James Anderson

[Nishant]

I doubt they'd drop an un-quality seamer like Harmison, either, TBH.

thats actually true and quite concerning TBH! Even if he has a bit of quality in him...i still think that Hramion should be england's past now...surely there are better bowlers than him! I would at least try anderson b4 harmison!

 

[Perm]

I'm not too sure that Anderson should be tried over Harmison in the Test arena, we all know what Harmison is capable of and he has delivered in the past so the selectors must have a little bit of faith in him. James Anderson is still relatively unproven at Test level and should remain as the first choice backup for any of the seamers, atleast until he starts taking wickets regularly for Lancashire or until one of the established bowlers loses form and the selectors confidence.

 

[Richard]

Well, yeah - but that past was 3 years ago now!

 

[Richard]

Yes. Because the selectors have been oh so faithful to old Monty before.

Links corrected, BTW.

I honestly can't see another spinner being picked ahead of Panesar in the immidiate future.

 

[Gloucefan]

Well, yeah - but that past was 3 years ago now!

Exactly you can't pick him based on the fact he runs through a team on his own every two years on a pitch that suits him. When he's potent he is deadly but that is very rare.

 

[Perm]

While he was disappointing during the Ashes, I don't have a problem with Harmison being selected if he is picking up 2 or 3 wickets in most innings and then occasionally, when the pitch and conditions suit he will be able to run through a side. However, if he isn't taking wickets then get rid of him for a while. Still, I don't feel that it is fair to toss him aside if he is picking up wickets with some sort of regularity.

 

[Richard]

But he's not.

Here are Harmison's match-figures for the past 28 Tests for England (Bangladesh games excluded):
42-150-2 - abysmal
19-93-1 - abysmal
37-134-2 followed by a few end-of-innings wickets to get 2.4-3-3 - poor in my book
31-121-9 - good figures (didn't actually bowl particularly well, but we'll leave that for there)
39-142-1 - abysmal
47-153-5 - decent enough
45-137-1 (and should've been 0 - that 1 came just before the declaration) - abysmal
26.5-89-0 - abysmal
33-138-2 (and again should've been 0 - those 2 came just before the declaration) - abysmal
39-97-8 - good figures (but most wickets were end-of-innings - just 2 top-order batsmen who weren't batting with the tail)
28.3-110-2 - abysmal (and even then it should have been just the 1 wicket)
32-114-2 - exactly as above
39-141-4 - poor (and was still extremely flatted - 2 wickets were tailenders, the other 2 poor decisions)
22.4-87-1 - abysmal
36.1-89-6 - looks good, but was actually no more than OK, and didn't really bowl that well
43.4-146-5 - looks OK, but again didn't really bowl that well
43-154-1 - abysmal
44.2-123-3 - abysmal (again, massively flattered by the figures, 2 of those wickets came when the bat was being thrown)
32-70-2 - actually reasonable enough
44.3-137-4 - not too bad
31.1-76-11 - excellent figures, but mostly just poor batting if you look at the wickets
45-204-1 - absolutely bloody dreadful
30.5-125-4 - loooks OK, but in truth was just a load of end-of-innings wickets... again
42.1-177-1 - abysmal
29-111-0 - abysmal
43-164-5 - boosted by 2 tailend first-innings wickets, very poor in reality
28-69-2 - not great
28-93-2 - very poor

So you see? Harmison has very, very rarely been effective since that short purple patch in March, April, May and June 2004, and given that the times he has have mostly been due to bad batting, there's no way of guessing when the next one will be.

 

[Perm]

To be fair, I wouldn't care how he was getting wickets aslong as he was actually taking them (not just tailenders mind you), it's a bit the same as someone scoring runs but not actually looking comfortable whilst doing so. It's what is in the paper on Monday morning that counts.

But you are right, he has been very poor since destroying the West Indies. Mind you, I'm always of the opinion that for the start of a new season you should field what appears to be your stongest team and stick with the incumbents, give them a chance to perform and if they are bad then replace them. It's probably just a personal preference, but if England had a Test series directly after the Ashes then I wouldn't have played Harmison. But given that their next series is a little way in the future, I would have him in my starting XI unless Anderson does something to prove his value.

 

[Richard]

I'd guess most people will feel the same way - time lends disperspective and all that.

It will be interesting, though, if Anderson starts the season well (though obviously there isn't going to be that much chance for him to play with the WC running so crazily deep into the season).

As to how the wickets are taken - it's completely different to looking uncomfortable and scoring runs IMO - because as I say, if a bowler only takes wickets when the batting's bad there's no predictability to it, it's just completely random. It can and does go without happening for 5 and 6 games in a row.

