When You Changed Your Mind About a Player

[Richard]

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.

Yeah. The point is that such bowlers aren't (in ODIs) especially good bowlers.

BTW, Anderson hasn't gotten any better at ODIs throughout his career. His figures have gotten steadily worse as the sheen has rubbed off his golden arm. Apart from that summer of 2003, his ODI bowling figures against ODI-standard sides are very, very poor indeed.

 

[susudear]

Not really

Was "shockin" for more than just the previous Ashes - he was "shockin" right up until the summer of 2008.

Was reasonably good in the India series of 2007. 14 wickets @ 35 may sound not that good, but belies his efforts in that series.

 

[Uppercut]

Was reasonably good in the India series of 2007. 14 wickets @ 35 may sound not that good, but belies his efforts in that series.

He was a world-beater during the Great Lord's Robbery, as good a swing bowling effort as you could ever expect to see. Bowled poorly in the subsequent two matches. Sort of sums him up pre-2008.

 

[Richard]

And his Lord's Test was a curate's-egg - bowled superbly in the first-innings, then poorly in the second-.

 

[ozone]

Yeah. The point is that such bowlers aren't (in ODIs) especially good bowlers.

That depends on your point of view. Andersons economy rate in ODI's is 4.94, which isn't neccessarily that bad for a bowler who bowls a lot of overs at the end of the innings. If you take 4.94 as an innings economy rate, it would leave the side chasing 248 to win which in the current game (with flat pitches, worse bowlers etc.) is a very achievable target. Rather than critiscise him for being too expensive, my problem with him would be that he doesn't take enough wickets, considering he is the wicket-taking bowler.

 

[Richard]

Anderson's economy-rate against ODI-standard sides in any case is 5.19. No matter, both that and 4.94 are diabolical, death-bowler or no death-bowler (an ER that high just tends to suggest you're a very poor-quality death-bowler). Anderson's average, as I say, is also poor - IIRR, 34.something against ODI-standard sides, and excluding the golden-arm summer of 2003 it's even higher.

Anderson has never been particularly good at ODIs. Funnily enough, like most, he's actually not someone who "goes for runs but takes wickets" - such bowlers are actually exceptionally rare. Like most bowlers with high economy-rates and low averages, he actually tends to bowl economically on the occasions he bowls wicket-taking deliveries up-front and when he's expensive doesn't threaten with the new-ball (though obviously sometimes bad batting will gift you wickets later on).

Anderson has always been someone who'll bowl well once then poorly six or seven times. When he bowls well he'll generally take something along the lines of 8-28-3 (usually if he bowls well the opposition don't last their 50 overs so he doesn't bowl 10) and when he bowls poorly it's usually along the lines of 10-58-1. So if you're getting that, Anderson is not someone I'd want anywhere near the ODI team and nor has he ever been. I've never been keen on the idea of him playing when I want England to win (and I only want him to play when the result doesn't matter so as hopefully people will realise how bad he is and drop him by the time the games that do matter come around. Sadly he's played both the last two World Cups and despite one brilliant spell has mostly been execrable in them).

 

[ozone]

I respectfully disagree. I honestly think that James Anderson is our second best OD bowler and will be for the forseeable future.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, presumably you're including Flintoff as #1, in ODIs I would actually take Broad over Jimmy, possibly Sidebottom as well

 

[Richard]

I respectfully disagree. I honestly think that James Anderson is our second best OD bowler and will be for the forseeable future.

I'd say Sidebottom, Broad, Swann and, provided all goes well, Mascarenhas are all easily better (Flintoff obviously is the #1 and has been for many years now).

Anderson should not be in the ODI team IMO, never mind the leading bowler. If Mascarenhas can regain some bowling form, he should replace him anyday.

 

[Uppercut]

Hmm, presumably you're including Flintoff as #1, in ODIs I would actually take Broad over Jimmy, possibly Sidebottom as well

Sidebottom's a definite, I'd also take Swann over Jimmy. So he's probably fifth-best. You'd have to be badly blurring ODIs and tests to have Anderson over Broad.

 

[ozone]

Sidebottom has played just 16 ODIs and is in no way a certainty for the Windies ODIs so I would put Anderson above him. Broad is a far better cricketer than Anderson and is almost certainly going to become a better bowler, but at the moment I would still rather have Anderson bowling than Broad.

Fair enough with Swann, was more thinking in the seam department when I made the statement, so having Swann ahead of him is fair enough.

As for Dimi, I would have him in every England ODI side and would have done for the past 4/5 years, but I think his job in the England side would be to bowl 10 overs for < 40, and if he picked up a couple of wickets along the way, it would be great. I don't see him as a bowler who could single-handedly win an international game.

