• 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.

james anderson averages 35 with the kookaburra

Status
Not open for further replies.
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
trundler said:
No such thing. By definition a holding bowler is someone not good enough to pick up wickets. Stopping runs is the bargain deal you settle for when you're unable to take wickets. No side in history will take Trevor Goddard over Andy Roberts as a bowler. This sort of dishonest praising with faint damnation is what's so annoying about Anderson fanbois.
Click to expand...
Are you calling me of all people an Anderson fanboy ffs? :laugh:
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
trundler said:
No such thing. By definition a holding bowler is someone not good enough to pick up wickets. Stopping runs is the bargain deal you settle for when you're unable to take wickets. No side in history will take Trevor Goddard over Andy Roberts as a bowler. This sort of dishonest praising with faint damnation is what's so annoying about Anderson fanbois.
Click to expand...
In a thread where flem is shining all on his own this still managed to stand out as dumb. Well done. The point wasn't so much missed you as whooshed past before you even stopped to think. Nevermind.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GIMH said:
In a thread where flem is shining all on his own this still managed to stand out as dumb. Well done. The point wasn't so much missed you as whooshed past before you even stopped to think. Nevermind.
Click to expand...
It's just so stupid that people have to wrap up fairly self evident criticism in disingenuous double speak to ease the blow on sensitive Anderson fans. Calling him a great holding bowler instead of unpenetrative is like calling a small penis easy on the cervix.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
trundler said:
It's just so stupid that people have to wrap up fairly self evident criticism in disingenuous double speak to ease the blow on sensitive Anderson fans. Calling him a great holding bowler instead of unpenetrative is like calling a small penis easy on the cervix.
Click to expand...
No, this is just stupid, like the only things that can happen in cricket are you get wickets or you don't.

For any bowler, and any team, there will be times when you aren't taking wickets. The Anderson of pre-09 had days where he skittled teams and others where he would not only get no/few wickets but get a load of tap. What he did to improve was not learn new deliveries to take wickets; he learned control which enabled him to take them more often through adding pressure, but also keeping games tighter when it wasn't happening.

You're intelligent enough to know this is useful, and it's also why he's better than Stuart Broad despite the latter being arguably more dangerous when he's well and truly on.

I mean it's fairly simple isn't it, would you rather a bowler took 1-35 or 1-75?

It's a binary question, I know you'd rather they take 6-19, that's not what I am asking. You're just being obtuse in ignoring this point.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah but crucially he took 4.5 wickets a match. At 21. Being only a holding bowler is a limitation.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
trundler said:
Yeah but crucially he took 4.5 wickets a match. At 21. Being only a holding bowler is a limitation.
Click to expand...
drivel

It's one of many useful skills

Edit. I actually missed the word only when I first responded, and that does change the context. It's also a strange thing to bring up given Teja's post was balanced view of Anderson and listed holding as one of the things he has going for him. Oh well
 
Last edited:
S

SteveNZ

International Coach
trundler said:
Yeah but crucially he took 4.5 wickets a match. At 21. Being only a holding bowler is a limitation.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about Test cricket? Because if we are, being a holding bowler is absolutely a limitation. Unless you're a top 4-5 batsman
 
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
GIMH said:
No, this is just stupid, like the only things that can happen in cricket are you get wickets or you don't.

For any bowler, and any team, there will be times when you aren't taking wickets. The Anderson of pre-09 had days where he skittled teams and others where he would not only get no/few wickets but get a load of tap. What he did to improve was not learn new deliveries to take wickets; he learned control which enabled him to take them more often through adding pressure, but also keeping games tighter when it wasn't happening.

You're intelligent enough to know this is useful, and it's also why he's better than Stuart Broad despite the latter being arguably more dangerous when he's well and truly on.

I mean it's fairly simple isn't it, would you rather a bowler took 1-35 or 1-75?

It's a binary question, I know you'd rather they take 6-19, that's not what I am asking. You're just being obtuse in ignoring this point.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was making this point. Thought it was fairly clear tbh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top