 

[FBU]

Anderson's place in the ODI side should be nailed down and he should get better as he is only 24. They should also decide very quickly who his opening partner is and stick with him. I see three contenders - Lewis, Plunkett and Broad. Once that is settled and the bowlers learn to bowl together as a unit we can progress. At the moment it is one bad game and try someone else. We have had Gough, Johnson, Harmison, Hoggard, Ali, Lewis, Jones, Chapple, Plunkett, Broad, Flintoff, Anderson and Mahmood opening the bowling. I would like to see Anderson, Lewis and Plunkett all bowling. No wonder we have trouble bowling sides out with just Anderson, whoever and Flintoff. Australia have McGrath, Bracken, Tait and Watson as their fast bowlers. South Africa have Pollock, Ntini, Langeveldt and Hall as theirs. New Zealand Bond, Franklin, Gillespie and Oram.

Anderson should carry on playing county cricket until there is an injury in the opening bowling department. When he has opened in 10 Tests he has taken 35 wickets and as first change 6 Tests 11 wickets.

I see the replacements in Test cricket, if there is injury or loss of form -

1. Harmison - Broad - Tremlett,
2. Hoggard - Anderson - Lewis - Kirtley
3. Jones - Plunkett - Mahmood - Onions

Kirtley and Onions are in the A team so I guess they have to be considered but some other names could come into contention Shreck, Silverwood, Sidebottom etc. The ECB identify players and invest in them and usually stick with them.

I don't think Anderson bowled very well in the last game. I think the bowlers were unhappy they didn't get the best conditions. So trying to get the ball to swing and reverse swing (when there wasn't any) showed up with the wides and Vaughan kept telling the bowlers what to bowl. He is naturally a full length bowler and banging it in half way down is a waste for time. Heavy strapping on his finger can't have helped either. Mahmood was bowling well and economically and Vaughan has a chat and the runs started coming. Hussain had a habit of telling the bowlers what to bowl and now Vaughan is starting it. Bowlers are picked because they take wickets and should be left to read what the batsmen are up to and use their own brains.

 

[Richard]

Graham Onions and Charles Shreck playing for England... as if we're not already the laughing-stock of World cricket...

Seriously, there's a reason we keep chopping-and-changing in ODIs - it's because if you pick someone and they go for 5.5-an-over repeatedly, to continue to pick them is what's known as innate stupidity. If you try someone and they don't do well, you drop them. Anyone seriously expecting Liam Plunkett to amount to much is expecting one hell of a lot. It's not as simple as "pick X and stick with him". You can't just turn a crap bowler into a good one by showing faith in him. The reason New Zealand, Australia and South Africa have high-quality seam attacks is because they have lots of good bowlers, not because the selection is exceptional. If England pick Plunkett and Broad right now the likely outcome is lots of very, very high totals against us. Because these 2 bowlers are not very good. And knowing your teammates well won't help you bowl well - only one person can bowl the ball at a time. It's up to the bowler with the ball in his hand, no-one else can do a thing at that time.

Nor is it as simple as Anderson being given the new-ball. The new-ball only lasts 20 overs or so. Sure, Anderson might (and only might - the new ball is a privelidge, not something to be thrown around randomly) do better with the new-ball, but you can't just look at simple stats like "when he's opened he's got X, when he hasn't he's got Z". The only way to do it is to look at opening spells - and the only time Anderson ever opened the bowling for England was in his first series against South Africa, where he was mostly very far from exceptional. Right now, there are several bowlers I'd prefer give the new-ball to, though Harmison isn't one of them. How on Earth he ever got near the new-ball is beyond me, he's never, ever used it well and rarely ever takes even a single wicket in his new-ball spells.

There's nothing wrong, BTW, with the captain talking to the bowler. Sometimes bowlers are failing to do something which is not remotely difficult to try to do - and it's generally a good idea for a captain to see if he can help (ie ascertain that the bowler is trying to do what he should be and getting it wrong rather than trying the wrong thing) rather than let the bowler continue to get the treatment.

 

[FBU]

Bowlers 25 and under at the World Cup -

Tait (24) - 9 matches 13 wickets at 32.61 econ 5.61 s/r 34.84
Johnson (25) - 18 matches 26 wickets at 27.88 econ 5.33 s/r 31.38
Mortaza (23) - 60 matches 85 wickets at 27.60 econ 4.57 s/r 36.23
Plunkett (21) - 24 matches 31 wickets at 35.22 econ 5.80 s/r 36.41
Mahmood (25) - 21 matches 22 wickets at 42.81 econ 5.83 s/r 44.04
Anderson (24) - 61 matches 92 wickets at 26.31 econ 4.78 s/r 32.97
Pathan (22) - 73 matches 115 wickets at 25.91 econ 5.02 s/r 30.91
Sreesanth (24) - 27 matches 35 wickets at 36.11 econ 5.75 s/r 37.62
MPatel (23) - 20 matches 26 wickets at 28.30 econ 4.53 s/r 37.42
Gul (24) - 28 matches 34 wickets at 28.08 econ 4.43 s/r 37.97
Malinga (23) - 33 matches 52 wickets at 23.38 econ 4.80 s/r 29.21
Maharoof (23) - 63 matches 76 wickets at 25.61 econ 4.77 s/r 32.18
Taylor (22) - 33 matches 47 wickets at 29.04 econ 4.85 s/r 35.91


