James Anderson

Match figures of....

24 - 3 - 153 - 1


been nice knowing you Jimmy.

His average has got to be close to 40 now - rubbish, rubbish,rubbish...

Doesn't deserve his own thread.

He's dead to me.

Dello wrote:Doesn't deserve his own thread.

He's dead to me.

Yes, but we won the series and he did take 5-73 in Wellington. So what are the odds on him keeping Hoggard out of the team next summer?

Even if Hoggard is finished, it's not like there aren't other bowlers around.

Anyone could play in place of Anderson and do better than that.

Anyone.

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

Dello wrote:Doesn't deserve his own thread.

He's dead to me.

Yes, but we won the series and he did take 5-73 in Wellington. So what are the odds on him keeping Hoggard out of the team next summer?

Look at you with the stats. Perhaps you should get out into the real world and learn not to use facts and stats in your posts.

Dello wrote:Even if Hoggard is finished, it's not like there aren't other bowlers around.

Anyone could play in place of Anderson and do better than that.

Anyone.

"how about me?" asked Harmi in selection quandary shocker

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

Dello wrote:Doesn't deserve his own thread.

He's dead to me.

Yes, but we won the series and he did take 5-73 in Wellington. So what are the odds on him keeping Hoggard out of the team next summer?

Look at you with the stats. Perhaps you should get out into the real world and learn not to use facts and stats in your posts.

I was taking the pish, you constantly use stats to try and prove a point. The fact you think I was making a case for Anderson tells me everything I need to know.

I didn't care whether you were making a case for Anderson or not. I was pointing out the childishness of criticising someone for posting stats, which are essentially numeric facts (unless manipulated).

<stats, which are essentially numeric facts (unless manipulated)>


guffaw

That Anderson took 5-73 isn't a fact?

yes...a good haul...how about this match....chortling

but that would be manipulation, wouldn't it?

What would?

selective use of numeric facts . . .

F*ck off. As the children in Enid Blyton books used to say; "I'm turning in".

Listen kid, I've nothing against stats, stats are good, upto a point. I just don't like them being used to prove a point, especially when the person quoting them hasn't seen the player concerned play in the flesh. Don Bradmans stats suggest he's the greatest batsman that ever lived. As I've never seen Don Bradman play I can't argue with that, and even if I did think he was the greatest batsman that ever lived I would never use his stats as proof without having seen him play.

Dello wrote:Doesn't deserve his own thread.

He's dead to me.

And a brainless wonder to boot - that bouncer to Martin was proof of that - totally unnecessary.

tac wrote:but that would be manipulation, wouldn't it?

Ot in horries case, masterbation.

Merlin wrote:

tac wrote:but that would be manipulation, wouldn't it?

Ot in horries case, masterbation.

So excited by that thought, you couldn't spell correctly, eh?

Basil wrote:

Dello wrote:Doesn't deserve his own thread.

He's dead to me.

And a brainless wonder to boot - that bouncer to Martin was proof of that - totally unnecessary.

Aye. Jimmy the "one innings every 20" wonder boy.
Perhaps the blow he struck Martin on his hemet gave him a hard-on that took the bloodrush down rather than up.

He really has to be history now.
Saj Mahmood anyone?

tac wrote:

Merlin wrote:

tac wrote:but that would be manipulation, wouldn't it?

Ot in horries case, masteurbation.

So excited by that thought, you couldn't spell correctly, eh?

Aye, but only an expert would pick up on that!

(Or the tailbender, of course!)
PS - another disappearance act like Zimburger and the Zatmobile!
Now we just need that old roman fart whore-rie to follow and we have the 'full house'!

very generous of you merls...i have noted you are one of the few here who attack individual posters...without much success it seems...as tac implies you may be a litle preoccupied...best of luck to you

horace wrote:very generous of you merls...i have noted you are one of the few here who attack individual posters...without much success it seems...as tac implies you may be a litle preoccupied...best of luck to you

No worries horrie ... only those who persistently irritate.

By "the few" do you mean the two dozen or more posters on here who constantly tell you to ****** off?
Righto.

Merlin wrote:
(Or the tailender, of course!)
PS - another disappearance act like Zimburger and the Zatmobile!

Sorry to disappoint you, Merlian, darling.

James Anderson - 7
His recall for the second Test, at the expense of Hoggard, was controversial, but when Anderson responded with a wonderful spell of hostile, fast, full-length swing bowling, England must have wondered how they had coped without him in the five years since his debut. It all went a bit flat thereafter, sadly. An untimely ankle injury, sustained while playing football, reduced his effectiveness and at Napier, he was cannon fodder even for the desperate Matthew Bell. When it swings, Anderson makes it sing, but all too often he has no Plan B.

From cricinfo

Andrew Miller you farking joker!!!