Jimmy Anderson: Imminent revival or terminal decline?

[91Jmay]

To take those numbers in isolation and not apply any context is beyond stupid. In the first innings of this series so far:
England bowled Australia out for 295 in 1st test (mainly due to a 6 wicket partnership)
570 in the 2nd test which was obviously a very poor performance (although not helped at all by drops on day 1)
385 in the 3rd test (not a great performance but not terrible really)
204 in 4th test

All in all those aren't horrific returns, but when the batsmen then get blown away in 52 (1st test), 68 (2nd test), 88 (3rd test) and 61 (4th test) and give up massive leads or hand opposition the advantage it is virtually impossible for the bowlers to do well given the position of the game. Printing out numbers and statistics in that situation is daft.

 

[Hooksey]

I think that is the 4th or 5th time you've posted those figures Hooksey and you are not showing anything we all don't know.......seriously mate, what is the point here??

Posted in response to this quote :

As with when Australia was struggling and all the blame was pinned on the bowlers, the problem isn't with the bowlers.

Thanks again for asking though.

 

[Hooksey]

To take those numbers in isolation and not apply any context is beyond stupid. In the first innings of this series so far:
England bowled Australia out for 295 in 1st test (mainly due to a 6 wicket partnership)
570 in the 2nd test which was obviously a very poor performance (although not helped at all by drops on day 1)
385 in the 3rd test (not a great performance but not terrible really)
204 in 4th test

All in all those aren't horrific returns, but when the batsmen then get blown away in 52 (1st test), 68 (2nd test), 88 (3rd test) and 61 (4th test) and give up massive leads or hand opposition the advantage it is virtually impossible for the bowlers to do well given the position of the game. Printing out numbers and statistics in that situation is daft.

To win Test matches on a regular basis you need a bowling attack capable of getting 20 wickets on a regular basis.

England have taken 54 wickets in 4 Test matches and for far too many runs. It's that simple and that's what the bowling figure table clearly demonstrates.

 

[Adders]

Hooksey, read what 91Jmay just said.

Our bowlers figures aren't good but they are skewed by second innings batting from the Aussies with zero pressure after they've had no rest up. The comment that the problem is not the bowlers it is the batsmen stands true.......and anyone that understands cricket would get this.

 

[Hooksey]

Hooksey, read what 91Jmay just said.

Our bowlers figures aren't good but they are skewed by second innings batting from the Aussies with zero pressure after they've had no rest up. The comment that the problem is not the bowlers it is the batsmen stands true.......and anyone that understands cricket would get this.

The English bowling AND batting AND wicketkeeping AND fielding AND field placements are their problem!

But if they can't take 20 wickets they won't win too many Test matches. Particularly if the number of runs they pay for those wickets is excessive - as is the case in this series.

 

[91Jmay]

So in the Lords test in England it was Australia's bowling that was the problem as well as the batting then?

 

[Hooksey]

So in the Lords test in England it was Australia's bowling that was the problem as well as the batting then?

England 361 and 7-349 defeated Australia 128 and 235.

Australia batted poorly twice and failed to dismiss England in their second innings before they were able to compile 349, declare and set Australia 582.

So you've chosen a random match to prove what exactly?

 

[91Jmay]

I am asking you because Australia couldn't take enough wickets, does that mean there bowlers were poor ? Or perhaps is it possible that because the batting had been so hopeless, the bowlers were so far behind the game it made bowling a thankless task which coupled with a lack of rest was in reality a better explanation for the figures.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's just like in the 2010/11 series; we spent more time watching our bowling, gives you more time looking at their issues.

They weren't as big as the batting, but as much stewing over them.

 

[Spark]

I am asking you because Australia couldn't take enough wickets, does that mean there bowlers were poor ? Or perhaps is it possible that because the batting had been so hopeless, the bowlers were so far behind the game it made bowling a thankless task which coupled with a lack of rest was in reality a better explanation for the figures.

Yeah. Often 2nd innings bowling in these situations are entirely meaningless - as has been the case in basically all three Tests before this one (4th innings are never meaningless). The English bowling as a unit has done its job, their main problem has been their inability to dislodge Haddin and the tail.

Anderson-Broad-____ should still run rampant against most sides at home.

 

[Hooksey]

Yeah. Often 2nd innings bowling in these situations are entirely meaningless - as has been the case in basically all three Tests before this one (4th innings are never meaningless). The English bowling as a unit has done its job, their main problem has been their inability to dislodge Haddin and the tail.

Anderson-Broad-____ should still run rampant against most sides at home.

England's biggest problem with the Aussie batting has probably been Haddin and the partnerships he has been part of.

However, if we look through the Aussie batting lineup in batting order they have been pretty solid - barring perhaps Smith & Bailey - and a long way better than their English counterparts:

1 Warner 491 runs at 70.1
2 Rogers 333 runs at 41.6
3 Watson 293 runs at 41.9
4 Clarke 347 runs at 49.6
5 Smith 205 runs at 34.2
6 Bailey 136 runs at 27.2
7 Haddin 390 runs at 65.0
8 Johnson 149 runs at 37.3
9 Siddle 34 runs at 8.5
10 Harris 82 runs at 27.3
11. Lyon 53 runs and not dismissed yet.

 

[3703]

Anyone who thinks Anderson needs to be mindful of his place in the side is an idiot, frankly.

Agreed, there's no way he'll be dropped. He'll be in the wickets again at home.

 

[Spark]

6/135, 5/240, 5/140, 5/120 is not my idea of "solid". My concern is first innings runs here.

 

[MrPrez]

 

[Hooksey]

6/135, 5/240, 5/140, 5/120 is not my idea of "solid". My concern is first innings runs here.

2nd innings runs are worth one run just like 1st innings runs are.

Have a look through the English figures. Pietersen has their highest series average and about 6 of the Aussies exceed it.

 

[Spark]

You're not actually trying to argue that 2nd innings runs when you have a massive lead already are worth an equal amount to 1st innings runs, are you?

Come on. This is a pretty simple point that is being made here, and rehashing statistics which everyone can see is not exactly a counterargument.

 

[GIMH]

Jesus

 

[the big bambino]

You'd be surprised if you got an answer to that post.

 

[Ponting is King]

They should ditch the dud now.

 

[wpdavid]

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting he should be asked to call it a day. But it's also pretty disingenuous to pretend that there isn't a longish term trend here, albeit not to the extent that we've seen over the last 4 tests. Even allowing for the reasons behind his 2nd innings performances, that doesn't explain his impotence in the first innings, and 4 out of the 5 tests in England.

Yes, I'd keep him for our home tests against SL and India in 2014. But I don't think Aus will be worried about the prospect of facing him in 2015.