 

[Richard]

Sidebottom has played just 16 ODIs and is in no way a certainty for the Windies ODIs so I would put Anderson above him. Broad is a far better cricketer than Anderson and is almost certainly going to become a better bowler, but at the moment I would still rather have Anderson bowling than Broad.

Few ODIs though Sidebottom has played, he simply strikes me (and I'm surprised he'd not strike anyone TBH) as being possessed of far more basic skills than Anderson - ie, his lines and lengths are so much better it's untrue. He also looks to me to have more of a clue about what to do when a batsman looks to really take to him. Sidebottom certainly isn't a proven ODI bowler, far from it, but he does look a potentially good one. Anderson, in my view, doesn't and never has.

As for Broad - in England's last 25 ODIs (ie, since October 2007), Broad's figures read economy-rate 4.85-an-over, average 23.85. In the same time, Anderson's (he was dropped for the most recent one) are economy-rate 5.56-an-over, average 65.57. I just can't see how Anderson can be considered > Broad in the ODI game currently.

As for Dimi, I would have him in every England ODI side and would have done for the past 4/5 years, but I think his job in the England side would be to bowl 10 overs for < 40, and if he picked up a couple of wickets along the way, it would be great. I don't see him as a bowler who could single-handedly win an international game.

Mascarenhas would indeed be good for such a job and probably not very often much beyond it. However, pretty well no bowler can ever single-handedly win a one-day game. When you're limited to 10 overs, taking the five- or six-for required to do that is a once-in-50-games or so occurrance, for all but the very, very best bowlers. I reckon that isn't beyond Mascarenhas but clearly he'd be likely to do it less often than an Anderson would. However, he'd also be likely to go for the 10-58-1-type figures far, far less often. Ergo, he'd play a large part in losing far fewer games. Ergo, to me, he'd be a much better bowler.

That, however, is an if. Mascarenhas' bowling form was poor in 2008 - regularly went for plenty - and he needs to rediscover his 2007 form before I can get my hopes up about him.

 

[aussie]

Mike Kasprowicz - Never really thought much of him when i first saw him in 98. What he did in 2004 really suprised me.

Monty Panesar - Was definately as i expect many English fans, big thing from him after his exploits in 2006. But since SRI 07 he really has disappointed me & i think its time the selectors stop making him an automatic choice.

Graeme Smith - Still have my question marks about him againts good to top-quality bowling. Unfortunately Australia & England in 2008 had been poor againts him, so my qualms still exist.

Razzaq & Mahmood - Very surprised at how their have dipped after the 99 WC tbh. Really tought they would be big all-rounders this millenium.

No one else comes to mind ATM..

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Kasprowicz for me too. Had the likes of Reiffel, Fleming and Gillespie not been so injury-prone (and had McDermott, Reid and Hughes not been forced into early retirement by injury) it's very possible he'd not even have played Test cricket until 2004. Certainly I never thought all that much of him up to that point and thought he was lucky to have played as much as he had. But he bowled absolutely superbly that calendar-year, showing the folly of leaving him out in favour of the likes of Lee, Williams and Bracken in 2003.

Abdur\l Razzaq and Azhar Mahmood, incidentally, I never really changed my mind on. Have thought Mahmood was a very moderate all-rounder who should never have been anywhere near ODI or Test cricket all his career and never changed that, and all the same time I've thought Razzaq a pretty moderate bowler who was a very dangerous batsman who did about all that could be hoped of him in ODIs and disappointed in Tests.

 

[howardj]

Andrew McDonald.

Suspected he was ordinary.

Changed my mind to woeful.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Quite impressed at your turnaround on O'Brilliant tbh, thought you might stick to your old opinion like glue and do a bit of a Richard-on-Harmison thing.

Glad it's caught on.

 

[DaRick]

Well, there were some (like Steve Harmison and RP Singh) who never convinced me for the most part, but were capable of bowling the odd good to great spell. My thoughts on them have never really changed.

There were blokes like Monty Panesar, who I defended against Richard some years ago, but who has simply regressed badly over the past couple of years. He hasn't expanded his game at all. He continues to be completely predictable, relying on turn, bounce and an arm ball. He rarely flights the ball and bowls more rubbish these days, too. I have changed my mind about Andrew Symonds from a personal perspective (even though he was never a bright spark), but probably not a cricketing one.

Of course, I've changed my mind about Nathan Hauritz. I thought he was lucky to get in ahead of Krejza in December 2008 and indeed, showed only an ability to hold up an end (even though he did that much, much better than Krejza ever did), without turning or flighting the ball much. He also didn't use his arm ball all that much. Now he's obviously changed. He's varying his pace and flight very well and using his arm ball judiciously. He could do with more turn, but he has convinced me of his improvement.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I was forced to change my mind about Virender Sehwag.