And three that didn't make it -
Asif (24) - 22 matches 22 wickets at 31.90 econ 4.11 s/r 46.54
Steyn (23) - 4 matches 3 wickets at 44.00 econ 7.26 s/r 36.33
Edwards (25) - 23 matches 26 wickets at 32.26 econ 4.67 s/r 41.42

All young bowlers, their averages from 23.00 to 44.00 econ from 4.43 to 5.80 and strike rates from 29.21 to 44.04. A mixture but as they progress in their careers their figures will improve. These are all bowlers with potential to be still bowling for their countries in 10 years time.

Maybe Australia should drop of Johnson and Tait as they go at over 5 an over and India drop Sreesanth and Pathan for the same reason. Plunkett took 12 wickets in 6 games against two top quality sides and was instrumental in winning the games in Australia. The reason why countries have good bowlers is that they are usually over 30 and have bowling for a long time in international cricket and but won't be bowling in 5 years time. So the next generation of bowlers have to start somewhere.

As for opening the bowling, the batsmen is trying to get in and it's easier to get a wicket than coming on first change when they have settled and the ball has lost it's zip. Anderson opened the bowling in India as well as other matches. If you are a swing bowler you prefer bowling when the ball is swinging I would say.

 

[Richard]

Bowlers 25 and under at the World Cup -

Tait (24) - 9 matches 13 wickets at 32.61 econ 5.61 s/r 34.84
Johnson (25) - 18 matches 26 wickets at 27.88 econ 5.33 s/r 31.38
Mortaza (23) - 60 matches 85 wickets at 27.60 econ 4.57 s/r 36.23
Plunkett (21) - 24 matches 31 wickets at 35.22 econ 5.80 s/r 36.41
Mahmood (25) - 21 matches 22 wickets at 42.81 econ 5.83 s/r 44.04
Anderson (24) - 61 matches 92 wickets at 26.31 econ 4.78 s/r 32.97
Pathan (22) - 73 matches 115 wickets at 25.91 econ 5.02 s/r 30.91
Sreesanth (24) - 27 matches 35 wickets at 36.11 econ 5.75 s/r 37.62
MPatel (23) - 20 matches 26 wickets at 28.30 econ 4.53 s/r 37.42
Gul (24) - 28 matches 34 wickets at 28.08 econ 4.43 s/r 37.97
Malinga (23) - 33 matches 52 wickets at 23.38 econ 4.80 s/r 29.21
Maharoof (23) - 63 matches 76 wickets at 25.61 econ 4.77 s/r 32.18
Taylor (22) - 33 matches 47 wickets at 29.04 econ 4.85 s/r 35.91


And three that didn't make it -
Asif (24) - 22 matches 22 wickets at 31.90 econ 4.11 s/r 46.54
Steyn (23) - 4 matches 3 wickets at 44.00 econ 7.26 s/r 36.33
Edwards (25) - 23 matches 26 wickets at 32.26 econ 4.67 s/r 41.42

All young bowlers, their averages from 23.00 to 44.00 econ from 4.43 to 5.80 and strike rates from 29.21 to 44.04. A mixture but as they progress in their careers their figures will improve. These are all bowlers with potential to be still bowling for their countries in 10 years time.

No, it's an all-too-often-presumed presumption. Just because you're young, it DOES NOT automatically mean you'll get better. Plenty of bowlers who are crap remain crap. There are bowlers in there who have already done well (Asif, Patel, Malinga) but there are also plenty who have to date been extremely poor. And that they will change is most certainly not a given, I can see far more of those than not being poor for their entire ODI careers.

Maybe Australia should drop of Johnson and Tait as they go at over 5 an over and India drop Sreesanth and Pathan for the same reason. Plunkett took 12 wickets in 6 games against two top quality sides and was instrumental in winning the games in Australia.

Erm, he was instrumental in winning 1 game, the Second Final. Other than that, he got the treatment (and most of the wickets he did get were with poor deliveries). And yes, India and Australia should and have dropped Pathan and Johnson.

The reason why countries have good bowlers is that they are usually over 30 and have bowling for a long time in international cricket and but won't be bowling in 5 years time. So the next generation of bowlers have to start somewhere.

Eh? Good bowlers are good bowlers. Bowlers who start off as terrible as Plunkett rarely get anywhere. Anyone who becomes seriously good has to look better than dreadful from the start.

