England can beat India "every day of week": Gough

[Shri]

Anderson is gun. Would open the bowling for a 2010 XI with Dale Steyn and Khan would bowl first change.

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh, we're bringing up 06-07 Anderson, fun times

Indeed.

No performance less relevant has ever been spoken about as much.

He was coming in cold off a long injury lay-off with no match fitness and a completely new and remodelled action, which he later canned. He had no business playing and the only reason he was rushed in was the fact that Flintoff (perhaps justifiably) had absolutely no faith in Saj Mahmood. Add in the fact that the team was getting absolutely smashed and it's hardly surprise he didn't bowl well. It's actually a credit to him that he managed to bowl well in Sydney and put in an absolutely superb display in an ODI later on the tour given the circumstances.

I said it before the series (many times) and I think I've been vindicated. It wasn't ridiculous to have concerns about Anderson's potency in Australia, but those who had them should've only done so based on his performances at other times whenever swing wasn't on offer; not the 2006/07 series.

I've made this post about 40 times now; should save it on my laptop and just C+P every time tbh.

 

[Furball]

It is to Shoaib's and others' credit (who average around 30) that they had to bowl to a completely different level of batsmen, against whom the same Anderson came a big cropper. Credit to the big Fred too.

Anderson bowling well != Aussie batsmen are crap. These are good batsmen he's bowling to.

 

[Furball]

From the other thread: Zaheer:- 5,10,3,4,8,4,3,4,6 - 47 wickets in 9 games @ 21.97


WAG. That's playing a lot in India, not England or South Africa.

Yes, congratulations to Zaheer Khan for bowling well at home.

 

[Furball]

Look, I love Anderson but I think it's a bit unfair to shift the goalposts like that.

It's not shifting the goalposts - it's a lot easier to bowl well for 3 games than 4 or 5, as we've seen in the past from Anderson (took no wickets in the last 2 Tests of the 09 Ashes, or the last Test in South Africa).

If Anderson has a good Test in Sydney, then he deserves a lot more credit for bowling well over 5 Tests than the likes of Steyn, who only had 3 Tests.

 

[GIMH]

LOL, just looked at the list of averages for 2010. Harris's is close to double Swann's. There's 1.5 between Steyn and Anderson.

Really SS, really?

 

[Prince EWS]

It's not shifting the goalposts

It's a bit hard though when no teams actually play more than a three match series against Australia other than England.

 

[Furball]

LOL, just looked at the list of averages for 2010. Harris's is close to double Swann's. There's 1.5 between Steyn and Anderson.

Really SS, really?

Already made that point about 1,000 pages ago:

2010:

Steyn: 11 Tests, 60 wickets @ 21.41, SR 39, 4 5w, 1 10w
Anderson: 12 Tests, 57 wickets @ 22.96, SR 48.7, 3 5w, 1 10w

Swann: 14 Tests, 64 wickets @ 25.96, SR 54, 6 5w, 1 10w
Harris: 10 Tests, 23 wickets @ 50.65, SR 120.3, 0 5w

Last 3 calendar years:

Steyn: 29 Tests, 156 wickets @ 22.36, SR 39.8, 9 5w, 2 10w
Anderson: 36 Tests, 143 wickets @ 28.23, SR 55, 7 5w, 1 10w

Swann: 28 Tests, 126 wickets @ 27.66, SR 56.8, 10 5w, 1 10w
Harris: 27 Tests, 73 wickets @ 42.57, SR 91.3, 2 5w

Steyn's ahead of Anderson, no doubt about that. But Swann is so much better than Harris the difference is laughable - this year he's literally been twice the bowler Harris has been. Anderson-Swann is a better pairing than Steyn-Harris, easily.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, fair enough. Just looking at the end of year lists on cricinfo and it caught my eye.

 

[vcs]

Indeed.

No performance less relevant has ever been spoken about as much.

He was coming in cold off a long injury lay-off with no match fitness and a completely new and remodelled action, which he later canned. He had no business playing and the only reason he was rushed in was the fact that Flintoff (perhaps justifiably) had absolutely no faith in Saj Mahmood. Add in the fact that the team was getting absolutely smashed and it's hardly surprise he didn't bowl well. It's actually a credit to him that he managed to bowl well in Sydney and put in an absolutely superb display in an ODI later on the tour given the circumstances.

I said it before the series (many times) and I think I've been vindicated. It wasn't ridiculous to have concerns about Anderson's potency in Australia, but those who had them should've only done so based on his performances at other times whenever swing wasn't on offer; not the 2006/07 series.

I've made this post about 40 times now; should save it on my laptop and just C+P every time tbh.

I rated him highly after seeing him demolish Pakistan in the 2003 WC, took him a lot of time to mature I guess.

 

[Furball]

It's a bit hard though when no teams actually play more than a three match series against other than England.

Yeah, I know it's not perfect, but if our last series against both Australia and South Africa were only 3 Tests, Jimmy would've been:

Australia: 12 @ 31.50
South Africa: 16 @ 27.31

instead of 12 wickets @ 45 and 16 wickets @ 34

Which is why, IMO, should Anderson have a good game at Sydney and finish with a sub 30 average, it's more impressive than what the likes of Steyn have done. Admittedly it's a bit of goalpost shifting, using some imperfect logic, but there's no guarantee that the likes of Steyn would have been as good had they had a 4 or 5 match series.

