James
Cricket Web Owner
Welcome to the forum bombdaddy68er 
-
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.
**Official** England in New Zealand
- Thread starter James
- Start date
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not forgetting his bowling, which is okay at this level, and his fielding which probably saves England between 10-20 runs each game.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
There is nothing wrong with him.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
There is nothing wrong with him at all. He is a really good complimentary player and can perform a number of different roles.
The problem is that due to England shortcomings he (along with KP) is the face of the team at OD level and is pushed into a primary role he just isnt quite good enough to perform for a top team.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Collingwood, admittedly, has been better of late than he ever had been before. At the age of 30-31-32 you'd expect him to be at the peak of his powers, and so it's proved.
For most of his career, though, it was the same old story - 20 or 30-odd innings of the very poor, disguised to quite some extent by the fact that there were 3 or 4 innings of the sensationally good (often 200 or 300 runs for once out or so). And, of course, disguised by his massive prowess against substandard sides.
I'll offer a proper summing-up of his credentials after the last game of this series. I actually first thought of the matter after the Second ODI, and might have posted said thread then. Good job I didn't, else it'd have been lost in the "haha, see, he's now made 2 unbeaten innings, you're now complelely wrong".
How about Kevin Forde?
Flem274*
123/5
Is this the return of Psxpro?
Dunno why you've left Greg Hay out of your squad there, top player. The rest look agreeable though I don't know much about Burtt or Rodden. Bowden has been bowling well but I've never seen him play so for all I know he's bowling medium pace on minefields. Heath being the Wellington bowling expert might know.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Depends on how we want the balance of the side in the lower middle order, I suppose. Which in turn probably depends on whether Flintoff is fit. It also depends on how Dimitri goes with the ball. I think perceptions of their roles may also be affatced by how poorly DM's done with the ball in NZ.
Actually, the "two lads" I mentioned were Plunkett & Mahmood - Anderson missed the winning run of 4 games. Beyond that, yes I know that there's an element of rose-tinted spectacles about my comment, hence Goughy's admirably restrained response. Looking at the cards last night, I'd forgotten their horrible performance in the final group game against NZ and probably over-played the number of wickets they actually took. But when you look at Anderson's performances on this tour, and struggle to name a viable alternative, you do wonder if we'd have been better sticking with one of the guys who'd played a decent part in our most impressive one day performance since about 1992. Cos at the end of the day, if not Anderson, Tremlett or Lewis, then who? (cue Scaly mentioning Onions' 7 for 39 in India the other day ..).
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
We should have been a good side around then, but we usually weren't. Partially that was because our bowling, although OK, didn't have quite the cutting edge of Aus of SA, so we were always at a disadvantage when playing those guys. As for the batting, yes there were some handy performers, but you rarely saw enough of them producing the goods when it mattered to compete with the best. They looked good on paper, but less so on scorecards, unfortunately.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Tbf, it's a bit strange that you're all talking about Anderson and Sidebottoms performances, abilities and possible replacements when there isn't any real problem with your 3 specialists (apart from a genuine "wicket taker" apparently).
I'd be more concerned with your number 4/5/6 bowling options.
I'd be more concerned with your number 4/5/6 bowling options.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Anderson is and always has been a concern. As I've said a few times recently - I'm fast running-out of faith in his ability to ever become a ODI-class bowler.
Sidebottom is currently on a different plane. As DB said earlier this thread - by far and away our best ODI bowler at the current time.
Sidebottom is currently on a different plane. As DB said earlier this thread - by far and away our best ODI bowler at the current time.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well Caddick, Gough, Mullally and White all certianly possessed cutting-edge aplenty. All right, Caddick wasn't McGrath or Pollock, but the rest probably matched Aus and SA. The simple fact of the matter is that they didn't play together anywhere near enough, so we don't know how good they might have been on a longer-term basis.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yep, can certainly see him getting the Ealham treatment, and have done since before this tour even.
Nope, AFAIC Mahmood and Plunkett should never, ever have got anywhere near the side, nor did Mahmood play any remotely significant part in the CB Series victory. Nor, really, was winning 4 games at the tail-end of a series where we'd been completely and utterly dominated in all departments a terribly impressive performance, for mine - more a freak. The NWS of 2000 was more impressive.
That said, I do wonder, had Duncan Fletcher continued as coach, whether Plunkett at least might still have been in the side.
Flem274*
123/5
Er, the James Anderson that averages under 30, swings the ball well etc is not ODI class?
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Well, he did drop Plunkett during the WC, so who knows. And IIRC he was bowling about 2nd change for Durham by the end of the season, so he wasn't looking good tbh. Mahmood's been crocked anyway.
We aren't exactly spoilt for choice, as we? I'm about as impressed with Tremlett as you are - even when he can stay fit for a few weeks, his game just doesn't seem to have come on. Anderson appears to be going backwards. Lewis will be too old at the next WC. Ditto Kirtley, at least I think he will. Any suggestions?
btw and completely OT - did I read somewhere that you're getting married in the forseeable future?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yep. Anderson doesn't swing the ball like he used to, and most of his career relies on the golden (golden-armed, that is - he took wickets with good and bad deliveries by roughly equal amounts) summer of 2003.
Check a look at the realities:
Anderson started in 2002\03, and don't let that reasonably decent overall average confuse you, he was mostly completely out of his depth, not surprisingly given he was barely out of his teens. In 12 games (against ODI-class sides) he put in 2 stunning performances (the 10-12-1 at Adelaide and the 10-29-4 at Newlands) plus 2 other reasonable ones (the 8-23-2 and 10-40-2). In the other 8 games, he was truly horrible.
Then came said summer of 2003, where as I say he often bowled fairly mediocre stuff but almost always got wicket hauls aplenty.
From the winter of 2003\04 onwards he's once again mostly been very poor. Even then, though, the figures (5.18-an-over at 33.54) are just a little flattering. His figures were far better than his bowling in the games at Trent Bridge 2004, Rawalpindi 2005\06 (2nd), Kochi 2005\06, Edgbaston 2007 and Old Trafford 2007. Had he got more accurately-summing figures in these games, his average would be more like 36-37 than 33.
Anderson has lived on the summer of 2003 for a long time. But such a summer was never likely to last. Golden-arms rarely last long.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Snape was picked for England when he wasn't even playing, never mind bowling at good spots, for his county. I certainly think Plunkett may have stayed in the picture. He's barely good enough for Durham anyway.
Kirtley should never have played ODIs ITFP. And while I don't exactly see a wealth of outstanding options either, there are certainly plenty better than Mahmood and Plunkett, neither of whom are even county-standard bowlers (not that there's that many others who obviously are either, as I say). But you might at least pick someone like AP Davies or Graham Napier, who have taken wickets despite going around the park, rather than people who neither take wickets nor bowl economically.
Well - the ring is on the finger, so to speak. No date likely to be set any time soon.
