Is it time James Anderson is dropped?

[Rik]

Re: Re: Re: Is it time James Anderson is dropped?

You obviously didnt read my post, so can you please read it again.

I read it alright...maybe you mis-read mine?

 

[luckyeddie]

Test cricket is not the arena in which to experiment. James Anderson at this time last season was more-or-less a Lancashire second XI player, consequently he hasn't really had time to go through the learning-curve which is county cricket.

That chance has gone now - the season's nearly over and there is little to be gained.

Nets, nets and more nets are what's required to sort out the delivery stride, left elbow and head position.

 

[Bazza]

Is this James Anderson:

7 tests - 225.5 53 821 26 31.57 5-73 2 0 52.1 3.63
23 ODIs - 191.2 19 930 42 22.14 4-25 4 0 27.3 4.86

Is this the James Anderson who had success against nearly every nation in world cricket as a 20 year old, and the same James Anderson who was England's leading wicket taker this summer?

The bottom line is Anderson missed county cricket. He went from club cricket straight into international cricket. ON pitches which offer assistance (as his performances against Zimbabwe and in the ODIs show) he is already a very effective bowler, and in theory can be even better. He just needs a bit of a rest and to learn how to bowl on batting tracks (like most of this series), then we will see a world class pacer.

Very reminiscent of Goughie. If he's anywhere near as successful......

 

[roofromoz]

I think that Harmison and Anderson do have the potential to become a formidable attack for England in the near future.

Just stick with them. They are two of the best bowlers I seen come out of that country for quite a while.

They just need some more big match experience.

 

[Craig]

Is this James Anderson:

7 tests - 225.5 53 821 26 31.57 5-73 2 0 52.1 3.63
23 ODIs - 191.2 19 930 42 22.14 4-25 4 0 27.3 4.86

In hindsight he may of better off not being picked and given this season to see how good he is, but that really was never going to happen as his Test selection was almost a foregone conclusion.

Any econ rates of 3.63 and 4.86 runs per over are nothing to be proud of.

 

[marc71178]

BUt in ODI's he's about taking wickets - 42 @ 22.14 and a S/R of 27.3 is very very good in one so young.

 

[Craig]

So you would excuse his rpo for wickets?

 

[Rik]

So you would excuse his rpo for wickets?

Why not? There are only 10 wickets to take in a ODI and the best way to slow the run rate down is to take wickets. Especially with Freddie now going at around 3.5 an over in ODIs it all works out. His ODI record is amazing for someone with so little experiance.

 

[Craig]

I must commend Flintoff who has improved his accuracy in ODIs.

my theory is that head position dicates accuracy. I'm not convinced his head position is the greatest. So if improved that he could be more accurate.

Agree/disagree?

 

[Rik]

I must commend Flintoff who has improved his accuracy in ODIs.

my theory is that head position dicates accuracy. I'm not convinced his head position is the greatest. So if improved that he could be more accurate.

Agree/disagree?

Not every great bowler has had a head position like Hadlee, in fact Hadlee's looked almost forced. Then there is the saying:

"If it ain't broke don't fix it"

 

[Craig]

Not so, if it will make him a better bowler then it could work.

 

[Rik]

Not so, if it will make him a better bowler then it could work.

But he is comfortable with his action. Look at some of the greats as well, they didn't have perfect head positions. There's really no point, it's not as if his action is hindering him, a la Harmison.

 

[Eclipse]

Action's dont mean everyting.

Look at Brett Lee,s Action it is probably as close to perfect for a fast bowler as you can get even Dennis Lille said this but Lee can still be rather inefective somtimes.

 

[marc71178]

So you would excuse his rpo for wickets?

Sorry, but 4.86 an over is hardly a shocking economy rate!

Among current ODI bowlers (careers)

Pollock 3.75
Murali 3.79
McGrath (G) 3.89

They are the only 3 below 4 an over.

Suddenly 4.86 isn't that bad is it?

 

[Craig]

I believe anything under four an over is brilliant and anything under 4.5 runs per over is outstanding - that's the system I use.

Shane Warne has often said that if five bowlers in the a limited overs game keep their rpo of under 4.5 runs per over - which equals 225 off 50 overs, he considers good - this is in the Australian team though.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Sorry, but 4.86 an over is hardly a shocking economy rate!

Among current ODI bowlers (careers)

Pollock 3.75
Murali 3.79
McGrath (G) 3.89

They are the only 3 below 4 an over.

Suddenly 4.86 isn't that bad is it?

well..i hardly think anyone would have mistook which mcgrath you were talking about...

 

[Bazza]

I think the point is if everyone had an economy rate of 4.86 average score against would be 243, which is a decent total, but if Anderson is the most expensive then the score would be 220-230 or maybe even less, which you would hope the batsmen could score.

Also if he opens and bowls at the death there is the issue of the fielding restrictions, and if he takes a couple of top order wickets maybe that is why other bowlers have a better economy rate, etc.

Brett Lee's economy is 4.69 and he has played 73 ODIs, plus he manages to get a regular gig in the best side in the world, so economy rate isn't everything.

Shoaib Akhtar, 87 games, 4.56.
Waqar Younis, 262 games, 4.68.
Jacques Kallis, 180 games, 4.70.
Zaheer Khan, 70 games, 4.63.

As you can see there are several top world bowlers who have economy rates over 4.5.

 

[Craig]

So people like Walsh, Ambrose, Garner, Gough, Pollock Marshall, Holding etc played when the first 15 over rule was in and they were very accurate.

And I have made my thoughts on Brett Lee known on here.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

I dont mean to undermine the greatness of the above bowlers but its harder to be econonmical now, than say 5 or so years ago as the od games are now much more attack minded...i mean in the '96 world cup 240+ was considered a big score..nowadays in india nothing short of 300 is considered good target

 

[Craig]

That is partly because of the flat wickets and quick outfields.