 

[GIMH]

Crazy that only we play long series. At least one four-test rubber a year in the home summer, always four minimum against Saffa and five against Oz home and away.

 

[Prince EWS]

I rated him highly after seeing him demolish Pakistan in the 2003 WC, took him a lot of time to mature I guess.

I've been a big fan of him since I saw him take 1/12 off his 10 overs in an ODI in Australia way back in 2002/03, myself. I think that spell contributed to how hostile I've been toward those saying he had no hope of bowling well to Australia because of an irrelevant performance in 2006/07. He was just a kid back then obviously - clearly wasn't ready but he was fun to watch and you could see something was there. A bit like Steyn in his first Test series - he got hammered and was dropped but the ball he bowled Vaughan with let everyone know he'd probably be back unless he went off the rails.

 

[Protozoan]

Wow. Do you have a soul?

Too many mathematical words there for me. How about: using 2 years and (i think?) 7 series as evidence, in which we have gradually improved in every one of them, culminating in a very impressive win/draw in Australia.

There are arguments for and against how well we will do, yes, but simply dismissing perfectly reasonable arguments as nonsense is completely unfair. We don't have to be as mathematically rigid as you are, but we can come up with theories as to how well England may hypothetically do using other things than just 'comparative data' of series wins and losses etc. We can look at the strength of the Indian bowling attack, and from that how important a bowling attack is in winning matches, and many other things.

Saying that the English team has the fewest holes is an argument in debating who will win, yes. Its not the only one but its a reasonable one.

I am, if anything, a heartless monster.

Regardless, it is completely nonsense, unless you provide it with mathematical backing. Predictions based on hunches are fine, even if they are nonsense. It doesn't bother me if such guesses are used to predict the result of a future series. Likewise, it shouldn't bother you if I call out how fallacious those suppositions are.


Statistically, the South African attack has been the most lethal pace attack in the world's recent cricketing history. Steyn's figures, including a poor UAE series still makes him the leader of the pack. Without that series, his record qualifies him to be easily an all time great. And he's done this consistently. His pairing with Morkel makes the world's most lethal partnership, so much so that the synergy gives even Tsotsobe or Kallis wickets.

Saying that the combined English attack is better or even comparable is a farcical born primarily of rose colored glasses, wishful thinking, and little to no merit.

So have your little 'theory'. I could care less what you think, but your guesses are more or less nonsense with little statistical backing. They are fallacious, but don't allow me to burst your bubble. Enjoy the rare win.

Yeah, I know it's not perfect, but if our last series against both Australia and South Africa were only 3 Tests, Jimmy would've been:

Australia: 12 @ 31.50
South Africa: 16 @ 27.31

instead of 12 wickets @ 45 and 16 wickets @ 34

Which is why, IMO, should Anderson have a good game at Sydney and finish with a sub 30 average, it's more impressive than what the likes of Steyn have done. Admittedly it's a bit of goalpost shifting, using some imperfect logic, but there's no guarantee that the likes of Steyn would have been as good had they had a 4 or 5 match series.

I like how you disqualify your argument after making it. I agree, the argument is completely imperfect and susceptible to using different sets of criteria to judge bowlers.

But if it helps you sleep better at night...

 

[grecian]

One win in five series you're right, blimey the windies attack of the 80s can only look on in awe....

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, I know it's not perfect, but if our last series against both Australia and South Africa were only 3 Tests, Jimmy would've been:

Australia: 12 @ 31.50
South Africa: 16 @ 27.31

instead of 12 wickets @ 45 and 16 wickets @ 34

Which is why, IMO, should Anderson have a good game at Sydney and finish with a sub 30 average, it's more impressive than what the likes of Steyn have done. Admittedly it's a bit of goalpost shifting, using some imperfect logic, but there's no guarantee that the likes of Steyn would have been as good had they had a 4 or 5 match series.

You mean everyone's been doing loads over Anderson and he's averaging 45 this series in the wettest summer we've had in a decade?

Marcuss? Marcuss? I take back the concession I made about him

 

[Prince EWS]

You mean everyone's been doing loads over Anderson and he's averaging 45 this series in the wettest summer we've had in a decade?

Marcuss? Marcuss? I take back the concession I made about him

Nah GF was talking about the 2009 series in England. Jimmy's averaging under 30 in the current series.

 

[GIMH]

Haha you numpty

 

[Burgey]

Nah GF was talking about the 2009 series in England. Jimmy's averaging under 30 in the current series.

Well I thought it was a bit odd, as I don't know that we've scored enough runs for any Pommy bowler to average 40 this series

 

[silentstriker]

And Anderson has 57 in 12

WAG

Has bowled really well...but not as well as Zaheer considering the pitches he's had to bowl on.

LOL, just looked at the list of averages for 2010. Harris's is close to double Swann's. There's 1.5 between Steyn and Anderson.

Really SS, really?

Yup, really. Regardless of the current bowling average, I'd still take Steyn over Anderson and Swann even if Steyn comes with Harris. It's not close for me.