Attn Trev, Vilks and other Doubting Thomases .....

If the MCG is anything like it was last year for the Pakistan Test on the first day Jimmykins will be deadly. But when the ball stops swinging he is a concern.

What other options do we have though? Bresnan? Tremlett? Holloway? Saj the wonder horse?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:F*ck off is he a better bowler than Gough.

One good series away from home. He's not even better than Hoggy yet.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:F*ck off is he a better bowler than Gough.

One good series away from home. He's not even better than Hoggy yet.

Henry wrote:Hoggy was a damn good bowler from 2002 until 2007. Should have played a few more tests for England in 2008 and either he or Simon Jones should definitely have been picked ahead of Darren Pattinson.

Anderson is faster than Hoggard.
Anderson swings the ball more than Hoggard and less from the arm (e.g. predictably a la Hilfenhaus)
Anderson can bowl inswing
Anderson has more variations than Hoggard (as evidenced by his superior ODI career)
Anderson has a better bouncer than Hoggard
Anderson leads the attack, whereas Hoggard relied more on supporting Harmison and Flintoff
Anderson bowls many more unplayable deliveries than Hoggard

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Anderson is faster than Hoggard.
Anderson swings the ball more than Hoggard and less from the arm (e.g. predictably a la Hilfenhaus)
Anderson can bowl inswing
Anderson has more variations than Hoggard (as evidenced by his superior ODI career)
Anderson has a better bouncer than Hoggard
Anderson leads the attack, whereas Hoggard relied more on supporting Harmison and Flintoff
Anderson bowls many more unplayable deliveries than Hoggard

None of this means anything. Brett Lee is probably more talented than McGrath (faster, more swing blah blah) but he was sh*t. I'd take a consistently good bowler over an occasionally brilliant player who's also horrendous a lot of time. 

Some people have short memories. Yes, Anderson's had a good series. Doesn't change some of the horrific gash he's served up for a lot of his career.

Anderson home - 136 wickets at 27.17
Anderson away - 75 wickets at 38.58

Says it all really. Jimmy's got a hell of a lot more to do to get into my good books after the utter filth that has been the majority of his career (when he doesnt have "jimmy conditions").

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he went back to wank, sooner or later. I'm not saying it will happen but I would not be surprised. His average is over 30 against every half decent Test side. Often waaaay over 30 and closer to 40.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Brett Lee is probably more talented than McGrath (faster, more swing blah blah)

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Erm... It was pretty obvious the point I was making. But you seem to have completely missed it. The list of reasons that Anderson is "better" than Hoggard is the only bilge I can see. Most of the points in the list apply to the Lee-McGrath comparison. I'm sorry if the word "talent" upset you, it was simply a term to sum up all of your points into one "catch-all" word - "talent". If you honestly think that I think Lee is better than McGrath, I give up. I really do.

No, the comparison I made is valid because I was comparing England's previous fast-medium outswing bowler with their current one. Not a first change out and out pace bowler with legendary fast-medium seam bowler.

The whole post makes no sense anyway. X can do a, b and c and is therefore better than y. Being able to do more stuff means jack. It's the results that count.

And talking of results. Anderson has not been excellent for the last 4 years at all. Not sure how you got that. 1 series apart, he's been his usual shif self away from home.

Averages away from home in the last 4 years:

Aus 2006 - 82
Where to begin - more than 4 years ago, he was injured and had no match practice and had been undermined by bad coaching - exactly the point I was making, people are still judging him on his fallow years, which this certainly was.
Sri Lanka 2007 - 86
This isn't a series, its one match, where he bowled well in the first innings and badly in the second.
NZ 2008 - 35
Only 2 matches, but now we're talking. England got stuffed in the first test, and the selectors decided to drop Harmison (quite rightly) and Hoggard (somewhat harshly). Anderson came in at Wellington and was superb - he ripped the NZ top order out in the first innings, 5 of the first 6 wickets leading England to the win. Sadly the bizarre tactic we have of playing football for a 'warm-up' meant he injured his ankle and shouldn't really have played at Napier. He took a bit of long handle from Southee once the Test and series had been secured, which somewhat distorts his average. Make no mistake, he played a key role in turning that series round.
India 2008 - 53
Again, a tiny sample size, 2 matches, very little lead-in time. Based on the fact Anderson and Shaun Udal (remember him?) delivered our last test win in India I am prepared to cut him a bit of slack here. He took a wicket in each innings - Sehwag, Gambhir, Dhoni & Tendulkar.
WI 2009 - 38
The previous tour the West Indian authorities decided England were susceptible to pace bowling, and prepared wickets to suit their young quicks. As a consequence we had a series of engrossing low scoring matches - Vaughan and Trescothick ended the series with averages like tail-enders, Harmison took his famous 7/12 and Hoggard his memorable hat-trick. Only at Antigua when England were 3-0 up did they prepare a road, and Lara made 400. Determined not to make the same mistake again they prepared a set of puddings. The only exception was the 1st Test at Kingston, which was a decent wicket and crumbled later on - where England were bowled out for 51 and Jerome Taylor took 5 for 11. This of course was the one match in the series Anderson didn't play, England's selectors having inexplicably recalled that big sook Harmison. As for the remaining 3 drawn matches played on the puddings, this is how the pace / medium pace bowlers fared:

