James Anderson

[Scaly piscine]

Not sure why he isn't an automatic pick in our team ATM. He is hands down the leader of our attack in all formats. Although him being the leader is pretty much like when Vanburn Holder was leading the WI attack in the early 70s after Hall/Griffith retired, which kind of gives you an idea of how average the pace stocks are with ENG right now.

But i expect to see Anderson improving though, i reckon he could by the end of his career he'll be a better test bowler than Hoggard.

There is no leader except when Flintoff plays/played. He's just another bowler, who happens to be completely innocuous most of the time.

Being a better Test bowler than Hoggard isn't saying much. One of the most over-rated bowlers ever. Another guy who was a luxury bowler, good at certain times but a complete waste of time otherwise. The difference is Hoggard was bowled sparingly when the ball did nothing, something which doesn't happen with Anderson because at present he's one of only three seamers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Such is the paucity of fast bowlers in England some people are fooled into thinking the likes of Anderson are quality bowlers - especially when placed along side fodder like Onions.

 

[Burgey]

I was just watching Anderson bowl with my young bloke on the lounge. As another innocuous wide half-tracker went past, my 7 year old said "Aw, that's pus".

Out of the mouths of babes.

 

[chalky]

Anderson isn't an outstanding test fast bowler but there isn't many of them going about anywhere in the world these days would get in most test sides especially England's.

 

[chalky]

There is no leader except when Flintoff plays/played. He's just another bowler, who happens to be completely innocuous most of the time.

Being a better Test bowler than Hoggard isn't saying much. One of the most over-rated bowlers ever. Another guy who was a luxury bowler, good at certain times but a complete waste of time otherwise. The difference is Hoggard was bowled sparingly when the ball did nothing, something which doesn't happen with Anderson because at present he's one of only three seamers.

One of the reasons why England will need to play 5 bowlers on most occasions IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

Such is the paucity of fast bowlers in England some people are fooled into thinking the likes of Anderson are quality bowlers - especially when placed along side fodder like Onions.

Onions is better I reckon.

Onions>Anderson>Broad.

 

[GIMH]

Onions is better I reckon.

Onions>Anderson>Broad.

We'll see. Too early to make that call.

 

[aussie]

Onions is better I reckon.

Onions>Anderson>Broad.

Ha no way man. Anderson is much better than Onions even when both get bowler friendly conditions. Onions ATS doesn't look like he would have much effect on flat surfaces which would make a easy meat on most overseas pitches. Anderson at least potentially has reverse swing the swing.

Plus dont lets even go to ODIs..

Not sure how he better than Broad. Sidebottom if/when fit is better than Onions also.

 

[aussie]

There is no leader except when Flintoff plays/played. He's just another bowler, who happens to be completely innocuous most of the time.

Yes that is true. But you seem to ignorning how much Anderson has progressed since last winter & ATM is no long "inocuous", he is the leader of the attack. Whether is a WC new-ball bowler is not relevant.

Being a better Test bowler than Hoggard isn't saying much.

Being better than Hoggard at his peak when he learnt to reverse swing the ball between IND 05/06 to NZ 07 would be ATS. Since it would prove Anderson is continuing to improve as a bowler.

One of the most over-rated bowlers ever. Another guy who was a luxury bowler, good at certain times but a complete waste of time otherwise.
The difference is Hoggard was bowled sparingly when the ball did nothing, something which doesn't happen with Anderson because at present he's one of only three seamers.

Not sure how Hoggard is overated TBH. He rated just fairly last i checked.

But back to your point here, as i said above this changed for Hoggard in IND 05/06 when he learnt to reverse swing the ball which enabled him to take that 6 wicket haul in Nagpur 06 & the 7 wicket haul in Adelaide. You forgot how he owned Sehwag technically?.

He was no longer just used with new-ball & hidden away until the next new-ball was available.

 

[Jarquis]

Anderson/Onions >>>>>> Broad.
For the first two it depends on conditions IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

We'll see. Too early to make that call.

Nah, you can definitely make a call at this stage. There's just a good chance you'll get it wrong .

Personally, I think Onions almost always looks more likely to take a wicket than Anderson. He's unproven, but that doesn't mean he's not good.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ha no way man. Anderson is much better than Onions even when both get bowler friendly conditions. Onions ATS doesn't look like he would have much effect on flat surfaces which would make a easy meat on most overseas pitches. Anderson at least potentially has reverse swing the swing.

