• 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

Nikhil99.99

Nikhil99.99

U19 Cricketer
I add 14 more years for W.G Grace and that will be close to the truth.From 1866 to 1899.So that’s 33 years in my mind.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Daemon said:
Giving up limited overs was great for him
Click to expand...
thought about this the other day. i think he (and broad) had more to offer. they were not bad odi bowlers, in fact a lot better than most england gave a regular run from 2016 to now.

it didn't really affect them as much as it should given the likes of plunket and wood lifted their game for the world cup but i think only archer and woakes can claim to be better than they were.
 
grecian

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Flem274* said:
thought about this the other day. i think he (and broad) had more to offer. they were not bad odi bowlers, in fact a lot better than most england gave a regular run from 2016 to now.

it didn't really affect them as much as it should given the likes of plunket and wood lifted their game for the world cup but i think only archer and woakes can claim to be better than they were.
Click to expand...
They probably would have both been an improvement, but in the end they probably wouldn't be playing now.

I would have picked Anderson for World Cups, as unfair as that may seem to others, but our bowling is really not our thing in ODIs, Even moreso with Plunkers gone and Archer broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top