James Anderson

[Manee]

Not County standard until 2009? =/ That's basically saying he was on a similar level to James Anyon until 2009, despite the fact that Onions took 51 wickets at 31 in 06, 45 at 33 in 07 and 25 at 26 in 2008; failing to see how he's only just become county standard tbh. Those aren't the statistics of a bowler who wasn't even County standard, especially considering he was taking decent hauls of wickets for a County with one of the best groups of fast bowlers in the Country.

Don't get in a stat war about whether a player is x-standard, with Richard, just not smart.

 

[King Pietersen]

Don't get in a stat war about whether a player is x-standard, with Richard, just not smart.

Fair point. Realised it probably wasn't the best of ideas when I was typing it and looking up the stats, but I struggle to see how getting into the Durham side, given how many decent quicks they've got and then taking decent hauls of wickets at healthy averages in 06, 07 and 08 doesn't make him at the very least County standard. I'd seen him bowl on a couple of occasions, like yourself, in OD games where he'd looked a decent bowler as well. Just struggling to see the logic tbh.

 

[Richard]

He didn't look too bad prior to 2009 though. I saw him in a few OD matches and he looked to have more speed than the other bowlers in the game and he seemed to beat the bat more often; common signs of a bowler being at or above the level he is playing.

Looking like he had potential (which I'll gladly not comment on whether he did or did not because I didn't study him with enough attention-to-detail to decide on that) and being good enough are two different things.

 

[Richard]

Not County standard until 2009? =/ That's basically saying he was on a similar level to James Anyon until 2009

Not really. County-standard and not-county-standard are not two exclusive entities; there are different levels. I'm not county standard, nor is James Anyon; he's still a damn sight better than me. Onions was in my book a bit below county-standard until 2009; Anyon has always been a fair way below it. I've always been and always will be so far below it as to be off-the-scale.

despite the fact that Onions took 51 wickets at 31 in 06, 45 at 33 in 07 and 25 at 26 in 2008; failing to see how he's only just become county standard tbh. Those aren't the statistics of a bowler who wasn't even County standard, especially considering he was taking decent hauls of wickets for a County with one of the best groups of fast bowlers in the Country.

I'd consider a county-standard bowler has to have a minimum of one season of taking 50+ wickets at <30; in fact two or three in a row really. Onions never looked like doing that. He was just a moderate backup bowler (Gibson, Davies, Harmison and in fact even Killeen were always clearly better until last season) before 2009.

 

[King Pietersen]

Well I guess that's where our opinions differ then, I'm obviously far looser with the term County Standard, as I think Onions put together more than respectable figures in those years and was definitely County Standard. I'd personally consider bowlers gaining the figures you described as the higher level County bowlers, not the ones that have only just made it to County standard. Guess that's where we'll have to beg to differ.

 

[Flem274*]

Not really. County-standard and not-county-standard are not two exclusive entities; there are different levels. I'm not county standard, nor is James Anyon; he's still a damn sight better than me. Onions was in my book a bit below county-standard until 2009; Anyon has always been a fair way below it. I've always been and always will be so far below it as to be off-the-scale.

I'd consider a county-standard bowler has to have a minimum of one season of taking 50+ wickets at <30; in fact two or three in a row really. Onions never looked like doing that. He was just a moderate backup bowler (Gibson, Davies, Harmison and in fact even Killeen were always clearly better until last season) before 2009.

You've just described a good domestic bowler.

Would extend that rough average to around 35 personally. They're not flash, but they're handy enough at FC level.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Onions was in my book a bit below county-standard until 2009

Ahhh...so he's gone from being "club standard" to "a bit below county-standard". Please don't try to justify this by saying they are similar, the difference is huge.

 

[Richard]

You've just described a good domestic bowler.

Would extend that rough average to around 35 personally. They're not flash, but they're handy enough at FC level.

Hmm, that's why I say plenty of people are easily satisfied - same as the "an economy-rate of 4.7-an-over isn't too bad" stuff discussed ad nauseum down the years. I've always said that in my book broadly speaking an average (whether seasonal or career) of:
33+ = not-good and highly questionable whether someone deserves to be called \ have their season's work judged as <insert level>-standard.
30-33 = just-about-acceptable but not very good.
27-30 = pretty good
24-27 = outstanding
21-24 = just about as good as you'll get
Less than 21 = the sort of thing only the very, very best ever (in modern times - ie post-1930) manage.

