The Final Test

pretty good...thought his figures would have been better against us... a bit telling that his figs are not particulalrly good against SA which has the best batting line-up

horace wrote:pretty good...thought his figures would have been better against us... a bit telling that his figs are not particulalrly good against SA which has the best batting line-up

He had a couple of bad games in the Ashes '09. It is a little bit telling that his numbers against SA are so poor. That did include two cannings in particular, in which he had little luck. But in essence, he's been shite against them. That's life.

The above point that you made and mainly that Red has made about SA, is a little bit moot - given the statistics, wouldn't you say? We barely ever play South Africa so it seems - so they're hardly going to precipitate his retirement. Take SA out and he's got 187 wickets @ 25.54 in 46 Tests. In a time period where over 30 non-English batsmen averaged over 40, 12 over 50, 5 over 60 (Safricans making up 3 of the 5), I think his record stands up pretty well.

I think prolly part of the reason for his weakness against South Africa in the 7 Tests you collated the figures from is the lack of support from other fit and firing seamers.

Onions had a weak series in SAf 2009-10 after a reasonable first innings at Centurion, and was eventually dropped for the final test. Bresnan was fairly horrible in England 2012 and was dropped for the third (final) Test. Finn, brought in for England 2012, was awry except at Lord's. And Anderson's most obvious opening partner, Broad, blew hot and cold, but mainly short, in those two series.

Asked to carry too much of the attack, JA bowled 37 overs, 1-104 in the first innings of the 2009-10 series. He "took" 0-111 off 30 overs in the only SAf innings at the fourth and final Test, @ Wanderers (his only inexplicably lousy performance, according to the explanation I'm touting here), and then 1-116 off 41 overs at the first Test (Oval) last summer, where Broad, Bresnan and Swann fared even worse! (England undercooked?)


Even the better seamers are a bit like Donne's island. They generally need (ideally) a pack, but at least a build-up of some consistent pressure from one or two other quicks from the other end. Whereas Anderson's partners have been inconsistent, wayward, weak, or injured (Tremlett!!!) in those two SAf series. (Admittedly, he was the weakest link in the final Test of 2009-10, as noted above.)

Broad at least is showing some good signs this Ashes. And Bresnan's figures were okay when he was reintroduced at Lord's. I still wish for Tremlett back.

Whilst agreeing with Danny and Peter, the point I made a couple of pages back bears repetition.

The worlds best batsmen are the worlds best simply because they can make big scores against the worlds best bowlers more often than merely good batsmen do.

2004 at St Johns, Antigua - BC Lara 400 against the same attack of Fred, Hoggy and S Jones who'd taken England 3-0 up in the series.

2006 at Columbo - Sangakarra rattled up 287, and Jayasurya 374 against Ntini, Nel, Hall and Dale Steyn, who doesn't often get tapped at all but 5 rpo. The track could hardly be called a road - SA batted first and were rolled over for just 169.

Finally 2001, Kolkota. Chasing Australias 445, India managed a miserable 171 and were inserted again. Second dig Laxman made 281, and Dravid 180 out of 657. McGrath followed 4/18 from 14 overs with 3/103 off 39. Warne fared even worse - 2/65 off 20 followed by 1/152 off 34.

Those are just three examples of top batsmen getting the better of top bowlers - it happens now and again.

This is why Test cricket is such a wonderful game - top batsmen sometimes get out cheaply, and top bowlers sometimes get some tap, but the best players in each discipline prosper in the long term.

So we're all providing dissertations for someone who basically have the comprehension levels and ideologies of a toddler - way for us.

Shall we all do quantum mechanics next week as the subject?

 

Brass Monkey wrote:So we're all providing dissertations for someone who basically have the comprehension levels and ideologies of a toddler - way for us.

Shall we all do quantum mechanics next week as the subject?

The trig party question was enough for me

Growler wrote:

Red wrote:

embee wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

Red wrote:Don't think Anderson will quite have that longevity. Still have memories of the likes of Hayden plundering him all over the ground. Obviously the terrible Aussie line-up gives the impression he can last forever but as has been mentioned when you're in your thirties, the decline can come swiftly.

Er, he didn't actually.

Hayden's scores in that series - 21, 37, 12, 18, 33, 23*

He got runs in the 2 Tests Anderson didn't play. Anderson had missed the entire English Summer with injury and there was no way he should have been picked, it was a classic Feltcher hunch/nonsense selection. He bowled first or second change on that tour and so Hayden must hardly have batted against him with those low scores.

I was at the Gabba and remember Anderson running Hayden out (the 37), about the only good thing Anderson did on that winter. Didn't get many in the ODI's that tour against him either.

But judging by the way Hayden struggled against Hoggard's swing in England he wouldn't have had a scooby against Anderson swinging it both ways at a slightly quicker pace.

I reckon Anderson can play to 36, he isn't an out and out pace bowler and relies more on skill so barring injury I think he's got plenty of overs in the tank.

She probably got jimmy mixed up with saj

Actually remember that pie chucker well.

But Anderson's figures for 2006/7 were very ordinary. Bowling to Langer, Hayden, Punter, Martyn, Hussey and Gilly were a different proposition.  His figures for that series were 1/141 , 0/54, 1/85, 0/23 and 3/98. His figures have improved as our batting has declined. Obviously he probably has got better as a bowler but it helps when you're bowling to a rabble. There's no guarantee that if the batting suddenly improves and puts him under pressure that he can sustain his bowling stats.

