James Anderson Watch in Australia

[rentaghost]

why such a gulf between his stats against the minnows and the test nations?

is no consideration given to the fact Broad has been a test player for 3 years and for those first two years wasnt given the new ball

id be expecting Jimmy to be doing a lot better

Actually I was surprised that Broad had played as many as 34 tests just 20 shy of the number of tests Jimmy has played - I thought the gap between them would have been much larger than that. When Anderson went to Australia first time around and got tanked he had played only 13 tests and didnt have the new ball against a fantastic batting side - yet you have been happy to use that against him.

With 34 tests under his belt Broad is an experienced test cricketer and now needs to push on and improve his record against all opposition. Its nice though that Broad recently recognised Jimmy as world class along with Saker, Moores, Willis this week even if it is a bit OTT

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[essex boy]

Actually I was surprised that Broad had played as many as 34 tests just 20 shy of the number of tests Jimmy has played - I thought the gap between them would have been much larger than that. When Anderson went to Australia first time around and got tanked he had played only 13 tests and didnt have the new ball against a fantastic batting side - yet you have been happy to use that against him.

With 34 tests under his belt Broad is an experienced test cricketer and now needs to push on and improve his record against all opposition. Its nice though that Broad recently recognised Jimmy as world class along with Saker, Moores, Willis this week even if it is a bit OTT

You must be logged on to see external links

We play on average 13 tests per calender year, so you shouldnt be surprised that Broad has played that many. What is probably more surprising is the lack of games Jimmy has played in 8 years

 

[rentaghost]

We play on average 13 tests per calender year, so you shouldnt be surprised that Broad has played that many. What is probably more surprising is the lack of games Jimmy has played in 8 years

In his first 4 years in test cricket up to the India home series Anderson only played 16 tests. Two reasons really - firstly the 4 man attack of Harmison, Jones, Hoggard and Flintoff were excellent and secondly the ill advised attempts to remodel his action meant he didnt play at all from after the Ashes in Australia up to the India series which was 15 months later.

It was only July 07 he became a regular in the England team.

 

[essex boy]

In his first 4 years in test cricket up to the India home series Anderson only played 16 tests. Two reasons really - firstly the 4 man attack of Harmison, Jones, Hoggard and Flintoff were excellent and secondly the ill advised attempts to remodel his action meant he didnt play at all from after the Ashes in Australia up to the India series which was 15 months later.

It was only July 07 he became a regular in the England team.

He wasnt good enough to get in the side your right. As I previously said, after the 2005 Ashes we had one bowler in the worlds top 10. Someone who couldnt get in that side and still wouldnt today is now ranked 4 in the world. How far test bowling has slipped in general is mind blowing

 

[rentaghost]

He wasnt good enough to get in the side your right. As I previously said, after the 2005 Ashes we had one bowler in the worlds top 10. Someone who couldnt get in that side and still wouldnt today is now ranked 4 in the world. How far test bowling has slipped in general is mind blowing

He was an erratic, expensive hot and cold bowler then. Where you disagree with the world population is that he has improved no end since then. His 'career' for England really started about the same time as Broad.

 

[essex boy]

He was an erratic, expensive hot and cold bowler then. Where you disagree with the world population is that he has improved no end since then. His 'career' for England really started about the same time as Broad.

competition was a lot better a few years ago

Harmy got to world number one when all the greats were still playing

 

[rentaghost]

competition was a lot better a few years ago

Harmy got to world number one when all the greats were still playing

On the back of his great series performances against WI x 2, Zim, Bang and NZ. At the time Harmison was world number 1 in 2004 other than 1 test against India he had only played one of the 'nations that count' South Africa and went for 45 in the series. He was about to go to SA where he then went for 73 in the series.

Actually Harmison deserves great credit for his early test career but according to the criteria you again set - he was hopeless!

read the thread, as you said its boring this thread, so a lot of what has been said is probably repetitive, will only take you a few minutes



Jimmy Anderson/Stuart Broad test bowiling figures against the the Superpowers of the world game and against the weaker minnows of test cricket

Anderson 108 wickets @ 39.81 against SA/Sri Lanka/Aus/India

Broad 44 wickets @ 40.02


Anderson 97 wickets @ 22.35 against Pakistan, NZ, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh & WI

Broad 55 wickets @ 31.41


Thus, Jimmys bowling average almost doubles when he comes up against the test powerhouses, where Broad goes up by 9. As I have previously said, when Jimmy is more consistent and starts delivering in the big games against the test powerhouses, I will admit I am wrong.

