[Mainze]

I thought this thread was about Anderson in Australia, not Anderson v Steyn ?

No it isn't - Having 5 wickets and 3 figures batting are part of cricket heritage and as a result players love to get them however a player who gets 4 wickets in a innings every time he goes out to play is a class act much more so then a player that gets 5 wickets now and again and nothing in between. Stats in cricket are no more than a useful guide just like you pointed out with Vaughan / Collingwood.




Best bowler in the world is taking it to the extreme almost as much as you believing he shouldnt be in the England team.

Of course it's hype, but the interesting comments are about how he leads the bowling attack.

 

[rentaghost]

I thought this thread was about Anderson in Australia, not Anderson v Steyn ?



Of course it's hype, but the interesting comments are about how he leads the bowling attack.

Hes been excellent over there Anderson and I think you will struggle to find anyone without a chip on their shoulder that would say otherwise. Anderson is one of the best around now and even if thats a reflection on the rest of his competition in world cricket it doesnt make it any less true.

He has proven EB massively wrong from his initial stance that he was crap and shouldnt be in the England team - if he was half a man he would admit that much.

 

[CollingwoodFTM]

Just to chuck in my two penneth worth, Freddie only hot a handful of 5 wicket hauls but was still a great bowler. Though they are good indicators of performance, the bottom line is total wickets bs average.

 

[rentaghost]

Just to chuck in my two penneth worth, Freddie only hot a handful of 5 wicket hauls but was still a great bowler. Though they are good indicators of performance, the bottom line is total wickets bs average.

3 x 5fers in 11 years of test cricket and 79 tests. Fantastic bowler because people know to look beyond that.

 

[stephen cartwright]

anderson is a quality bowler.

 

[essex boy]

3 x 5fers in 11 years of test cricket and 79 tests. Fantastic bowler because people know to look beyond that.

Flintoff also put the fear of god into batsman and was genuinely hostile but having said all that was used as more of a stock bowler to gain control. In addition he was a genuine allrounder who contributed with bat and at 2nd slip.

I believe if he had been let off the leash and we had had someone as a stock bowler, he would have taken another 50 or so test wickets. Interesting that when Giles was at his best, keeping it tight, Fred probably had the best bowling spells of his career

Another unfair comparison to make IMO

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

lets sum this up shall we, its getting boring;

1) Anderson has been a decent if inconsistent bowler in the past. He has struggled on surfaces that dont help him
2) He has developed hugely in the last 2 years and has adapted to less useful surfaces
3) He has bowled very well in this series, better than ANY of us expected
4) He is one of the better quicks in the world at the moment
5) The quality of quicks out there is average at best, Steyn apart

fair enough?

 

[rentaghost]

Flintoff also put the fear of god into batsman and was genuinely hostile but having said all that was used as more of a stock bowler to gain control. In addition he was a genuine allrounder who contributed with bat and at 2nd slip.

I believe if he had been let off the leash and we had someone as a stock bowler. Interesting that when Giles was at his best, keeping it tight, Fred probably had the best bowling spells of his career

Another unfair comparison to make IMO

Of course it is - it was you that stated this not anyone else:

"its what separates the good from the class acts"

I dont agree - and neither do you apparently

 

[essex boy]

lets sum this up shall we, its getting boring;

1) Anderson has been a decent if inconsistent bowler in the past. He has struggled on surfaces that dont help him
2) He has developed hugely in the last 2 years and has adapted to less useful surfaces
3) He has bowled very well in this series, better than ANY of us expected
4) He is one of the better quicks in the world at the moment
5) The quality of quicks out there is average at best, Steyn apart

fair enough?

this thead has 1000 posts written all over it. The thread is clearly marked as to what it relates to, there is no pressure on you to read the thread, there are plenty of others on the forums