As for opening the bowling, the batsmen is trying to get in and it's easier to get a wicket than coming on first change when they have settled and the ball has lost it's zip. Anderson opened the bowling in India as well as other matches. If you are a swing bowler you prefer bowling when the ball is swinging I would say.

Obviously. But you only open the bowling if you are the best candidate. For me, Hoggard and Flintoff are better candidates for England.

 

[FBU]

No, it's an all-too-often-presumed presumption. Just because you're young, it DOES NOT automatically mean you'll get better. Plenty of bowlers who are crap remain crap. There are bowlers in there who have already done well (Asif, Patel, Malinga) but there are also plenty who have to date been extremely poor. And that they will change is most certainly not a given, I can see far more of those than not being poor for their entire ODI careers.

Erm, he was instrumental in winning 1 game, the Second Final. Other than that, he got the treatment (and most of the wickets he did get were with poor deliveries). And yes, India and Australia should and have dropped Pathan and Johnson.

Eh? Good bowlers are good bowlers. Bowlers who start off as terrible as Plunkett rarely get anywhere. Anyone who becomes seriously good has to look better than dreadful from the start.

Obviously. But you only open the bowling if you are the best candidate. For me, Hoggard and Flintoff are better candidates for England.

I wouldn't say Asif has done well in ODIs 22 matches 22 wickets. I would say the minimum for an ODI opening bowler is 1.5 wickets per match with the rest of the bowlers 1.00 per match. Of the three you mention only Malinga has done well.

So who are all these good bowlers that are being kept out of the teams by these young players?

I can't be bothered to argue about Plunkett as he is not one of my favourites but who was taking all the wickets to get us to the final. Mahmood was invisible.

Flintoff is not an opening bowler and when he has opened has looked even less likely that Harmison to take a wicket in his opening spell. Jones should open with Hoggard until Broad becomes available.

 

[Goughy]

I wouldn't say Asif has done well in ODIs 22 matches 22 wickets. I would say the minimum for an ODI opening bowler is 1.5 wickets per match with the rest of the bowlers 1.00 per match. Of the three you mention only Malinga has done well.

So who are all these good bowlers that are being kept out of the teams by these young players?

I can't be bothered to argue about Plunkett as he is not one of my favourites but who was taking all the wickets to get us to the final. Mahmood was invisible.

Flintoff is not an opening bowler and when he has opened has looked even less likely that Harmison to take a wicket in his opening spell. Jones should open with Hoggard until Broad becomes available.

You make some fair points but there is no way Hoggard should play ODIs. Obviously he is suited to tests but his bowling is anything but suited to ODIs.

He bowls a consistent length, Has little to no variation in pace, has the tendancy to push the ball down the leg side, little height or pace.

More importantly though than just looking at him piece by piece is the fact he has not been successful in the past.

 

[pietersenrocks]

How 'bout probably the only gun ODI bowler for England besides Flintoff. The man has a got a knack for this form of the game I'd say. A shame he doesn't/can't carry it over to his Test performance.

Lewis is also a gud One-Day bowler .. Averaging 25.37 'n' hav an a gud Economy rate ov under 4.00 but still isnt getting chances...Shouldnt he b in???

 

[maheshprasad]

Why aren't the selectors picking Hoggard for the ODIs.I think he should be england's no:1 choice.He can be deadly with the new ball with the outswinging ability and believe me he is worldclass

 

[Prince EWS]

Why aren't the selectors picking Hoggard for the ODIs.I think he should be england's no:1 choice.He can be deadly with the new ball with the outswinging ability and believe me he is worldclass

The selectors aren't picking Hoggard for ODIs because he's a rubbish ODI bowler. That being said though, I still think he'd do a better job than Saj Mahmood.

 

[wpdavid]

Lewis is also a gud One-Day bowler .. Averaging 25.37 'n' hav an a gud Economy rate ov under 4.00 but still isnt getting chances...Shouldnt he b in???

Probably. It didn't help his cause that after he got injured in Aus we won the CW tourny with Plunkett & Mahmood opening the bowling, but since Plunkett's been deemed surplus to requirements, it's hard to see why Lewis isn't playing.

Going back to Anderson, the only thing I'd add that he wasn't helped by having to lead the attack in his first summer (against SA) instead of support a couple of established quicks & learn from them. Obviously he wasn't remotely ready for that, and he suffered accordingly.

 

[FBU]

You make some fair points but there is no way Hoggard should play ODIs. Obviously he is suited to tests but his bowling is anything but suited to ODIs.

He bowls a consistent length, Has little to no variation in pace, has the tendancy to push the ball down the leg side, little height or pace.

More importantly though than just looking at him piece by piece is the fact he has not been successful in the past.

I was talking about Hoggard opening the the Tests in the summer and if Harmison doesn't get his act together soon either Jones or Broad might be taking his place.