James Anderson

[Richard]

I honestly don't mind too much, it just pisses me off when people say "he's a wicket-taker" about bowlers who are patently not very good wicket-takers and almost invariably go for plenty.

If you wanted a wicket-taker who went for runs, though, you might try an AP Davies, a Graham Napier or a Chad Keegan - someone who, even though inexplicably to me, get lots of wickets in the one-day game, rather than someone like Plunkett who doesn't.

 

[Richard]

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Why not, precisely?

Since when was 37 too old?

Heck, even you're not that old yet!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Woodster]

I honestly don't mind too much, it just pisses me off when people say "he's a wicket-taker" about bowlers who are patently not very good wicket-takers and almost invariably go for plenty.

If you wanted a wicket-taker who went for runs, though, you might try an AP Davies, a Graham Napier or a Chad Keegan - someone who, even though inexplicably to me, get lots of wickets in the one-day game, rather than someone like Plunkett who doesn't.

Yes, obviously it would be easy to say that they can take wickets on helpful English tracks, but could they do it on less helpful wickets. I think that separates bowlers that exploit the conditions (which dont get me wrong is a skill in itself) from those that take wickets virtually anywhere.

Would you suggest that any of these 3 bowlers would have taken say 10 wickets if they were playing in this World Cup on these tracks ? A difficult, hypothetical question I know.

 

[Richard]

One thing I'd suggest - they're more likely to take wickets at any given time than those who've proven in the same competition unable to take wickets.

I'm certainly not in favour of the selection of any of said bowlers for England, I can't understand for the life of me why they've got wickets in the domestic game the way they have, and were they to be selected for ODIs I'd presume they'd be sorted-out without much difficulty.

But the point I'm making is, if you insist on picking a bowler "because he's a wicket-taker" as so many people invariably do, you might at least pick someone who is a wicket-taker rather than someone who looks like he should be one but actually isn't.

 

[Woodster]

Fair point mate. I actually think that Mahmood should have licence to become that wicket-taker to give us an option. By that I mean he should be told to bowl as quick as he can, I appreciate line and length are crucial, but I don't think he should be made to sacrifice his speed.

He is a natural quickie, and could unsettle batters with pace. Yes there are obviously going to be times when he gets a bit of a spanking, but he could also be a real match winner. IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

Fair point mate. I actually think that Mahmood should have licence to become that wicket-taker to give us an option. By that I mean he should be told to bowl as quick as he can, I appreciate line and length are crucial, but I don't think he should be made to sacrifice his speed.

He is a natural quickie, and could unsettle batters with pace. Yes there are obviously going to be times when he gets a bit of a spanking, but he could also be a real match winner. IMO.

The stupid thing with Mahmood is the fact that his List A performances suggested that exactly what did happen - would. It's not like his continued selection is on the basis that he's a leading bowler at domestic level and he'll come good in international level once he finds his feet and has confidence in himself - he quite obviously just isn't a good bowler. He actually does take quite a few wickets at domestic level, however a lot of them are at the death anywhere when it is highly irrelevant, and he still concedes over 5 runs per over. In fact, his place in the Lancashire OD team isn't even secure - which speaks volumes for his England ODI selection...

And if that wasn't bad enough, just watching the guy bowl one over would lead you to the exact same pre-conceived conclusions as his List A record and his ODI record would - he's just not anywhere near being accurate enough.

 

[FBU]

England's Bowling resources identified by the ECB -

30.70 - 5.05 - 36.46 - Harmison (retired)
36.00 - 5.29 - 40.81 - Hoggard (no mentally stable for ODIs)
39.28 - 4.74 - 49.71 - Jones (has hardly played for England or Glam with the white ball)
26.73 - 4.77 - 33.63 - Anderson
35.22 - 5.80 - 36.41 - Plunkett
38.15 - 5.81 - 39.34 - Mahmood
25.70 - 3.99 - 38.58 - Lewis
37.00 - 5.18 - 42.80 - Broad (20/20 specialist bowler)
44.16 - 5.01 - 52.83 - Tremlett (injury prone)
37.25 - 5.12 - 42.40 - Onions (limited overs figures)
24.92 - 4.29 - 34.85 - Smith (limited overs figures)
32.46 - 5.17 - 37.62 - Khan (limited overs figures)
53.44 - 5.25 - 61.00 - Kirtley (English conditions bowler)
34.10 - 6.08 - 33.65 - Ali (too expensive)

A sorry sight - what we would like to see is an average under 25.00 economy under 5.00 and a strike rate of less than 35.00. The three highlighted look better than the rest but with flat batting tracks and international opening batsmen looking to attack, bowlers really have to know what they are doing and most of these bowlers haven't played enough cricket for their counties to have learnt the art of ODI bowling.

I think bowlers need to be tall (6'4'+) and accurate or fast (90mph) and accurate to take the flat wickets out of the picture and have variety.

 

[Woodster]

Mahmood is 25, but has not played a whole lot of cricket in his career. His accuracy I agree will have to improve if he is to stay around the England set-up, but it doesn't have to be at the expense of his pace.
Many times we have seen it, a promising young quick arrives on the scene, and in search of directional improvement his pace decreases as a result and low and behold we have another medium pace bowler that bowls good areas on our hands.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think bowlers need to be tall (6'4'+) and accurate or fast (90mph) and accurate to take the flat wickets out of the picture and have variety.