To have an almost identical bowling avg against the big sides is a sad indicement on Jimmy who has been playing test cricket for 8 years as oppose to Broads 3 years.

Putting your figures into context against the 'powerhouse' nations you refer to Steve Harmison took 80 wickets at 45.1 far worse than Jimmy and the difference between the best and the rest even greater.

So in definition Jimmy has a better record against the better nations than both Harmison and Broad and the reason Broads record at this stage of his career isnt as good as theirs is that he hasnt performed as well against the weaker nations.

 

[essex boy]

with respect I dont and have never bought this thing with Harmy

When we were blessed with loads of world class bowlers back in 2004, no way on earth would Harmy have got to number one by simply blowing the test minnows away

It would have been the accumulation of years hard work

 

[rentaghost]

with respect I dont and have never bought this thing with Harmy

When we were blessed with loads of world class bowlers back in 2004, no way on earth would Harmy have got to number one by simply blowing the test minnows away

It would have been the accumulation of years hard work

What is not to 'buy' - the 'years' of hard work were less than 2 years.

Test debut August 2002
World number 1 less than 2 years later in July 2004

The only major nations set by YOUR criteria he had played agaisnt were 1 test against India where he did well. Then the 2002/03 Ashes were he went for 50 per wicket and the SA series in England where he went for 46 per wicket. Every other test match was against a nation YOU classed as a minnow and that got him to world number 1 just before he went to SA in 04/05 and went for 73 per wicket.

His overall average in test cricket against the major nations set by YOU was 45.1. Good test cricketer Harmison but by your criteria not mine he was a damn sight worse than Anderson.

 

[Dexter]

What is not to 'buy' - the 'years' of hard work were less than 2 years.

Test debut August 2002
World number 1 less than 2 years later in July 2004

The only major nations set by YOUR criteria he had played agaisnt were 1 test against India where he did well. Then the 2002/03 Ashes were he went for 50 per wicket and the SA series in England where he went for 46 per wicket. Every other test match was against a nation YOU classed as a minnow and that got him to world number 1 just before he went to SA in 04/05 and went for 73 per wicket.

His overall average in test cricket against the major nations set by YOU was 45.1. Good test cricketer Harmison but by your criteria not mine he was a damn sight worse than Anderson.

I can't wait to see how EB tries to dig himself out of this one.

 

[smoker]

Is this Essex Boy character on glue?

 

[Big Bad Bri]

Is this Essex Boy character on glue?

No, but I think he is now stuck for an answer. He's made a bit of a pritt of himself on here. He really hasn't got a glue.

 

[essex boy]

What is not to 'buy' - the 'years' of hard work were less than 2 years.

Test debut August 2002
World number 1 less than 2 years later in July 2004

The only major nations set by YOUR criteria he had played agaisnt were 1 test against India where he did well. Then the 2002/03 Ashes were he went for 50 per wicket and the SA series in England where he went for 46 per wicket. Every other test match was against a nation YOU classed as a minnow and that got him to world number 1 just before he went to SA in 04/05 and went for 73 per wicket.

His overall average in test cricket against the major nations set by YOU was 45.1. Good test cricketer Harmison but by your criteria not mine he was a damn sight worse than Anderson.

happy to admit I am wrong on this. However, I am baffled as to how he would have got to number one when the greats were all still playing. He basically knocked over a lot of crap like Jimmy is doing.

A question for you why is Harmison regarded as a test failure whose career never got going, yet had a test bowling average of 31.82, whereas Jimmy according to the wankathon on here is now a good test match bowler yet only has an average of 31.55 (almost identical)

I would also argue the standard of test cricket over the last few years has vastly decreased so wickets are easier to come by

 

[rentaghost]

happy to admit I am wrong on this. However, I am baffled as to how he would have got to number one when the greats were all still playing. He basically knocked over a lot of crap like Jimmy is doing.

