***Official*** New Zealand in England series 2013

[flibbertyjibber]

Being 1 up it may be worth picking Bresnan for Finn if only to find out if the operation worked. If he still is down on speed and can't take wickets then Bresnan becomes a one day specialist and shouldn't be considered for test cricket.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Re: Vettori turning the ball - you don't remember the 90's?

Grunge, flannel shirts, heroin, Britpop, cocaine...?

So, in short: no.

Seriously tho; Daniel was never a huge turner, was he? Used flight more.

 

[marc71178]

He can say what he likes about who's the "most skillful"; the fact is that Steyn and Philander have demonstrated on tracks around the world that they are clearly better bowlers than Jimmy, and that's pretty incontrovertible. The Jimmy nuthuggers are in danger of triggering a backlash against their man by outdoing the Indian Zaheer Khan loons - and I say this as a massive fan of Anderson.

So tracks all around the world excludes Australia, West Indies, India, Pakistan/UAE, Sri Lanka etc. then does it?

Philander has shown nothing of the sort as yet.

 

[Jezroy]

Seriously tho; Daniel was never a huge turner, was he? Used flight more.

Never a huge turner, but could turn it. A long time ago.

OK, so this is 2000... But there's a couple in there that spin.

Daniel Vettori bowling highlight - YouTube

 

[CWB304]

So tracks all around the world excludes Australia, West Indies, India, Pakistan/UAE, Sri Lanka etc. then does it?

Philander has shown nothing of the sort as yet.

I didn't claim he has played everywhere. In SA, NZ, and England where he has played, he has performed roughly on par with the man who is widely acknowledged to be best pace bowler going, and probably one of the best of all time, Dale Steyn. The sample size is already big enough to conclude that he is better than Anderson; quibbling about details in the hopes he will turn into Ishant Sharma whenever he gets to wherever it is that you consider to be the true testing ground of a seam bowler's worth doesn't change the simple fact that anyone claiming that Anderson is more skillful than Steyn or Philander is talking out of his arse.

 

[marc71178]

Absolute bollocks is the sample size (4 countries of which 1 he was dire in and 1 he was good but by no means excellent) big enough to say he has "demonstrated on tracks around the world that he is a clearly better bowler".

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Look Saker is just praising his own players and using a bit of hyperbole - that is hardly anything new, and Anderson is a very good international swing bowler

What he should have said:

"Jimmy Anderson is perhaps the most skilful bowler with the duke ball on overcast days in England" (* the 2 South Africans and spot-fixing Pakistanis may still be better there anyway). He averages 35 away from England - funnily enough averages 35 from his two tests in Wales as well:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Adders]

Anderson's average hovers around thirty - and has been doing so for the past three or four years, despite people always using the inconsistent early part of his career and resulting high average to explain away this good but not great showing.

.

It is a perfectly valid argument though. Are you seriously suggesting that Jimmys average of 30ish is a true reflection of the bowler we've seen the last 4 years??

At the end of his career when we are weighing up how good a bowler Anderson was then of course you have to look at his entire career, and he will forever be weighed down by those early years. But those of us not stats obsessed will know that he was a better bowler than whatever his career average ends up being.

 

[Mike5181]

Absolute bollocks is the sample size (4 countries of which 1 he was dire in and 1 he was good but by no means excellent) big enough to say he has "demonstrated on tracks around the world that he is a clearly better bowler".

I've watched Philander bowl several times now, good and bad performances, and I'd take him over Anderson comfortably at the moment. Anderson's a great bowler, but he's not in the same class as Steyn/Philander. He's more of a 25-27 average guy at the moment.

 

[Teja.]

Anderson over the last six or so years since the beginning of 2008 has 243 wickets @ 27.8 which isn't drastically different from averaging 30. Beyond that, you'll have to break it down to peak years and such which aren't reflective of career quality as a whole.

His career bowling average of 30 is fairly reflective of a bloke who's averaged 28 since he hit his straps and had a few **** years before. It's really not as drastic as people make out.

 

[Cabinet96]

For **** sake. Is it really so wrong for a coach to praise his best student? He hasn't even said he's the best bowler in the world either (unlike many of the English media have) he's just come up with something to give him great praise when asked about him by the media.

 

[Cabinet96]

What he should have said:

"Jimmy Anderson is perhaps the most skilful bowler with the duke ball on overcast days in England" (* the 2 South Africans and spot-fixing Pakistanis may still be better there anyway). He averages 35 away from England - funnily enough averages 35 from his two tests in Wales as well:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Nah, it's not 2008 mate.

