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

LLL seems to be basing his judgement purely on stats. Sometimes you have to ignore stats and just watch a guy play to make your judgement.

Jimmy is quality these days, at home and away.

Talent wise, i think Caddick was better than Anderson.

Ha. You've managed to make excuses for 4 years and 8 series'. Impressive. He was fit enough to be picked for all of those games. I could do exactly the same with a lot of Hoggard's matches when he wasn't very good.

The point is he's not been excellent for the past 4 years, not - he's been excellent but I've got a sh!t load of excuses for all the times he wasn't.

We'll have to agree to disagree Gary.

Trev - I saw a lot of those games and I saw a shedload of gash from Jimmy. 

Excellent for the past 4 years.... FFS. Wasim Akram must be wondering how good he was if this is what passes for "excellent" nowadays.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Ha. You've managed to make excuses for 4 years and 8 series'. Impressive. He was fit enough to be picked for all of those games. I could do exactly the same with a lot of Hoggard's matches when he wasn't very good.

The point is he's not been excellent for the past 4 years, not - he's been excellent but I've got a sh!t load of excuses for all the times he wasn't.

We'll have to agree to disagree Gary.

Trev - I saw a lot of those games and I saw a shedload of gash from Jimmy. 

Excellent for the past 4 years.... FFS. Wasim Akram must be wondering how good he was if this is what passes for "excellent" nowadays.

Not making excuses, pointing out that out of context statistics are useless.

It frustrates me when people try to put down someone who's played as well as Anderson has for England. If Lampard had played half as well for England the last 4 years our football team might have won something. We've seen this in the Ashes as well - 'worst Australian team' and how Ponting, Clarke, etc are all useless. They're not - England just haven't allowed them to play.

I think you're judgement is way off here, but if you want Hoggard for your 'England last 10 years XI' fine, i'll have Anderson at his peak and I know who would get more wickets.

But that means nothing. You have put the stats into (subjective) context. The end result is still the same, his results haven't been good enough. He has been far from excellent. Whether you go to the effort of making excuses for him (EVERY series where he doesn't get the results you want him to) or not.

You can do that for everyone. 8 series' and 4 years is not a small sample size. Neither is the rest of his career which has been largely not very good. I saw a lot of those matches and I have seen most of Anderson's career. A lot of it is wank. The stats reflect that. Let's move on. We're obviously not going to agree. Let's just hope he keeps up his present excellent work.

I wouldn't have Hoggy in my best England side of the past 10 years. It'd probably be (assuming all at their peak and fit):

Fred
Swann
Jones
Gough
Harmison/Tremlett

Good attack, that. What would yours be Gaz?

Btw, I've obviously cheated a bit there with Gough. I know his best was not in this decade but he did play in this decade and I've sneaking bumped him up to 'peak'.

And I've always backed Tremlett. Always, always, always. If he wasn't so delicate, he'd have been in every one of my England squads for years.

Harmison was at his 'peak' for two test matches if I remember correctly.

Henry wrote:Harmison was at his 'peak' for two test matches if I remember correctly.

Were they both played at Durham?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:But that means nothing. You have put the stats into (subjective) context. The end result is still the same, his results haven't been good enough. He has been far from excellent. Whether you go to the effort of making excuses for him (EVERY series where he doesn't get the results you want him to) or not.

You can do that for everyone. 8 series' and 4 years is not a small sample size. Neither is the rest of his career which has been largely not very good. I saw a lot of those matches and I have seen most of Anderson's career. A lot of it is wank. The stats reflect that. Let's move on. We're obviously not going to agree. Let's just hope he keeps up his present excellent work.

I wouldn't have Hoggy in my best England side of the past 10 years. It'd probably be (assuming all at their peak and fit):

Fred
Swann
Jones
Gough
Harmison/Tremlett

Good attack, that. What would yours be Gaz?

Hmm, but I would argue with how you define '4 years and 8 series'. For a start Ashes 2006-7 isn't in it (+4 years), then you're talking SL, NZ, India, one-off or two off Tests, this is only 5 games so not much of a sample size, and he won England one of those. So they're you've got the last 12 Tests - 3 in WI, 4 in SA and 5 in Aus this time where I think he's been largely excellent, accepting the Jo'burg match, i'd be interested to hear where you thought he bowled badly in these?

For me he was England's best paceman in WI and Aus, in SA Anderson, Broad and Onions were much of a muchness but Jimmy got most wickets. These pitches have been incredibly flat for the most part, especially in WI, but also in Oz, I mean England have scored 500+ in all but Perth. So there is no shame in having a bowling average of 32 of whatever it is over these 3 series. The other England bowlers must all be pushing 40 in similar condition except Swann. 32 on these pitches is worth 22 on most English pitches.