Plus dont lets even go to ODIs..

Not sure how he better than Broad. Sidebottom if/when fit is better than Onions also.

Onions has comprehensively outbowled Anderson so far in his short Test career. It is also backed up by stats (Onions average about 4-5 runs per wicket less in the games they've both played). I don't think anyone could say Onions has been flattered by the figures he's gotten so far, he was very unlucky yesterday in his first spell. He bowled better than Anderson at Birmingham, Onions took some huge wickets and Anderson just came in afterwards to mop up the lower middle order who were fresh to the crease and under pressure.

Anderson      Onions
22.0-6-70-2   21.3-3-102-7 v West Indies  Lord's 
42.3-10-125-9 24.0-6-98-3  V West Indies  Chester-le-Street
42.0-9-141-4  20.0-1-91-3  v Australia	  Lord's	
45.0-15-127-6 35.4-5-132-5 v Australia	  Birmingham
18.0-3-89-0   22.0-5-80-2  v Australia	  Leeds
37.0-9-104-1  30.0-5-86-3  v South Africa Centurion

If Onions actually got the new ball, like he should do and as Anderson does, his figures would be better still. He is a consistently good bowler. Anderson is a mediocre bowler who happens to be pretty one-dimensional and mercurial.

aussie you haven't backed up your Anderson love/Onions hate with any facts. Less said about your reverse swing comments the better.

 

[aussie]

Onions has comprehensively outbowled Anderson so far in his short Test career. It is also backed up by stats (Onions average about 4-5 runs per wicket less in the games they've both played). I don't think anyone could say Onions has been flattered by the figures he's gotten so far, he was very unlucky yesterday in his first spell. He bowled better than Anderson at Birmingham, Onions took some huge wickets and Anderson just came in afterwards to mop up the lower middle order who were fresh to the crease and under pressure.

Anderson      Onions
22.0-6-70-2   21.3-3-102-7 v West Indies  Lord's 
42.3-10-125-9 24.0-6-98-3  V West Indies  Chester-le-Street
42.0-9-141-4  20.0-1-91-3  v Australia	  Lord's	
45.0-15-127-6 35.4-5-132-5 v Australia	  Birmingham
18.0-3-89-0   22.0-5-80-2  v Australia	  Leeds
37.0-9-104-1  30.0-5-86-3  v South Africa Centurion

.

This is some serious stats picking here. Who cares if Onions ran through a joke WI team in early season ENG conditions & bowled better than vs Anderson.

Thats like saying Richard Johnson was better than Harmison in 2003 because he ran through ZIM in seaming conditions.

Anderson & Onions where even in Ashes when the ball was swinging during those 3 tests. When it wasn't swinging both were less effective but at least Anderson was more economical.

If Onions actually got the new ball, like he should do and as Anderson does, his figures would be better still. He is a consistently good bowler.

Totally disagree Onions would be better if he got the new ball. Both would be equal in such circumstances ATM.

Anderson is a mediocre bowler who happens to be pretty one-dimensional and mercurial.

Haa really its either you have not been watching Anderson bowl over the past year in tests. Since Anderson has clearly moved up a step (not fully as yet) from a one-dimentional bowler who is solely effective in bowler friendly conditions.

aussie you haven't backed up your Anderson love/Onions hate with any facts.

Haa. I have NO love or hate for either of them. I just rate/respect Anderson based on how he has clearly improved in the past year & rate Onions to date has only effective in seamer friendly conditons. Simple.

Less said about your reverse swing comments the better.

Anderson clearly can reverse swing the ball & Hoggard certainly did i dont know what you have been/where watching yo..

You ought to go & look back at the Trinidad test vs WI this winter during Anderson's spell in the final innings.

 

[GIMH]

Nah, you can definitely make a call at this stage. There's just a good chance you'll get it wrong .

Personally, I think Onions almost always looks more likely to take a wicket than Anderson. He's unproven, but that doesn't mean he's not good.

No, but it doesn't mean he is good either.