 

[Teja.]

For **** sake. Is it really so wrong for a coach to praise his best student? He hasn't even said he's the best bowler in the world either (unlike many of the English media have) he's just come up with something to give him great praise when asked about him by the media.

Yeah, I wasn't really responding to the Saker thing - just the point of Anderson's stats grossly misrepresenting his career.

I have absolutely no problem with what Saker said - It'd in fact be dire for the bowling coach to come out and say "Yeah, Jimmy's really high quality but that Steyn bloke is just something else" when asked if he rates Anderson.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, I wasn't really responding to the Saker thing - just the point of Anderson's stats grossly misrepresenting his career.

I have absolutely no problem with what Saker said - It'd in fact be dire for the bowling coach to come out and say "Yeah, Jimmy's really high quality but that Steyn bloke is just something else" when asked if he rates Anderson.

And I hadn't seen yours when I made mine

I actually agree with you though. Anderson's average dropped below 31 after the last Ashes series. We've been waiting for it to drop below 30 for over two years now, but it hasn't once.

I'd actually bet that Broad will finish with a better career average than Anderson.

 

[Adders]

Anderson over the last six or so years since the beginning of 2008 has 243 wickets @ 27.8 which isn't drastically different from averaging 30.

And since the beginning of 2010 he has 157 wickets @ 25.7 which is a fair way below his career ave of 30.14.

 

[Teja.]

And since the beginning of 2010 he has 157 wickets @ 25.7 which is a fair way below his career ave of 30.14.

Yeah indeed, but you're now considering three years of his career and 50% of his wickets as opposed to over 80% of his wickets since when he become a good test bowler in 2008. (243 of 300)

There's very very few bowlers with substantial careers* who wouldn't have significantly better averages if you consider merely their best three years.

* - Outside of bowlers with freakish overall records close to impossible to improve on even in a peak anyway like Marshall/Ambrose.

 

[Adders]

We've been waiting for it to drop below 30 for over two years now, but it hasn't once.

.

Mate, he's played 81 tests, his average is going to change very slowly. If he took 10 fer 0 next innings his average would only just dip below 30.

Look at his yearly averages pre 2008.....

2003 - 34.85
2004 - 31.29
2005 - 74.5
2006 - 47.74
2007 - 40.49

At the start of 2008 he had 62 wickets @ 39.209 to his name.......it's gonna take a good few years of excellent returns to fix that up.

 

[Adders]

Yeah indeed, but you're now considering three years of his career and 50% of his wickets as opposed to over 80% of his wickets since when he become a good test bowler in 2008. (243 of 300)

There's very very few bowlers with substantial careers* who wouldn't have significantly better averages if you consider merely their best three years.

.

But I'm not looking at his best 3 years, I'm looking at his last 3 years (3 1/2 actually) which is all that's relevant to how good he currently is.

As I've already conceded when we way his career up as a whole and in time once someone starts an Anderson V's ********* thread, then of course you look at those crap years.

 

[Teja.]

Mate, he's played 81 tests, his average is going to change very slowly. If he took 10 fer 0 next innings his average would only just dip below 30.

Look at his yearly averages pre 2008.....

2003 - 34.85
2004 - 31.29
2005 - 74.5
2006 - 47.74
2007 - 40.49

At the start of 2008 he had 62 wickets @ 39.209 to his name.......it's gonna take a good few years of excellent returns to fix that up.

I really should stop nerding out of this debate for everyone but for bad bowing average inertia what matters directly is not the number of bad years but rather the number of wickets taken at a worse average.

The fact that Anderson has as many years with a bad average as with a good average doesn't really pull him down by as much that raw figure indicates because he's taken only a small portion of wickets in that time frame

Anderson has 62 wickets @ 39, (roughly 20%) like you said and 240-odd wickets @ 28 (roughly 80%). Boom, he averages 30 with the ball. I really, really don't see the injustice from a statistical POV.

The real argument you can make for Anderson not being represented fairly by his overall stats is that over the last few years, he has done exceedingly well as a crunch bowler and creates wickets for the other end by being very tight and consistent which is a fair point to make.

 

[Teja.]

But I'm not looking at his best 3 years, I'm looking at his last 3 years (3 1/2 actually) which is all that's relevant to how good he currently is.

As I've already conceded when we way his career up as a whole and in time once someone starts an Anderson V's ********* thread, then of course you look at those crap years.

Yeah, this is fair I guess, I agree. Didn't read this before I made my next post.

I was debating the premise in general that his stats are not reflective of his career. Peace out.