Who would you have picked instead of Darren Pattinson ?

[The Masterplan]

Anderson has been England's best bowler this summer by a country mile.

Thank You

 

[Richard]

Haha, you watched any test cricket this season?

I imagine so. Have you watched any ODI cricket so far this season?

What's odd is that Anderson has bowled in far better areas in Tests than ODIs.

 

[TT Boy]

Its a real shame. As you say, it may just be coincidence but, given a career filled with poor handling of pressure, its far to easy to draw the obvious conclusion.

It is and according to Paul Newman's article, Ramps is taking out his frustration on dressing rooms, Sky cameraman and umpires...

The subject of his 100th hundred is off-limits now as every dismissal adds to the tension of the time bomb that is Mark Ramprakash.

When the most gifted batsman of his generation quickly scored his 98th and 99th firstclass centuries earlier this season, it seemed only a matter of time before his landmark was reached and the whole of English cricket would wonder why on earth he was not still playing Test cricket.

The past few weeks have shown us why.

Ramprakash went into the break for Twenty20 cricket stuck on 99 and such was his apparent tetchiness that there were three separate explosions.

Ramprakash’s tantrums during Surrey’s Twenty20 match against Hampshire at the Rose Bowl, where he snapped at a TV cameraman who came too close to him after he was dismissed, and then argued with umpire Peter Hartley, have been well documented.

But I can reveal there was also an incident at Hove involving Ramprakash during a match against Sussex when a dressing room was damaged and another eruption during a match against Essex at Chelmsford.

Now Championship cricket is back, but Ramprakash failed to cash in against Kent on a belter of an Oval wicket, falling for a firstball dismissal in the second innings on Tuesday. It would have taken a brave man to ask Ramps about his 100th hundred after that.

When David Graveney, then chairman of England’s selectors, asked me last summer whether I thought Ramprakash should be considered for the winter tour of Sri Lanka I told him an emphatic Yes. I thought that, after dancing in front of millions on a reality TV programme, the tension in his batting would have disappeared and he would be completely uninhibited if he was restored for one final attempt to succeed in Test cricket.

Events of the past few weeks have proved me wrong and Graveney and his fellow selectors right.

If Ramprakash cannot handle the pressure of being watched by two men and a dog in his pursuit of his 100th hundred then he would never have been able to cope with Test cricket again.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I imagine so. Have you watched any ODI cricket so far this season?

What's odd is that Anderson has bowled in far better areas in Tests than ODIs.

Of course I have, which is why I obviously included "test cricket" in the sentence.

 

[Manee]

It is and according to Paul Newman's article, Ramps is taking out his frustration on dressing rooms, Sky cameraman and umpires...

The subject of his 100th hundred is off-limits now as every dismissal adds to the tension of the time bomb that is Mark Ramprakash.

When the most gifted batsman of his generation quickly scored his 98th and 99th firstclass centuries earlier this season, it seemed only a matter of time before his landmark was reached and the whole of English cricket would wonder why on earth he was not still playing Test cricket.

The past few weeks have shown us why.

Ramprakash went into the break for Twenty20 cricket stuck on 99 and such was his apparent tetchiness that there were three separate explosions.

Ramprakash’s tantrums during Surrey’s Twenty20 match against Hampshire at the Rose Bowl, where he snapped at a TV cameraman who came too close to him after he was dismissed, and then argued with umpire Peter Hartley, have been well documented.

But I can reveal there was also an incident at Hove involving Ramprakash during a match against Sussex when a dressing room was damaged and another eruption during a match against Essex at Chelmsford.

Now Championship cricket is back, but Ramprakash failed to cash in against Kent on a belter of an Oval wicket, falling for a firstball dismissal in the second innings on Tuesday. It would have taken a brave man to ask Ramps about his 100th hundred after that.

When David Graveney, then chairman of England’s selectors, asked me last summer whether I thought Ramprakash should be considered for the winter tour of Sri Lanka I told him an emphatic Yes. I thought that, after dancing in front of millions on a reality TV programme, the tension in his batting would have disappeared and he would be completely uninhibited if he was restored for one final attempt to succeed in Test cricket.

Events of the past few weeks have proved me wrong and Graveney and his fellow selectors right.

If Ramprakash cannot handle the pressure of being watched by two men and a dog in his pursuit of his 100th hundred then he would never have been able to cope with Test cricket again.

Bit of a hypocritical article, it states that his 100th FC ton is nothing but then states it as a reason why he cannot be selected for England as it is a sign of his weak mentality. Of course, his recent behaviour has exasperated the issue, but then, that is sod's law.