Re England 2001-11

As you mention its real push to include Goughy, by the Ashes 2001 his bowling was 'half rat-arse' power. But there isn't much without him and he was very good in Sri Lanka in early 2001. As much as I would like to include Simon Jones that's a big if - assuming its a 5 Test series you're selecting for you would have to accept that he's going to break down injured as I don't think he ever managed a whole series without getting injured? Maybe the 4 Tests in the Windies was the only one? Another reverse swing specialist is Craig White, but he was down on pace from his late nineties peak (when he was mostly ignored by England).

I'd have Anderson take the new ball, possibly Hoggard too as he was a very steady and reliable bowler. But they are a bit samey. You would need a taller bowler too, again i'm reluctant with Harmison - on 2004-05 form yes. If not you could include Broad or maybe even Tremlett. Caddick would also be an option but he tended to reserve his best for the times the pressure was off.

So nominally it would be:

Flintoff (post 2004 and hopefully with knees in working condition)
Swann
Jones (assuming he's fit), Hoggard if not
Anderson (2008-11 form)
Gough (2001)

But probably you would end the series with Goughy, Jones and Flintoff all injured.

Zat wrote:

Henry wrote:Harmison was at his 'peak' for two test matches if I remember correctly.

Were they both played at Durham?

Sabina Park 04, and Lord's 05.

Apart from those two tests, I can't honestly remember thinking, "Geez, Harmi is bowling brilliantly here."

He was good for most of the summer against New Zealand and West Indies in 2004. I think his peak was 2004-05, but even that is accepting an awful tour of SA.

He had a good game on a trampoline pitch at Old Trafford vs Pakistan which may be his best career figures?

I can see why you would want him in your bowling attack, as he offers something not many England bowlers have - top pace 90mph plus, steepling bounce, a guy who can physically intimidate the opposition. When I was thinking of my attack, you end up with our best 3 bowlers being Gough, Anderson & Hoggard, they're a bit samey. That's why our selectors must have kept picking him despite him regularly bowling dross. He was such a frustrating and unintelligent bowler a lot of the time.

Any team with Harmison, plus injury prone bowlers like Flintoff and Jones puts you in mind of the old quote about the general on the eve of battle - "I don't know what they'll do to the enemy; but, by God, they frighten me."

It's not hard to be good against the likes of NZ, the Windies, and Pakistan though. They all have extremely brittle batting lineups.

He went missing too often against Aus, India, and South Africa.

Paul Keating wrote:Talent wise, i think Caddick was better than Anderson.

snigger

Henry wrote:It's not hard to be good against the likes of NZ, the Windies, and Pakistan though. They all have extremely brittle batting lineups.

He went missing too often against Aus, India, and South Africa.

Hmmm, not directly related but a little bug-bear of mine - I actually think the England team of 2004 was better than the team that won the Ashes in 2005. And now all you hear in 2005, Flintoff's Ashes, as if that's the only think Vaughan and Fletcher ever did. We had Thorpey for starters instead of Ian Bell (Malteser Balls Mark I). Their best achievement was winning in SA, but the summer of 2004 winning the Tests 7-0 was mighty fine too. I remember it as being a really warm, pleasant summer and most of the wickets were good straw coloured batting tracks rather than the green seamers we sometimes have.

It might actually have been the best touring party NZ have ever sent to these shores, certainly better than the team that won in 1999 and with a very long batting line-up. In the first Test they fielded a top 9 of:

Richardson
Fleming
Astle
Styris
McMillan
Oram
Carins
McCullum
Vettori

They're not bad, one or two of these players were inconsistent but they were all dangerous on their day. Plus Cairns at 7, McCullum at 8, Vettori 9, some real depth there.

Plus the Windies middle order of Sarwan, Lara and Chanderpaul is not to be sniffed at.

You're right, the team that beat South Africa in 2004/05 was a very good team. The only thing was that Simon Jones wasn't a regular in the XI. We were rotating between Jones, Anderson, and Martin Saggers FFS.

I remember Jones bowling an incredible spell against New Zealand at Lord's in 2004. Every ball seemed to be beating the bat when none of the other bowlers had been getting much out of the pitch. And I don't think he was even 100% fit. It was the first time you thought that England might have a really special bowler on their hands.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

<snip >

Excellent for the past 4 years.... FFS. Wasim Akram must be wondering how good he was if this is what passes for "excellent" nowadays.

This is interesting.

I stumbled across this particular statistic quite by chance when researching something else. On solely wickets taken, Anderson & Akram aren't a million miles apart head to head. Averages are a different matter, granted - but again taking Gary's point of the last 4 years - that almost halves the difference. A better comparison would have been with that other Pakistan great, Waqar.

Anderson reached 200 wickets in his 55th Test - Wasim was 4 matches quicker, taking his in just 51. Waqar second fastest of all, needing just 38 matches.

Interestingly, Wasim played 104 Tests. Anderson has played exactly half, 57 matches. Same stage comparison ...

