When You Changed Your Mind About a Player

[Richard]

Yeah, I mean, he was good for maybe 10 overs every 200 (that's an average, not a constant repetition). But I count that as pretty "shockin" TBH.

Anderson up to 2007/08 was simply not very good. He'd have his odd moments but they'd be so few and far between they weren't worth persisting with all the crap he sent down in the meantime. I wish Anderson had played far, far less for England and far, far more for Lancashire between 2003 and 2007. England would've been a better side for it and Anderson would've suffered less embarrassment.

 

[GIMH]

He would have benefitted from more time at lancs in his early 20s, for sure. I think 'not very good' is going too far, though. He was always capable of bowling well, and was inconsistent. He was always going to come good, IMO.

 

[Richard]

I don't think he was neccessarily "always going to come good" at all, but the possibility was always there and he was someone always worth keeping an eye on. Just a shame he played so many Tests before he'd actually come good.

Anyway, I think "not very good" sums-up Anderson 2003-2007/08 perfectly TBH - yes, he was capable of bowling very well, but he did it very, very rarely. Kinda like what Cribb says about Krejza. Krejza isn't very good; Anderson wasn't very good at that time. It's about what you produce with regularity, not how good your best is on the rare occasion you produce it, that counts.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, I shall agree to disagree as I believe there was always definite potential there which to me means I wouldn't call someone 'not very good'; I can see where you are coming from, but I wouldn't quite define it like that

 

[Richard]

Myself, I can call someone "rubbish" \ "not very good" but still say they have potential. What someone has the potential to be is irrelevant to what they are now, to my mind.

I don't agree that you shouldn't use certain terms to describe a player just because he has potential.

 

[GIMH]

Aye, but in my mind Anderson wasn't 'rubbish' he was just not reaching his potential. He bowled very well on occasions, so it was clear that if he was consistent he could be successful, and was therefore not a rubbish bowler.

Saj Mahmood was (and is) rubbish, Anderson just hadn't found his rhythm

 

[Richard]

Anderson hadn't reached his potential, and thus was rubbish. In my book. The stuff that Anderson sent down before reaching his potential was absolutely awful. That, to my mind, made him a rubbish bowler.

A rubbish bowler with potential to get better, like Anderson, and a rubbish bowler without much potential to get much better, like Mahmood, is the same thing at the time in question. Well, Mahmood was actually even worse than Anderson, but Mahmood is one of the worst ever to play Test cricket in recent times. A better for-instance would be, for example, James Ormond.

 

[GIMH]

Except that Anderson wasn't always rubbish. He was clearly deadly at times, and thus there's a difference than a bowler who is poor all the time but said to have potential (Broad in Tests, for example). Call them rubbish by all means, but Anderson was not rubbish.

Still don't think he's reached his potential, btw. Watch him kill the Aussies this summer, you heard it here first

 

[ozone]

Anderson hadn't reached his potential in 2003 and yet still bowled well enough to take a hat-trick against Pakistan in an ODI and a five-for on debut against a (decent I think?) Zimbabwe test side.

I agree with GIMH, he always showed potential and would have benefitted from some more time with Lancashire, rather than being dragged around by England for several years as back-up whilst others were picked ahead of him.

 

[Richard]

Except that Anderson wasn't always rubbish. He was clearly deadly at times, and thus there's a difference than a bowler who is poor all the time but said to have potential (Broad in Tests, for example). Call them rubbish by all means, but Anderson was not rubbish.

No-one ever bowls the same all the time. I've even seen Sajid Mahmood and Adam Sanford send down the odd very brief spell of good bowling. Broad has actually bowled OK on a few occasions in Tests so far, he just hasn't been gifted a really big haul yet, but he could easily have been.

Anderson, for me, was overall utterly rubbish between 2003 and 2007/08. He had the odd spell where he bowled brilliantly, and these were in a tiny minority. If I'd had my way, virtually none of them would've happened because I'd almost never have picked Anderson during this timeframe.

And of course, had that happened it'd have been the usual utter bull**** about "county cricket sapped the youthful energy out of him and he should've been pitched into Test cricket while still fresh".

 

[Richard]

Anderson hadn't reached his potential in 2003 and yet still bowled well enough to take a hat-trick against Pakistan in an ODI and a five-for on debut against a (decent I think?) Zimbabwe test side.

Nah, that series in 2003 was the first time we saw that Zimbabwe were obviously below Test standard. They were denounced as the weakest side ever to tour England, and probably rightly so. Andy Flower had gone (that was the big thing); Alastair Campbell, Guy Whittall, Paul Strang and Henry Olonga had gone (none of these were outstanding Test players but they were all better than what replaced them). Streak and a vastly reduced in powers Grant Flower were still around, but they couldn't make them Test-class by themselves. Mark Butcher and Anthony McGrath, part-time bowlers at county level, knocked them over in the series opener.

