Stapel
International Regular
Fair enough.
It's just that I remember England in SA several years ago. To me, it seemed completely ridiculous to stick with Jimmey at that time. But the England selectors did. I guess they were right. Or just lucky
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** England in West Indies 2015
- Thread starter theegyptian
- Start date
It's just that I remember England in SA several years ago. To me, it seemed completely ridiculous to stick with Jimmey at that time. But the England selectors did. I guess they were right. Or just lucky
Stapel
International Regular
2009/2010. Indeed when Flintoff (and Harmison) was gone and Swann just there. Not sure Anderson's place was that well cemented. I really don't have any proper idea about that.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
He probably means the 2004/05 tour where Anderson played one game and got absolutely hammered.
EDIT: Or not.
Spark
Global Moderator
Yeah it was definitely cemented by then.
Stapel
International Regular
Cheers! On the edit that isHe probably means the 2004/05 tour where Anderson played one game and got absolutely hammered.
EDIT: Or not.
.I simply can't remeber WHY I thought Anderson should go at that time. I only remember thinking he wasn't what England needed.
Stapel
International Regular
I wouldn't disagree with you here. Yet, it does make an interesting question why a bowler averaging mid 30s (at that time) was well cemented!
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
His average was greatly affected by being selected too early when he was pretty rubbish, though. He was left out for a while and then recalled, after which he cemented his spot.
Between his recall in NZ 2007/08 and that series he'd taken 78 wickets in 22 Tests @ 31 which was obviously perfectly good.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
From the sounds of things, perhaps you just took a look at his career average and scoffed at it out of context.
Stapel
International Regular
What I remember about Jimmey is that he was (pre 2010) a typical right-conditions-great-bowler-wrong-conditions-crap-bowler.
Anyway. My favourite fast bowler in the World for some time now.
Stapel
International Regular
Half guilty!From the sounds of things, perhaps you just took a look at his career average and scoffed at it out of context.
I used to go by averages a lot my more than I should. Mostly because I lack real life cricket discussion buddies. In NL only 5000 people (that's including women, children, and foreigners) play cricket. At my cricket club (35 members), no one comes close to watching even 10% of the amount of (test) cricket I watch. Among opponents, there a few like me, but not more than 4....
mightymariner
U19 12th Man
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Nah, his early average is affected by being binned and being selected in random one off situations. When he was actually given a consistent run in the side early doors he tended to average around 30.
He's been a great bowler, comfortably England's best since I've watched cricket and he deserves his place at the top of the pile, if for no other reason than being a ****ing machine who just refuses to break down.