Jimmy Anderson - best English bowler since.....?

My only quibble with the gushing would be that bar Australia, his away record since 2008 is still pretty poor. But we all know he's largely a home conditions bowler.

Just something to bear in mind when comparing him to say Willis, who had a much better away record throughout his entire career. Even Botham, who was a shadow of the bowler he was at the start of his career by the end of it, had a much better career away record than Anderson's selective last 5 years.

And I know Jimmy's been unlucky at times but still.

He's been a bit inconsistent but i'd argue that he's won crucial Tests in India with his bowling against a formidable batting line-up.

When Willis would have toured NZ they'd have been green juicy things like this and WI would have been trampoling death traps. When Anderson toured NZ last year they produced 3 slower than slow things to nullify our bowlers while the Windies it was the roadiest of roady roads (except for the Test he didn't play).

It is remarkable how far this forum has turned from contempt (there, there Jimmikins) to polite applause and superlatives (one of the two best in the world / one of the best England bowlers ever).

Reflecting his action, his growing guile and his figures, I know, but in the Bails extreme fashion.

Is there yet hope for Ian Ronald Bell, Jonny Bairstow, or for that matter Steven Finn?


FWIW I thought Broad showed genuine signs of turning it around in this match. No, not the conception of ethics, but as regards his bowling. It seems he has finally got (and better, applied) the message that banging it in short should be a judiciously employed weapon, not the basic strategy.

Can Finn also learn sense - and better, apply it?

My apologies for writing thoughts that chime in quite closely with the T1 match thread (aftermath thoughts). I hadnt' read that late crop.

I deny the NTR though - it's views, not news. And not quite the same words or thinking

PeterCS wrote:It is remarkable how far this forum has turned from contempt (there, there Jimmikins) to polite applause and superlatives (one of the two best in the world / one of the best England bowlers ever).

Reflecting his action, his growing guile and his figures, I know, but in the Bails extreme fashion.

Is there yet hope for Ian Ronald Bell, Jonny Bairstow, or for that matter Steven Finn?


FWIW I thought Broad showed genuine signs of turning it around in this match. No, not the conception of ethics, but as regards his bowling. It seems he has finally got (and better, applied) the message that banging it in short should be a judiciously employed weapon, not the basic strategy.

Can Finn also learn sense - and better, apply it?

Well, some of his early performances were all over the place. But as he's got better and better you have to revise your opinion upwards. He's really surprised me just how good he's become - I think its a testimony to his hard work and diligence. Swing bowling is similar to leg spin in being a very hard craft that few truly master.

In the early days he was somewhat hard done by - parachuted into Test cricket before he'd learned his craft for Lancashire due to the previous crop of bowlers - Gough, Caddick, White, Cork etc all expiring. Then the years when they were remodelling his action. I felt sorry for him when he was picked for that Test in SA when due to (I think) Cooley he clearly didn't have a clue where the ball was going. Then Fletcher picked him for the 06/07 Ashes when he hadn't recovered fully from injury.

The irony is that if we'd had a stronger bowling line-up from 2003-08 then he probably wouldn't have played much Test cricket before then and have a bowling career average of 27 (but 50 less Test wickets).

I have a lot of hope for Steven Finn, I think he's going to develop into a fine bowler. Bairstow is promising too, I hope he turns out to be a winner, but i'm not as confident as I am of Root.

Bell - well, his talent was never in question and he's gone from an inexperienced player who crumbled when the pressure was on, to a reasonably experienced player who struggled when the pressure was on, so maybe in the final phase of his career he will be a very experienced player who does alright when the pressures on (or if he's had some kind of epiphany maybe he'll even start to flourish under pressure...?)

Despite all of Finn's flaws, he still has a bowling average below 30 and a strike rate below 50- Enviable stats, really. Imagine how good he COULD be if he irons out those flaws. I thought he was just about there when he came roaring in in some JAMODI games (in the UAE?) about a year and a half ago. He was bowling accurately at 90+ mph and hardly anyone could lay a bat on him. But since then he's fallen back again.