Possibly more instructive is to look at his figures last summer against SA putatively the world's best batting line-up.  
 1/116 2/61, 1/40, 3/76 and 2/73 were nothing to write home against.  His previous performance against SA in a game where Morkel and Steyn made merry (Joburg) was 0/111.


     

Red, you do come out with some absolute tripe at times.

No one would argue that JA has had better series than last summer v SA........
and better matches than Jo/burg on 2009/10, against putatively the worlds best batting line-up.

That would be the same top 6 that played at Newlands a fortnight earlier, where our man returned 5/63 and 3/98, at a pretty impressive 20 average - or had they been a complete rabble in Cape Town?

You have a tendency to sometimes use selective stats to re-inforce your argument - but I think you lose sight of the fact that world class batsmen are world class because they regularly score big against even the best bowlers.

To illustrate my point to a ridiculous extreme, using your own terminology - I can't imagine any true cricket fan on earth not putting a certain SK Warne in their top 5 all-time bowlers. So why, when his average against every other side is below 30, can he only manage a miserable 47 against SRT, VVS, Dravid & Co ?

To really drive the point home, although Warnes' overall average against India is 47, it is slightly better away from home, at 43. Our own Ghastly Piles is only 3 runs per wicket overall worse, at 50 - but 10 runs better with an average of 34 in India.

So, in the same way that you've proved Jimmy Anderson hasn't necessarily improved as a bowler - just been facing clueless top-orders, I've shown why Ashley Giles is a better bowler than Shane Warne.

The substansive point - has Jimmy got 6 more years in him ? Who knows. However good, or otherwise the opposition, if he's not flogged into the ground - its possible. If he's regularly bowling 10+ overs in a session because the first change bowler leaks 20 odd runs in 3 overs, then no ...... three maybe 4 more at the top.

That's the nub of it. Anyway I never said that Anderson hasn't improved. I pointed out that the best batting team in the world still appear to get the better of him and that as he ages it will be harder for him to sustain his current level. If his performances decline because either he comes more regularly against better batting teams or he shows the natural dip in output by dint of age he might pull the pin within the six years. If he goes another six years I will admit I was wrong, however, bowling experts like Lillee have always argued that quick bowlers enjoy their peak time in their late twenties. So there is every reason to suggest that he may have peaked now. Unlike for e.g. someone like McGrath, he relies more on a combination of pace and swing whereas the former had the advantage of his height and bounce which arguably helped him sustain his form for longer.

Red wrote: Gaga googoo... If his performances decline because either he comes more regularly against better batting teams .... mama? juju

I agree, very optimistic to last until 2019. But, where are these good line-ups? Which of these has been a good line-up?

Country	Wkt	Ave	Econ	S/R	5Fer	10Fer	BBI	BBM
Australia	49	28.67	3.06	56.2	3	1	5/73	10/158
Bangladesh	9	24.77	2.65	56	0	0	4/78	5/162
India	33	27.36	3.07	53.4	1	0	5/65	7/152
New Zealand	19	26.42	2.92	54.2	1	0	5/47	7/70
Pakistan	32	17.65	2.27	46.5	2	1	6/17	11/71
Sri Lanka	16	24.93	2.59	57.7	1	0	5/72	5/98
West Indies	29	26.86	2.55	63	1	0	5/87	9/125

You were probably getting fed, so missed it.

If none of these line-ups were very good, then where are the future ones coming from? How many good line-ups will he be facing in his next 20 Tests?

Red will find a stat to condemn EVERY non-Australian player.

Qunts. I hate that dirge.

Parody - the sincerest form of contempt.



But remember, an antidote is also toxic. So hear once and let the massed kazoo orchestra and football hooligan chorus self-destruct.

I will resist the temptation. For now, anyway.

Henry wrote:Red will find a stat to condemn EVERY non-Australian player.

 And most Australians besides....

Fred Nerk wrote:

Henry wrote:Red will find a stat to condemn EVERY non-Australian player.

 And most Australians besides....

And if he can't find them, he'll make them up ...

lardbucket wrote:I will resist the temptation. For now, anyway.

Succumbed. That is truly dreadful.

lardbucket wrote:

Fred Nerk wrote:

Henry wrote:Red will find a stat to condemn EVERY non-Australian player.

 And most Australians besides....

And if he can't find them, he'll make them up ...

...and Taips will complain that he/she is not tough enough re Australian players

lardbucket wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I will resist the temptation. For now, anyway.

Succumbed. That is truly dreadful.

Better than the original. Because more honestly appalling.

I had to laugh though. At the killer bees. And the National Front chorus.

Fred Nerk wrote:Watson - hopefully 07/13 07/15
Rogers - 09/13 08/15
Khawaja - 2020
Clarke - 09/15 at latest 08/15
Hughes - 09/13 but see Watson 07/15
Smith - 2021
Haddin - 09/13 07/15
Warner - maybe 04/13
Agar - 2021
Siddle - 09/15 11/16
Pattinson - 2017
Starc - 2020
Harris - 09/13 01/15
Lyon - 01/16 (backing Agar on a Sydney Bunsen and taking 1-200)

Mainly miles out, except a bullseye with Pup. Quodge will be lucky to reach his mark, Tweak will sail through his, Agar will take until his to become a regular, Patto could be one more serious injury from being dead right, Ringo had better leave his far behind or we could be in real trouble. In my own defence Warner looked good at the time based on all the visible evidence, and Lyon was an absolute shocker but I'm by no means the only one...