FTR I do rate Onions but I won't be calling him better than any of our bowlers after just six Tests. And I find Scaly's assessment of the first innings at Edgbaston to be slightly revisionist, also why do we have to ignore the fact that Anderson won us the Lord's Test?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Was Anderson bollocks on a par with Onions in the Ashes. Onions gets SEAM and SWING. Not a huge amount but enough. He also has a pretty effective bouncer. Onions is a far more consistent threat, albeit expensive because he's very attacking/bowls very straight. Anderson is expensive because he's erratic mostly and is only threatening when it swings.

Onions will outperform Anderson 80-90% of the time. It's when there's lethal swing that Anderson can be more threatening - but that's not enough to compensate. Onions is clearly the better bowler from what has happened so far.

 

[GIMH]

Was Anderson bollocks on a par with Onions in the Ashes. Onions gets SEAM and SWING. Not a huge amount but enough. He also has a pretty effective bouncer. Onions is a far more consistent threat, albeit expensive because he's very attacking/bowls very straight. Anderson is expensive because he's erratic mostly and is only threatening when it swings.

Onions will outperform Anderson 80-90% of the time. It's when there's lethal swing that Anderson can be more threatening - but that's not enough to compensate. Onions is clearly the better bowler from what has happened so far.

I never said anyone was on a par with anyone.

Anderson hasn't been all that expensive in quite some time. You don't often see him going for 4 RPO like you did 07 and before. Anderson, IMO did however outbowl Onions in that innings at Edgbaston, he was also our best bowler in our victory at Lord's - quite comfortably better than Onions in that particular match.

Onions has shown promise in Tests so far and I agree he could go on to be a very good Test bowler. But I'm not going to make any statements about who is better than who just yet.

 

[Richard]

From all we'd heard about the world-beater he'd become before The Ashes this year

We didn't hear anything of the sort. As was the case with Bopara back in June where Australians were trying to refute claims no England fans had ever remotely made, people are replying to what they'd like to have been said rather than what has been.

 

[Goughy]

I dont trust Anderson based on his action. I know Ive been saying it for years but he just cant be consistent. Onions has a far steadier action and I was really impressed from the first time I saw him. Not a glamour boy but not a 'daisy' either.

That is not to say Anderson cant be very dangerous when he gets it right (and yes, I have seen him reverse the ball in on many occasions) and it doesnt mean Onions and Anderson cant coexist in the same team.

I do worry with Broad and Anderson leading the attack though.

 

[aussie]

I dont trust Anderson based on his action. I know Ive been saying it for years but he just cant be consistent. Onions has a far steadier action and I was really impressed from the first time I saw him. Not a glamour boy but not a 'daisy' either.

That is not to say Anderson cant be very dangerous when he gets it right (and yes, I have seen him reverse the ball in on many occasions) and it doesnt mean Onions and Anderson cant coexist in the same team.

I do worry with Broad and Anderson leading the attack though.

Indeed as i recently said in this thread Anderson leading the attack is pretty much like when Vanburn Holder was leading the WI attack in the early 70s after Hall/Griffith retired, which kind of gives you an idea of how average the pace stocks are with ENG right now.

Its a troubling phase for ENG ATM with Flintoff gone, i dont really see young talent in the bowling ranks in this country. Which is all very odd given the Ashes was just won, you would expect after winning an Ashes we would be on the up, but rather we're stuck in very preculiar position.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I never said anyone was on a par with anyone.

Anderson hasn't been all that expensive in quite some time. You don't often see him going for 4 RPO like you did 07 and before. Anderson, IMO did however outbowl Onions in that innings at Edgbaston, he was also our best bowler in our victory at Lord's - quite comfortably better than Onions in that particular match.

Onions has shown promise in Tests so far and I agree he could go on to be a very good Test bowler. But I'm not going to make any statements about who is better than who just yet.

Was replying to aussie by and large.

Anderson might not be as expensive as he used to be, but his figures are still ordinary. And no Anderson did not outbowl Onions at Edgbaston. Onions took the key wickets to kick things off. He had Clarke plumb lbw given not out and then dropped shortly after, he also had Hilfenhaus dropped before he was caught on the second change. In contrast Anderson's chances were all taken, plus he had an lbw going over the stumps given out. Anderson bowled one spell where he was lucky enough that someone had done the donkey work for him so he got big reward for any good bowling.