It all started when his kicking the stumps occasionally started to become an issue. Suddenly it was being called a dead ball, and then a no ball. Funnily enough he didn't do it once at Trent Bridge, but I reckon it's still on his mind.

He didn't do it at TB or in matches before because he's shortened and straightened his run up. The whole entire reason his run up changed.

And it seems to have f*cked his technique up a little because of this. They need to remedy it fast because he's on a road to nowhere, he's burning down the house when he should be once in a lifetime.

There's big parallels to Jimmy when he altered his action to deal with a running on the pitch issue in his younger days. Finn has a lot of time on his side, most bowlers are still waiting for their international debuts at his age. You can't really learn pace, bounce and that wicket taking X factor as you get older, but you can learn control.

Regarding the others - Bell's had plenty of false dawns, in fact 2011 many of us did think he'd made the big breakthrough, but then went back to his old ways. Maybe we will see more "good Bell" than "bad Bell" over the rest of his career, he's massively talented which is why he's always been so frustrating. Bairstow - well, there's question marks about a number of elements of his technique. Again, plenty of time for him. He could be a top class player or someone who sinks without trace.

Yeah well done Jimmy best bowler in the match by far. Don't quite agree with Skully, think Steyn is still clear #1 atm.

Back on Jimmy though, he was an absolute pie-chucker early on. Was it simply because he was thrown into the deep end too early?

Gary 111 wrote:To back this up, a bit of a statsgasm - Anderson is third only to Steyn (and if he keeps his good early form up Philanderer) over the last 5 years amongst seamers:

Test pace bowlers since 1 May 2008 (75 wickets minimum)

1) V. Philanderer, S Africa, 16 matches, 89 wkts at 17.13
2) Dale Steyn, So. Africa, 42 matches, 212 wkts at 23.25
3) Jimmy Anderson, Eng, 61 matches, 247 wkts at 27.12
4) Kemar Roach, WIndies, 23 matches, 85 wkts at 27.71
5) Peter Siddle, Australia, 42 matches, 158 wkts at 28.23
6) BenMilfenhaus,Austalia, 27 matches, 99 wkts at 28.50
7) SteveThomas Finn, Eng, 23 matches, 90 wkts at 29.40
8. Morne Morkel, SAfrica, 43 matches, 158 wkts at 29.72
9) Sturat Broad, England, 55 matches, 189 wkts at 30.59
10) Zaheer Khan, Indians, 35 matches, 125 wkts at 30.66
11) Mitch Johnson, Austr, 45 matches, 181 wkts at 30.77
12) Fidel Edwards, West I, 24 matches, 85 wkts at 32.61
13) Tim Southee, New Zzz, 32 matches, 78 wkts at 34.75
14) Coldplay, NewZealand, 31 matches, 97 wkts at 35.41
15) Umar Seagul,Pakistan, 31 matches, 96 wkts at 35.82
16) Instant Karma,Indians, 45 matches, 127 wkts at 38.19

And he's not even in our top 5 quicks at the moment.

Says a lot about the depth of Aussie quicks at the moment.

baggygreen wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:To back this up, a bit of a statsgasm - Anderson is third only to Steyn (and if he keeps his good early form up Philanderer) over the last 5 years amongst seamers:

Test pace bowlers since 1 May 2008 (75 wickets minimum)

1) V. Philanderer, S Africa, 16 matches, 89 wkts at 17.13
2) Dale Steyn, So. Africa, 42 matches, 212 wkts at 23.25
3) Jimmy Anderson, Eng, 61 matches, 247 wkts at 27.12
4) Kemar Roach, WIndies, 23 matches, 85 wkts at 27.71
5) Peter Siddle, Australia, 42 matches, 158 wkts at 28.23
6) BenMilfenhaus,Austalia, 27 matches, 99 wkts at 28.50
7) SteveThomas Finn, Eng, 23 matches, 90 wkts at 29.40
8. Morne Morkel, SAfrica, 43 matches, 158 wkts at 29.72
9) Sturat Broad, England, 55 matches, 189 wkts at 30.59
10) Zaheer Khan, Indians, 35 matches, 125 wkts at 30.66
11) Mitch Johnson, Austr, 45 matches, 181 wkts at 30.77
12) Fidel Edwards, West I, 24 matches, 85 wkts at 32.61
13) Tim Southee, New Zzz, 32 matches, 78 wkts at 34.75
14) Coldplay, NewZealand, 31 matches, 97 wkts at 35.41
15) Umar Seagul,Pakistan, 31 matches, 96 wkts at 35.82
16) Instant Karma,Indians, 45 matches, 127 wkts at 38.19