JA 212 wickets @ 31.1 strike rate 56.8 economy rate 3.28
Wasim 244 wickets @ 22.86 strike rate 52.9 economy rate 2.59
Waqar 275 wickets @ 21.56 strike rate 40.5 economy rate 3.2

So in short, Wasim may possibly be thinking .....

" If he stays fit, and continues in the last few years form, he may overtake me on the wickets list. His poor start means his average won't be quite as low, but nevertheless, he's more than good."

It's as easy to bump this thread as to start a new one.

Gary 111 wrote:

< snip >

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.

< snip >

Well, as Gaz predicted, Freddy and GBH have been overtaken, and Jimmy is now Englands 10th highest Test wicket taker of all time ( 47th in the world ). Who'da thunk it heh ?

So to Trent Bridge. He'll want to erase the 1/157 he took there against India four years ago. In spite of that awful match he averages 15 there at a S/R of just 33 ...... in his other three matches there he has 27 wickets - 7/119 v SA, 9/98 v NZ and 11/71 v Pak last year. He will surely take the 4 wickets needed to overtake Goughie.

He will then be just 4 behind Andrew Caddick who I think will be overtaken at Edgebaston. I've a feeling Hoggy's place will be safe until we tour over winter .........

Not a better bowler than Dazzler, though, IMO. Just a better fitness record. And more natural skin tone.

Dello wrote:Not a better bowler than Dazzler, though, IMO. Just a better fitness record. And more natural skin tone.

I think every England fan has a soft spot for Goughy because often he was England's only good bowler and the one who would bowl his heart out when the oppo were 300/3 and the sun was out.

But Jimmy is more talented, his peaks are higher - it was wonderful to see him today and the panic induced in Tendulkar. To have him dropped at slip and them get him out two balls later was awesome. I remember Goughy doing something similar to Greg Blewett in the Ashes - got him out off a no-ball. Had a bit of a swear, broad grin back to his mark and got him out again next ball.

I remember that. I'm taking a punt at Edgbaston. And Daz bouncing around like a lunatic when he got Blewett second time around. Part of a crazy first morning when wickets were going down like an inflatable prostitute with a leak. Even Mark Ealham got in on the act. IIRC. Which I may not.

Won the game with a Hussain double hundred to go 1-0. Lost 3-2, of course, it being the 90s.

Anderson more talented? I don't know. I've not seen an England bowler with a better inswinging yorker than Gough's. And he was sensational out in Sri Lanka with reverse swing, bowling England to an unlikely series win.

No, didn't quite recall correctly. Ealham didn't get in on the act. Not in the first innings.

Think this was the game: http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/64/64098.html

JimmyA more talented than Bobby? Nay. Nay way. Gough was more talented than most. Were he to have been centrally contracted in his pomp and injury-managed, he'd have had a fuller career. His reverse-swinging yorker was second only to Waqar IMO.

Brass Monkey wrote: JimmyA more talented than Bobby? Nay. Nay way. Gough was more talented than most. Were he to have been centrally contracted in his pomp and injury-managed, he'd have had a fuller career. His reverse-swinging yorker was second only to Waqar IMO.

But I don't recall Goughy getting orthadox inswing. Jimmy seems to be able to make the ball talk almost at will, and with little change in action. Also the ball seems to swing so late - not from the arm like many swing bowlers. He's bowled more genuine jaffa's than any other England bowler I can recall - many of them at Trent Bridge actually- I bet you could make an amazing compilation of his best deliveries.

Jimmy's skill and Goughy's heart and you'd have an all time great. You'd pretty much have Malcolm Marshall I suppose.

Jimmy's skill and Goughy's heart and you'd have an all time great. You'd pretty much have Malcolm Marshall I suppose.

Goughy's skill and Jimmy's heart and you'd have Ben Hilfenhaus

I'm very biased towards Gough because he was my first cricketing hero, but Jimmy is going to sail past him in terms of wickets taken and tests played, which is a sign of the times, i.e. central contracts and his talent, which he has worked hard to build on.

Anderson has a few inches of height on Gough, and a completely different build, but he's had pretty good supporting bowlers around him.

As someone said earlier, the Gough fondness mainly stems from the fact that he was a 'battler' (if not the enforcer...) and despite Caddick's sometime pea-heartedness and Craig White's hit or miss bowling and everyone else they played in that era, he still did a job and was as good as he was, despite the lack of support at those times.

And he seemed to rise to the occasion in Aus, although I never saw it, and he bowled damn well first time on the subcontinent. That for me shows his bowling intelligence, although both Pak and Sri Lanka 2000/01 series were won with a good team effort (and shoite umpiring, yes!). I will always wonder what would've been if he'd toured in the winter of 01/02, but as it was, that was the start of Hoggy and Fred and the end for him. Such is loife.