Even though Jon Lewis is the furthest from both of those things out of all your bowlers and yet he's the one with the best figures?

When I first saw Lewis bowl, I thought he was one of the worst bowlers I'd ever seen at international level. I think I even bagged him out on these forums to that effect a few times. But regardless of what he looks like he can or can't do - he bowls with tremendous accuracy and intelligence, and he get can the ball to move both in the air and off the seam appreciably when conditions suit him well.

Lewis is the anti-Saj - he doesn't look like he'd be a good bowler, but he is one.

 

[FBU]

Lewis is 6'3 so is close enough. I can't understand why he was good enough to be opening bowler in the CB series and wasn't even considered in the World Cup. Then Plunkett was dropped for Mahmood. We shouldn't be trying out bowlers in the World Cup after having four years to prepare.

 

[Richard]

But there have been so many poor players knocking around and such reluctance to use the few good ones there are that 4 years was never going to be anywhere near enough, and I thought such a thing in 2001, never mind 2004.

 

[FBU]

Graveney in 2006 said the team they want for the World Cup would be the same team that tied the match at Lords against the Australians in 2005. So in two years things have changed. You can only really call a team a team is if they are always playing together. From one game to the next is team is changed especially when we lose.

1. Trescothick
2. Strauss
3. Vaughan
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6. Flintoff
7. GJones
8. Giles
9. SJones
10 Gough
11 Harmison

 

[Richard]

Patently that was the team they had in mind. I'd argue, myself, that only 4 of those players were good enough at that time: Trescothick, Pietersen, Flintoff and Gough. However, injuries severely disrupted things, and matters weren't helped by those picked next being utterly terrible.

 

[FBU]

England's World Cup wickets

30 - Botham
29 - De Freitas
20 - Flintoff
18 - Willis, Anderson
16 - Old
15 - Gough
13 - Hemmings, Marks
12 - Illingworth
11 - Small
10 - Mullally, Ealham, Hendrick
9 - White, Reeve, Foster
8 - Pringle, Allott, Caddick, Mahmood, Cork
7 - Dilley, C. Lewis, Panesar
6 - Embury, Grieg, Martin, Snow, Collingwood
5 - Boycott, Lever, Hick
4 - Smith
3 - Arnold, Austin, Edmonds, Austin, Tufnell, Irani, Plunkett
2 - Cowans, Underwood, Giles, Blackwell, Bopara
1 - Fraser, Gatting, Gooch, Hollioake, Vaughan

 

[GIMH]

Flintoff will be top by the time he takes all ten against Aus in the final

 

[FBU]

From Sky Sports text today -

James Anderson believes he is facing a crucial point in his career as he tries to establish himself as England's strike bowler in all forms of cricket.

Injuries and a lack of form have hindered his progress in the last 4 years but he is now targetting World Cup glory and a regular Test place.

'I'm really pleased I'm fully fit and my back is feeling good but I'm still not taking anything for granted' he said.

I'm just trying to do my best for the team but I don't think my place is certain. Liam Plunkett is really knocking on the door after the way he bowled in Australia. I enjoy taking the first over and trying to set the tone for the innings'.

'I have not really thought about it yet, but eventually I want to cement my place in the Test side. But it's going to be tough because of all the competition with Simon Jones back fit and Steve Harmison returning'

------

Thats's why we will never get anywhere in ODIs when England think about changing bowlers like a pair of socks.

Plinkett - 24 matches 31 wickets at 35.23 econ 5.80 s/r 36.42
Mahmood - 24 matches 29 wickets at 37.21 econ 5.73 s/r 38.93
Anderson - 64 matches 94 wickets at 27.00 econ 4.75 s/r 34.06

Anderson has just got back into the side and now worries about his place.

 

[Richard]

For every caveat about having a secure place there's a positive of "promoting complacency".

(Yes, I deliberately mixed those up - it just shows the absurdity of it, IMO)

 

[FBU]

From the Guardian today -

Among the younger English breed, Donald concentrates on four bowlers. "I like Saj Mahmood. He's got real talent but he does need some fine-tuning so he becomes a more consistent threat. [Liam] Plunkett is pretty much the same - if not as quick. If you bring in Stuart Broad, along with [Jimmy] Anderson, then you've got an exciting crop of quicks. Broad and Anderson would be my first two choices - with Mahmood and Plunkett having the next most potential.

 

[Goughy]

From the Guardian today -

Among the younger English breed, Donald concentrates on four bowlers. "I like Saj Mahmood. He's got real talent but he does need some fine-tuning so he becomes a more consistent threat. [Liam] Plunkett is pretty much the same - if not as quick. If you bring in Stuart Broad, along with [Jimmy] Anderson, then you've got an exciting crop of quicks. Broad and Anderson would be my first two choices - with Mahmood and Plunkett having the next most potential.

Does the Donald quote finish at the end of the paragraph or earlier with the " missing?

 

[FBU]

Does the Donald quote finish at the end of the paragraph or earlier with the " missing?

Sorry here's the article
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,,2089826,00.html