 

[Uppercut]

Bit of a hypocritical article, it states that his 100th FC ton is nothing but then states it as a reason why he cannot be selected for England as it is a sign of his weak mentality. Of course, his recent behaviour has exasperated the issue, but then, that is sod's law.

I think the point he's trying to make is that even something as largely insignificant as the 100th FC ton is enough to send his mind completely off the rails.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Haha, you watched any test cricket this season?

Yes.

He bowled well against NZ at Lord's, and poorly at OT (despite having his figures made to look better with tailend wickets), going at well over 5s. He then followed this up with bowling very well at Trent Bridge.

He was then not very threatening against SA at Lord's (although in the second innings he was not the only one), and was admittedly unlucky at Leeds.

I don't think Anderson has been any better than Sidebottom this summer, and had several other bowlers not been injured/left out this summer, IMO they'd have done better than he has, but that's all speculation.

 

[The Masterplan]

I don't think Anderson has been any better than Sidebottom this summer, and had several other bowlers not been injured/left out this summer, IMO they'd have done better than he has, but that's all speculation.

..South Africa need 2 runs to win with one wicket remaining.. a whole day to get the win, who would you throw on to bowl and try and take a wicket ?? If there is any bowler who could take a wicket with any ball it's got to be Jimmy Anderson ? Hasn't it ?..

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, I'd throw it to Flintoff.

 

[The Masterplan]

Fair play, didn't think of that one

 

[Goughy]

..South Africa need 2 runs to win with one wicket remaining.. a whole day to get the win, who would you throw on to bowl and try and take a wicket ?? If there is any bowler who could take a wicket with any ball it's got to be Jimmy Anderson ? Hasn't it ?..

The strange thing about this is that (apart from ignoring Flintoff) there is already 1 guy in England that has done what you are asking and it isnt Anderson.

 

[four_or_six]

No, I'd throw it to Flintoff.

Playing devil's advocate here...

Anderson has a significantly better strike rate in tests.

(57.3 vs 64.6)

 

[Richard]

And who has the better inswinging Yorker out of the two?

(It's actually an interesting question)

 

[four_or_six]

And who has the better inswinging Yorker?

(It's actually an interesting question)

Simon Jones?

 

[Richard]

Of course I have, which is why I obviously included "test cricket" in the sentence.

Anderson won't simply be trying to bowl well in one game-form and not in the other though. The oscillations, while irrelevant to one another as they involve different game-forms, still reveal a bowler far from capable in the line-and-length stakes.

 

[Richard]

Simon Jones?

Actually can't ever remember Jones bowling more than 1 Yorker in all his career that I've seen him, and that was an inswinger to a left-hander.

 

[four_or_six]

Actually can't ever remember Jones bowling more than 1 Yorker in all his career that I've seen him, and that was an inswinger to a left-hander.

D'oh.

And in answer to your other question, I think Anderson.

 

[zaremba]

And who has the better inswinging Yorker out of the two?

(It's actually an interesting question)

Neither of them bowl as many yorkers as they should.

If you're looking for what Mark Nicholas would call a "crackerjack" delivery, which in this situation I suppose you are, Anderson is the likelier, particularly with a newer ball.

Funnily enough Harmison has bowled 2 of the best yorkers of recent times: the slower ball to dismiss Clarke at OT in 2005, and the brutal 94mph inswinging yorker to dismiss Ponting for a golden duck in the first (?) one-dayer in 2005.

 

[tooextracool]

I agree with your last sentence actually, but that makes Harmison sixth in line for a job that, if I were in charge, anyway, would have three slots (playing four bowlers, with Flintoff at 8, and including Panesar).

Yes but do you honestly see a purpose in playing Hoggard along with Sidebottom and Anderson? Unless the ball is bending around corners it would seem that 3 swing bowlers are unnecessary. Ideally, I would have Jones ahead of everyone else but it is clear that the selectors still dont believe that he is ready. Which is why I suggested Harmison, because his chance of playing in the next test isnt really a long shot anymore. Or shouldnt be at least.

 

[tooextracool]

No, he's not, Flintoff is.

As to what he has to do to convince me personally, he has to bowl well consistently. Admittedly he's improved slightly (bowling well occasionally is better than never bowling well at all) but he's still likely to bowl well one day and serve up utter dross the next.

Hard to say that Flintoff is a better bowler than him currently when hes played 1 test match in the last year and a half. And Anderson outbowled Flintoff and everyone else by a country mile in said test. I would venture to suggest that Sidebottom is a better bowler than Anderson currently, but there isnt a doubt that so far this summer Anderson has been excellent and was instrumental in our series win over NZ earlier. Certainly bowled consistently better than i thought he could.