A question for you why is Harmison regarded as a test failure whose career never got going, yet had a test bowling average of 31.82, whereas Jimmy according to the wankathon on here is now a good test match bowler yet only has an average of 31.55 (almost identical)

I would also argue the standard of test cricket over the last few years has vastly decreased so wickets are easier to come by

I dont think he is. He certainly has his fllaws but he is regarded as one part of our best attack in recent history that for a short period was the most feared bowler in test cricket. His record in many respects is similar to Anderson - almost identical average, both with a big differentiate between performances against the very best and the weaker nations, both with better records at home than away. I agree that the top nations were better then but that is reflected in the fact that Harmys record is worse against the top nations. Harmison had the advanatge of having a better and more consistent bowling attack to be part of.

The main difference is that Harmison peaked early and gradually declined and Anderson has improved over time. Both deserve a lot of credit IMO but both have fair areas to criticise.

 

[essex boy]

I dont think he is. He certainly has his fllaws but he is regarded as one part of our best attack in recent history that for a short period was the most feared bowler in test cricket. His record in many respects is similar to Anderson - almost identical average, both with a big differentiate between performances against the very best and the weaker nations, both with better records at home than away. I agree that the top nations were better then but that is reflected in the fact that Harmys record is worse against the top nations. Harmison had the advanatge of having a better and more consistent bowling attack to be part of.

The main difference is that Harmison peaked early and gradually declined and Anderson has improved over time. Both deserve a lot of credit IMO but both have fair areas to criticise.

disagree- that is what England pride themselves on now, consistency of selection :roll:

most regard Harmy as a test failure

 

[rentaghost]

disagree- that is what England pride themselves on now, consistency of selection :roll:

most regard Harmy as a test failure

Harmy IMO is seen as flawed and lacking moral fibre to have become the best fast bowler of a generation which his ability merited. However he isn't regarded as a failure at test cricket.

Consistency of selection was a bigger thing if anything under Fletcher than Moores and Flower although this is balanced by the fact that injuries to Jones and Flintoff often meant Harmison had different bowling partners. Fletcher wasnt as willing to go back to county cricket to bring in the likes of Onions, Sidebottom, Swann, Bresnan, Tremlett, Shazhad as Flower is.

What is fair to say and something you acknowledged in another thread is that Harmison played far more games alongside Flintoff and was of huge benefit.

 

[essex boy]

Harmy IMO is seen as flawed and lacking moral fibre to have become the best fast bowler of a generation which his ability merited. However he isn't regarded as a failure at test cricket.

Consistency of selection was a bigger thing if anything under Fletcher than Moores and Flower although this is balanced by the fact that injuries to Jones and Flintoff often meant Harmison had different bowling partners. Fletcher wasnt as willing to go back to county cricket to bring in the likes of Onions, Sidebottom, Swann, Bresnan, Tremlett, Shazhad as Flower is.

What is fair to say and something you acknowledged in another thread is that Harmison played far more games alongside Flintoff and was of huge benefit.

The fact Jimmy couldnt get a game when Harmy was about also highlights how much easier it is to get test wickets now

 

[rentaghost]

The fact Jimmy couldnt get a game when Harmy was about also highlights how much easier it is to get test wickets now

Jimmy wasnt anywhere near as good a bowler then as he is now and didnt deserve a place ahead of the bowling attack of the day that provided great variety. Anderson and Hoggard were a more rrelaistic like for like and hoggard was miles better and more consistent than Jimmy.

 

[essex boy]

Jimmy wasnt anywhere near as good a bowler then as he is now and didnt deserve a place ahead of the bowling attack of the day that provided great variety. Anderson and Hoggard were a more rrelaistic like for like and hoggard was miles better and more consistent than Jimmy.

or alternativley he has benefitted from the decline of many of the test nations, has picked up a lot of cheap wickets to boost his world ranking, has cut back on the 4 balls but still relies on swing and seam movement to be effective and isnt much more now than what he has always been, a one trick pony, effective on green and damp tracks but very limited on flat tracks....

 

[Deleted member 21726]

or alternativley he has benefitted from the decline of many of the test nations, has picked up a lot of cheap wickets to boost his world ranking, has cut back on the 4 balls but still relies on swing and seam movement to be effective and isnt much more now than what he has always been, a one trick pony, effective on green and damp tracks but very limited on flat tracks....

u could say this is also the reason the mighty indians have the best batting lineup you keep bangin on about. decline of world bowling in general?

im sure you will have some shite prepared as the reason for this......