And he's not even in our top 5 quicks at the moment.

Says a lot about the depth of Aussie quicks at the moment.

Neither is Mitch.

Brass Monkey wrote:He didn't do it at TB or in matches before because he's shortened and straightened his run up. The whole entire reason his run up changed.

And it seems to have f*cked his technique up a little because of this. They need to remedy it fast because he's on a road to nowhere, he's burning down the house when he should be once in a lifetime.

Actually, I think he abandoned his shortened run up after about one Test in NZ and reverted to the old style because, although his accuracy and pace were more consistent, he appeared to offer no wicket threat.

He's all over the place.

baggygreen wrote:Yeah well done Jimmy best bowler in the match by far. Don't quite agree with Skully, think Steyn is still clear #1 atm.

Back on Jimmy though, he was an absolute pie-chucker early on. Was it simply because he was thrown into the deep end too early?

The first time I saw Anderson was when he came to Australia in the 2002/03 season & played ODIs. He didn't play tests that season but I thought looked impressive in the ODIs & was an excellent prospect. However, his form went downhill after that & it seemed he would only be effective in English conditions but eventually he learned his lessons & is now a complete bowler.

WideWally wrote:

baggygreen wrote:Yeah well done Jimmy best bowler in the match by far. Don't quite agree with Skully, think Steyn is still clear #1 atm.

Back on Jimmy though, he was an absolute pie-chucker early on. Was it simply because he was thrown into the deep end too early?

The first time I saw Anderson was when he came to Australia in the 2002/03 season & played ODIs. He didn't play tests that season but I thought looked impressive in the ODIs & was an excellent prospect. However, his form went downhill after that & it seemed he would only be effective in English conditions but eventually he learned his lessons & is now a complete bowler.

Almost as soon as he broke into the England Test setup, then-bowling coach Troy Cooley tried to completely remodel his action to prevent back injuries. Jimmy's early promise faded very quickly from that point. Ironically, it was after he suffered a stress fracture in his back while touring India that seemed to mark the turnaround in his career. He reverted to his old action (Cooley had left the coaching setup by then) and - with a few false dawns - hasn't really looked back.

taipan wrote:

baggygreen wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:To back this up, a bit of a statsgasm - Anderson is third only to Steyn (and if he keeps his good early form up Philanderer) over the last 5 years amongst seamers:

Test pace bowlers since 1 May 2008 (75 wickets minimum)

1) V. Philanderer, S Africa, 16 matches, 89 wkts at 17.13
2) Dale Steyn, So. Africa, 42 matches, 212 wkts at 23.25
3) Jimmy Anderson, Eng, 61 matches, 247 wkts at 27.12
4) Kemar Roach, WIndies, 23 matches, 85 wkts at 27.71
5) Peter Siddle, Australia, 42 matches, 158 wkts at 28.23
6) BenMilfenhaus,Austalia, 27 matches, 99 wkts at 28.50
7) SteveThomas Finn, Eng, 23 matches, 90 wkts at 29.40
8. Morne Morkel, SAfrica, 43 matches, 158 wkts at 29.72
9) Sturat Broad, England, 55 matches, 189 wkts at 30.59
10) Zaheer Khan, Indians, 35 matches, 125 wkts at 30.66
11) Mitch Johnson, Austr, 45 matches, 181 wkts at 30.77
12) Fidel Edwards, West I, 24 matches, 85 wkts at 32.61
13) Tim Southee, New Zzz, 32 matches, 78 wkts at 34.75
14) Coldplay, NewZealand, 31 matches, 97 wkts at 35.41
15) Umar Seagul,Pakistan, 31 matches, 96 wkts at 35.82
16) Instant Karma,Indians, 45 matches, 127 wkts at 38.19

And he's not even in our top 5 quicks at the moment.