These things are of course far from invariable as almost nothing is without exceptions. But it's a decent outline guide.

 

[Richard]

Ahhh...so he's gone from being "club standard" to "a bit below county-standard". Please don't try to justify this by saying they are similar, the difference is huge.

I'll justify saying whatever I want. How does "club standard" have any more of a concrete definition (apart possibly from various people's emotive terminology) than "county standard" or "Test standard" or anything else? If someone's county standard then they're also club standard. Club standard can be anything from good enough to play club cricket upwards. By "barely above club standard" (as I described Onions in April 2009 pre-season) I mean "below county standard". How far below county standard I have not specified by saying "club standard".

Granted it'd be nice for some people if I had though.

 

[Richard]

Well I guess that's where our opinions differ then, I'm obviously far looser with the term County Standard, as I think Onions put together more than respectable figures in those years and was definitely County Standard. I'd personally consider bowlers gaining the figures you described as the higher level County bowlers, not the ones that have only just made it to County standard. Guess that's where we'll have to beg to differ.

You are of course quite entitled to define it however you wish. As I say I think some people are rather easily satisfied. As long as people are clear what - roughly - I mean when I describe a player however there should mostly be no problem.

 

[GIMH]

I'll justify saying whatever I want. How does "club standard" have any more of a concrete definition (apart possibly from various people's emotive terminology) than "county standard" or "Test standard" or anything else? If someone's county standard then they're also club standard. Club standard can be anything from good enough to play club cricket upwards. By "barely above club standard" (as I described Onions in April 2009 pre-season) I mean "below county standard". How far below county standard I have not specified by saying "club standard".

Granted it'd be nice for some people if I had though.

Was during his Test debut actually

Still a dreadful selection, obviously. You could virtually have picked a decent club bowler (which is what Onions is mostly little more than) and he'd have run through the pathetic batting West Indies managed in that first-innings.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Many club bowlers are higher standard than some County bowlers simply because they can make a better living outside of the game and don't wish to play County Cricket. Onions belongs in the Girl Guide Under 12's.

 

[FBU]

Here are some bowlers -
First class bowling averages minus Tests

Davies - 21.68
Anderson - 24.52
Willoughby - 25.09
Sidebottom - 25.25
Hoggard - 25.53
Thorp - 25.98
Harmison - 26.12
Cork - 26.15
Lewis - 26.22
Ali - 26.84
Kirtley - 26.96
Broad - 27.11
Silverwood - 27.16
Chapple - 27.60
Woakes - 28.02
Kirby - 28.12
Tremlett - 28.61
Rankin - 28.77
Fletcher - 29.00
Clare - 29.03
Plunkett - 29.23
Murtagh - 29.40
Richardson - 29.79
Masters - 29.93
Onions - 29.97
Shreck - 30.49
JHarris - 30.70
Tudor - 31.14
SJones - 31.24
AKhan - 31.46
Lucas - 31.86
Joseph - 31.82
Mahmood - 31.89
Finn - 31.93
Lungley - 31.95
AHarris - 32.46
Newby - 33.38
Shahzad - 35.03
Tomlinson - 35.49
Griffiths - 36.02
Hogg - 36.11
Pattinson - 37.80
Dernbach - 39.93
Jordan - 40.53
Meaker - 45.50

 

[Goughy]

Meaker and Jordan to open the bowling for England in the Summer then

 

[Richard]

Was during his Test debut actually

I see - I'd had several ciders by the time I wrote that so my memory wouldn't have been quite as good as normal. Either way, I suppose the point is that it was based on everything before last season.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I remember Richard claiming that Onions was a club bowler and when questioned on it said it was using exaggeration to make a point. The discussion must still be there if anyone can be arsed to look for it.

 

[Manee]

Their head faults are not comparable.

On this note, I went down the nets yesterday, should probably sort my head position out.

 

[Daemon]

I’ve come around to bracket him as an ATG. Just borderline but the sheer number of wickets, fitness and skill is too hard to ignore.

 

[Howe_zat]

There's got to be some disastrous takes in this thread. Someone who can digest the richard spam to find them

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Anderson in test cricket is going to be the typical English "not-quite-there" bowler.

He's never going to achieve what we think he could in test cricket, a bit like Alex Tudour, he's good, but i think his style of bowling will not get the best results long term in tests.