Jimmy Anderson, 9 wickets at 38.00
Fidel Edwards, 8 wickets at 54.13
Stuart Broad, 7 wickets at 40.29
Lionel Baker, 4 wickets at 29.00
Daren Powell, 4 wickets at 89.25
Andrew Flintoff, 3 wickets at 26.33
Jerome Taylor, 3 wickets at 76.33
Steve Harmison, 2 wickets at 49.00
Amjad Khan, 1 wicket at 122
Ryan Sidebottom, 1 wicket at 146
Brandon Nash, 1 wicket at 152
Lendl Simmons, 0/55
Ravi Bopara, 0/66
Paul Collingwood, 0/73
So he was the top wicket taker, and out of those who bowled regularly (ie more than 30 overs) he had the best average. Some very talented bowlers like Fidel Edwards and Jerome Taylor were going at 50odd and 70odd on those dead wickets.

SA 2009 - 34
He had a bad game in the last Test at Jo'burg, and Morkel and Steyn were excellent in this game, and for the rest of the series. Steyn is the outstanding fast bowler in world cricket at the moment. But the 16 (mostly top order) wickets he took in the first 3 Tests meant England went to Jo'burg 1-0 up. Once again he took more wickets than the other English quicks, and again led the attack well, Broad had 13 at 33, Onions 8 at 46, Sidebottom 2 at 49.

Someone call Frindall. This guy's gonna break all the records.
Aye, this Summer he'll pass Harmison, Flintoff, Gough and Caddick in the England wicket-takers list, maybe even Hoggard too. Stay injury free and he'll surely pass Willis, possibly before the next Ashes series. Then only Botham is between him and being England's leading Test wicket taker. I don't really came about the pyjama cricket but he's already 2nd in that list too. As i'll show below, his career has so far heavily been stacked in favour of playing the best Test teams, you would think this trend will even out at some point and so his average will fall. I expect he'll end his career with a very similar record to Botham.

So what you meant was - he's been excellent for the past 4 years at home and also once away from home.

Even then, he's had some equally poor series' at home so you meant - he's sometimes been excellent for the past 4 years at home and also once away from home.

He's got a loooooooong way to go to prove he's as good as we hope he is. This series is a step in te right direction rather than the affirmation a lot of people are treating it as.

Whatever way you try and pervert it, he's been excellent since 2008, when he was recalled and made leader of the attack. He's played better in those 3 years than Hoggard ever did at his peak. As I say, its partly because he was so talented that people are frustrated and his stats are poor - a bit like Flintoff in this respect, he played many Tests when he wasn't ready, because his promise was self evident. If both Flintoff and Anderson had benefited from a proper county apprenticeship and come into the team at 25 at their peak they would have very respectable Test stats. As it is they both learned their own game in the unforgiving environs of Test cricket over a period of years constantly flitting in and out of the side.

For example, if Hoggard had played international cricket when he was 21-24 like Anderson did fans would have become more frustrated with him, his bowling average would have been higher too. In this period, 2003-2007, Anderson had some good days, he won us a couple of Tests against quality batting line-ups, notably South Africa at Trent Bridge and India in Mumbai. But he bowled a lot of dross, had coaches mess with his action and spent a lot of time touring the world ferrying drinks and suddenly being called up when short of match practice, ultimately he took 62 wickets at 39 in those 20 Tests.

As I say, Hoggard wasn't good enough to play for England at the same age, when he was a month short of turning 25 he had played 2 Tests, at the same age Anderson had already played 16. Hoggard came into the team at his peak and left it very suddenly, not far from his peak. He spent his formative years learning his trade at Yorkshire alongside Gough and in state cricket in South Africa with Allan Donald. He was a very solid and reliable bowler, who constantly averaged around 30-32. He was remarkably consistent at maintaining this level, only in 3 calendar years did his bowling average sneak into 20's, twice this corresponded with his successful series against Bangladesh. To my mind he only excelled himself consistently once – in the 2004/5 series in South Africa. That tour he was genuinely world class – but no more so I feel than Anderson has been this series. Plus Anderson has more outstanding performances to back it up with, already he has 10 five wicket hauls in Test cricket.

Now lets look at the proper Anderson, the bowler he was destined to become. From 2008-2011 England’s bowlers have had a tough run of fixtures (away in India, Aus, SA, and the roads of the Windies) and Anderson has been outstanding. He has played 36 Tests and taken 150 wickets at 27.78. This spell has included 20 games (56%) against the 'Big 3' of India, South Africa and Australia. Hoggard never played these teams with the same frequency in his career, approx (40%) overall. Anderson has led the attack to series wins in Australia & New Zealand, and to a draw in South Africa. We've regained the Ashes at home too.

My argument is that in this period, a very significant chunk of his career (which accounts for over half the games Hoggard played in his entire career) Anderson has been consistently more threatening and destructive. He's taken more wickets per match and led the attack, often in adverse conditions. He's mastered the arts of inswing and reverse swing and generally been an outstanding Test performer, whereas Hoggard was never more than consistently good. It is the life of a genuine swing bowler that you will have more erratic days than most – think Trueman, Wasim, Alderman, they had their fair share of unpenetrative spells and then they would burst to life. But I think the Anderson Cycle is a thing of the past – Jimmy has learned to be accurate and economical and put in more than his share of hard yards.