Says a lot about the depth of Aussie quicks at the moment.

Neither is Mitch.

Mitch isn't at #6 in that list

Still on the list though

Dello wrote:
Actually, I think he abandoned his shortened run up after about one Test in NZ and reverted to the old style because, although his accuracy and pace were more consistent, he appeared to offer no wicket threat.

He's all over the place.

He certainly was back to a short, straight run up yesterday when he was getting canned.

He should be told to just go back to what he knows and does best, which is charging in off his long run, and getting right in close to the stumps. If he happens to kick the stumps and get no balled every 3-4 overs, then so be it.

Over-meddling coaches have temporarily halted the careers of Anderson, Plunkett, Broad, and now possibly Finn. You'd think they (the coaches) would have learn't something by now.

In fact, when was the last time we had an exciting young quick who was allowed to come into the side and just told to bowl the way he's always done?

Henry wrote:He should be told to just go back to what he knows and does best, which is charging in off his long run, and getting right in close to the stumps. If he happens to kick the stumps and get no balled every 3-4 overs, then so be it.

Over-meddling coaches have temporarily halted the careers of Anderson, Plunkett, Broad, and now possibly Finn. You'd think they (the coaches) would have learn't something by now.

In fact, when was the last time we had an exciting young quick who was allowed to come into the side and just told to bowl the way he's always done?

Botham?

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:He should be told to just go back to what he knows and does best, which is charging in off his long run, and getting right in close to the stumps. If he happens to kick the stumps and get no balled every 3-4 overs, then so be it.

Over-meddling coaches have temporarily halted the careers of Anderson, Plunkett, Broad, and now possibly Finn. You'd think they (the coaches) would have learn't something by now.

In fact, when was the last time we had an exciting young quick who was allowed to come into the side and just told to bowl the way he's always done?

Botham?

Probably. Or Gough. They were the types who would tell a coach to f*ck off if they didn't feel they were telling them anything useful.

Henry wrote:He should be told to just go back to what he knows and does best, which is charging in off his long run, and getting right in close to the stumps. If he happens to kick the stumps and get no balled every 3-4 overs, then so be it.

Over-meddling coaches have temporarily halted the careers of Anderson, Plunkett, Broad, and now possibly Finn. You'd think they (the coaches) would have learn't something by now.

In fact, when was the last time we had an exciting young quick who was allowed to come into the side and just told to bowl the way he's always done?

Finn had an inconsistent, stuttering run-up when he first came into the team. He also used to randomly fall over every 3 or 4 overs. I don't think we can accuse the bowling coaches of spoiling his run-up, they just haven't improved it.

Henry wrote:In fact, when was the last time we had an exciting young quick who was allowed to come into the side and just told to bowl the way he's always done?

Simon Jones?

Do you think Anderson's recent record against oz might have also improved because of the lack of quality of the batsmen? 

Willis and co. might not have had to contend with bigger bats and shorter boundaries but they arguably bowled to batsmen who had better techniques who was just better period.

Red wrote:Do you think Anderson's recent record against oz might have also improved because of the lack of quality of the batsmen? 

Willis and co. might not have had to contend with bigger bats and shorter boundaries but they arguably bowled to batsmen who had better techniques who was just better period.

Who did you have in mind - Craig Serjeant, Rick Darling, Gary Cosier?

Red wrote:Do you think Anderson's recent record against oz might have also improved because of the lack of quality of the batsmen? 

Has to be a factor. Though do you think that maybe, just maybe, he's improved as well?

Take Michael Clarke, who averages 52 in Test cricket. Your best batsman. Possibly the world's best batsmen - as mooted by you, in your child-minded demeanour. He averages 20 against James Anderson.