And as regards his 2003 summer - that hat-trick, even though he'd bowled decently earlier in that game, was the ultimate example of how things worked in his favour in ODIs that summer. He really didn't bowl all that well, but he took stacks and stacks of wickets in the 7 games against ODI-standard teams. In the hat-trick case, he merely benefited from end-of-innings swinging.

 

[ozone]

Nah, that series in 2003 was the first time we saw that Zimbabwe were obviously below Test standard. They were denounced as the weakest side ever to tour England, and probably rightly so. Andy Flower had gone (that was the big thing); Alastair Campbell, Guy Whittall, Paul Strang and Henry Olonga had gone (none of these were outstanding Test players but they were all better than what replaced them). Streak and a vastly reduced in powers Grant Flower were still around, but they couldn't make them Test-class by themselves. Mark Butcher and Anthony McGrath, part-time bowlers at county level, knocked them over in the series opener.

Fair enough, wasn't sure of the standard, only remembered Anderson bagged a five-for.

And as regards his 2003 summer - that hat-trick, even though he'd bowled decently earlier in that game, was the ultimate example of how things worked in his favour in ODIs that summer. He really didn't bowl all that well, but he took stacks and stacks of wickets in the 7 games against ODI-standard teams. In the hat-trick case, he merely benefited from end-of-innings swinging.

IMO, taking stacks of wickets in 7 ODIs against decent teams, is a fairly good clue that someone has potential. Of course he benefitted from end-of-the-innings swinging (although looking back only one of his wickets was caught in front of the wicket), but he also managed to bowl deliveries that were full and straight at the end of the innings, something which England bowlers around this time struggled with.

 

[fredfertang]

Anderson suffered from being fast tracked to such an extent he simply didn't have a clue how to bowl to good batsmen on decent tracks - that made him look ordinary and didn't help his confidence - he now has more nous hence his improvement

Mr Corrin is right - the Burnley Express will be in every sub editors mind all summer - I foresee some painful punning in the tabloids

 

[Richard]

IMO, taking stacks of wickets in 7 ODIs against decent teams, is a fairly good clue that someone has potential. Of course he benefitted from end-of-the-innings swinging (although looking back only one of his wickets was caught in front of the wicket), but he also managed to bowl deliveries that were full and straight at the end of the innings, something which England bowlers around this time struggled with.

I wouldn't dispute that something of his ODI bowling that summer demonstrated his potential - as I say, he even bowled genuinely well on at least a couple of occasions. But there's just no two ways about the fact that his figures flattered him, considerably:
First ODI against Pakistan he bowled terribly and somehow came out with 10-59-3;
Second ODI he bowled pretty decently but had 8.3-27-1 at one point and with some more judicious end-of-innings batting might well have finished with just the single wicket;
Third ODI he bowled poorly and got 10-52-1;
First game against SA he bowled poorly and got 10-54-2;
Second game he bowled poorly and got 7-37-1;
Third game he started dreadfully (2-24-0) then came back and bowled better but not anywhere near as well as his figures (8-14-4) suggested;
Final he was easily the worst of the England bowlers but his figures (10-50-3) still looked good on the average count.

You look at 7 games, average 17.61, economy-rate 4.8-an-over and that looks great to most eyes. But it doesn't tell an accurate story, at all.

 

[ozone]

First ODI against Pakistan he bowled terribly and somehow came out with 10-59-3

Unfair, his first 3 overs went for 26 (mainly boundaries) but after that he bowled alright. And his three wickets were all batsmen (Hafeez, Younis Khan and Latif)

Second ODI he bowled pretty decently but had 8.3-27-1 at one point and with some more judicious end-of-innings batting might well have finished with just the single wicket

TBF, two of his last three wickets were taken with good deliveries rather than batsmen slogging so 9-27-4 is probably fair.

Third ODI he bowled poorly and got 10-52-1

Yes he bowled poorly here, bowled too many four balls.

First game against SA he bowled poorly and got 10-54-2

Opening spell was 7-33-2 with both openers the wickets. This IMO, isn't a bad spell Didn't come back until 39th over when SA had wickets in hand and were swinging (scored about 100 runs in 11 overs from the time when Anderson came back into the attack)

Second game he bowled poorly and got 7-37-1

Again, agree he bowled poorly here although his wicket was Smith.

Third game he started dreadfully (2-24-0) then came back and bowled better but not anywhere near as well as his figures (8-14-4) suggested

Forget his first two, his first went for 19. TBH, he only bowled one really poor over, and picked up four wickets, three of which were in the middle overs, so it wasn't as if he was benefitting from batsmen hitting out.

Final he was easily the worst of the England bowlers but his figures (10-50-3) still looked good on the average count

Easily the worst of Englands bowlers on a day when Gough returned figures of 7-9-2 though? Was expensive, but still picking up wickets.


Overall, although he was flattered to an extent by his figures, he certainly bowled a lot better than you seem to be giving him credit for. He was doing what he was supposed to be doing at the time; taking wickets at the expense of a few runs. This was a stage where Anderson would pitch the ball up further than he does now, and because of this he would serve up more half-volleys, but would also bowl more wicket taking deliveries.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Unfair, his first 3 overs went for 26 (mainly boundaries) but after that he bowled alright. And his three wickets were all batsmen (Hafeez, Younis Khan and Latif)

All of them were poor ODI batsmen at the time. Younis Khan has improved since, though.

 

[ozone]

All of them were poor ODI batsmen at the time. Younis Khan has improved since, though.

Still batsmen though, and Younis was probably the third best batsmen in the team at the time.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Still batsmen though, and Younis was probably the third best batsmen in the team at the time.

Poor batsmen. Theoretically then, it's not necessarily good bowling to get them out.

EDIT: And at that stage Younis Khan had played 80odd innings without an ODI hundred. He was a poor batsman.

 

[Richard]

Unfair, his first 3 overs went for 26 (mainly boundaries) but after that he bowled alright. And his three wickets were all batsmen (Hafeez, Younis Khan and Latif)

As Camps has said, they may have been batsmen but they were all very, very poor ones. And I watched that game in full - I don't think he bowled well in his second spell (7-33-3) at all TBH, just bad batsmen playing poorly.

TBF, two of his last three wickets were taken with good deliveries rather than batsmen slogging so 9-27-4 is probably fair.

Yes, but even so, end-of-innings wickets (3 in 3 balls) is always something I look for making figures look, suddenly, far better than they had been, and if that happens I doubt the genuine-ness of the spell's figures. Anderson bowled OK that game, but not 9-27-4 well, IMO. If he'd got 9-29-1 it'd have been no injustice.

Opening spell was 7-33-2 with both openers the wickets. This IMO, isn't a bad spell Didn't come back until 39th over when SA had wickets in hand and were swinging (scored about 100 runs in 11 overs from the time when Anderson came back into the attack)

Fair enough there, really. I've often said that 7-33-2 as a spell at the start of the innings isn't too bad. This wasn't a good whole-innings-spell, but I suppose it wasn't a poor one either.

Forget his first two, his first went for 19. TBH, he only bowled one really poor over, and picked up four wickets, three of which were in the middle overs, so it wasn't as if he was benefitting from batsmen hitting out.

No, but as I say - 8-14-4 flattered him. He bowled pretty decently, but almost all the wickets were genuinely poor batting (not just bad batting enforced by good economy-rate).

Easily the worst of Englands bowlers on a day when Gough returned figures of 7-9-2 though? Was expensive, but still picking up wickets.

Gough was obviously better; Flintoff (6.1-18-2) was certainly so IMO; Johnson I suppose (6-26-1) you could argue wasn't. But even Giles, who'd been utterly hopeless all summer up to the previous game, outbowled him in his 3 overs. Albeit Giles benefited from the game situation when he came on, but he and Anderson were for a time bowling around the same stage. 10-50-3 were poor figures in those circumstances, IMO.

Overall, although he was flattered to an extent by his figures, he certainly bowled a lot better than you seem to be giving him credit for. He was doing what he was supposed to be doing at the time; taking wickets at the expense of a few runs. This was a stage where Anderson would pitch the ball up further than he does now, and because of this he would serve up more half-volleys, but would also bowl more wicket taking deliveries.

As I say - he may have been doing the job expected, but I don't think he bowled anywhere near as well as an average of 17. Something like 25 or 26 would've been more appropriate, IMO.

 

[ozone]

As I say - he may have been doing the job expected, but I don't think he bowled anywhere near as well as an average of 17. Something like 25 or 26 would've been more appropriate, IMO.

But the type of bowler he was (i.e. expensive wicket taker), even when he takes wickets he might not be bowling with brilliant consistancy, or particularly well. (saying was because I think he has changed his bowling style in last year or so)

BTW, was actually agreeing that he didn't bowl well in that final game, but wanted to make the point that despite this he was taking wickets.