Re: Ashes Reflections ...

by MoH Tue 17 Dec 2013, 23:53

Another 'interesting' stat. Australia have declared in eight of their last twelve ashes innings. Before that they hadn't declared in the previous 21 innings. What happened? I'm still blaming Merlin.

by Growler Wed 18 Dec 2013, 00:06

Another interesting snippet I just read, skulls ........ Pup is the only one of the WACA starting XI to have experienced winning an Ashes series ( whilst being on the losing side on 4 occasions). The other 10 players have played in 18 losing series between them. Note series, not matches.

Haddin, Sids and Watson played in the last three losing series, while Midge, Rhino and Steve Smith joined them for the last two - whilst Warner Lyon & Buck only lost a few months ago, leaving George Bailey as the only one to know how bitter it feels.

I recall the stick Haddin & Watson were getting on here in 2009, joined over the next couple of years by Johnson for some vitriol. None should have come anywhere near a baggy green for most fans. Siddle was never more than an honest toiler, and Harris the epitome of the living dead.

But - here's the point - over the past 5 years, those cricketers were basically the best that Australia had at their disposal. Nobody blew the Shield apart with so many runs or wickets that everyone was raving about and the NSP couldn't ignore. Nobody kicked any of the donkeys out of the team did they? Yet the urn has been won far more easily than Waugh ever experienced against Athers & Co through the 90s .......

Now, I can't explain why Cook, KP, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann and Jimmy A - who've wiped your arses (spectacularly so last time they toured) so often - have played so dreadfully. Much of it has to be mental rather than technical ....... with the top order, more wickets have gone to shit shots than good balls. Bowling wise - we've had you in trouble every game - 5 down for not many, and then lost it completely.

Broad has bowled well enough, with the wickets to prove it (albeit not that cheaply). Bar his last 4 overs at Perth, Jimmy may not have been threatening, but was comfortably less than 3 rpo without much luck. Last time we had a 3rd seamer worth the name was Onions, and as for Swann - you'd get no complaints from me if Ghastly Piles came out of retirement - he couldn't bowl worse than "the worlds best spinner", and would have at least got a few runs at eight.

Here's a statistic to chew on. Calendar years 2012 and 2013 combined ........ tests only BTW.

Jimmy Anderson - 1066 overs bowled / 27 matches = 39.48 overs/match.

Graeme Swann - 1074 overs bowled / 24 matches played = 44.75 overs/match

There's the reason Jimmy looks washed out - he's been flogged into the ground because no qunt else has been consistent enough to allow him a break - and that includes Broad & Swann.

Just for comparison of workload (NOT ability/place in pantheon of quick bowlers of this generation) .....

Dale Steyn - 630 overs bowled / 17 matches played = 37 overs/match.

Enough said ?

Two final thoughts.

1. I'm not getting into a "degree of edges" discussion - but go back to Trent Bridge this summer. KP tends to whack the ball down long-on's throat, Jimmy pops it gently to short leg either fending off a quick ball or done by spin. In those circumstances, virtually every batsman in the history of the game who does that is halfway back to the hutch before the fielder even begins to celebrate. Broad couldn't have been more out had a stump ripped Haddins gonads off.

2. We all know Jimmy's got more mouth than a cow's got qunt - but it really wasn't that wise to let Bialey know he'd like to punch him.

Those two incidents alone - without factoring in the general hubris surrounding the squad - were enough to ensure that Australia were going to do us over every opportunity they got. In the match situation, what do you reckon Boof whispered in Bailey's ear as he padded up, a declaration coming, a nice hard new ball due, and his favourite bowler having spent 3/4 of the series in the field ? Lets just say I bet he wasn't threatened with being dropped if he got out being "adventurous" .....

by horace Wed 18 Dec 2013, 00:16

a well thought out piece growls.

Jimmeh also did a lot of heavy lifting in the series v the bannies

by PeterCS Wed 18 Dec 2013, 00:21

Growler wrote: ....
Now, I can't explain why Cook, KP, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann and Jimmy A - who've wiped your arses (spectacularly so last time they toured) so often - have played so dreadfully. Much of it has to be mental rather than technical ....... with the top order, more wickets have gone to shit shots than good balls. Bowling wise - we've had you in trouble every game - 5 down for not many, and then lost it completely.
.....

I disagree with this as regards the (England) batting, Growls - I think it's the other way around.

The Australian management team has scrupulously worked out where the flaws, actual and potential, have been in their opponents' techniques. Each and every one of them: special work on each batsman. They have done thorough research, and then thoroughly instructed their bowlers (and fielders, and captain) what they have consistently to do, to open and expose those flaws.

This process started immediately Boof came in - it might not have been obvious to a casual eye (that sees only an end-result of 3-0) in the (English) summer, but all of the top seven in England's batting were struggling against the beginnings of this carefully thought-through and focussed attack even then: even though a couple of England innings slipped through the net, and England's bowlers still achieved just about enough, and Australia's batting still subsided often enough, for the home team to get to three victories (and the weather was on the home team's side on another occasion, at a ground beloved of both of us).

The rot has set in psychologically on the back of that outstanding work of technical exposure by Team Lehmann. Harris staying fit, and Johnson getting the right psychological counselling to beef him up and successfully join the "execution party", have added greatly to the further swing of the pendulum.

With the (England) bowlers, you're dead right. It's much more the other way around. (Though remember Swann played a useful part "Up Over", in Pomerania.)

The lamentable thing if you're a Pom supporter is that everything Boof & Co have attended to and addressed, the England set-up has utterly neglected.

And precisely this is why my record is damn near broken that Goochie should be the very first to go. He has done a Rip van Winkle on his watch.

by Growler Wed 18 Dec 2013, 01:02

Peter you're spot on regarding Boof and his homework, and yes, England have spectacularly failed to do that, but .....

I've also been listening to TMS with Geoffrey, and no matter what you think of him or his commentary/summarising style - there's no denying he knows what he's talking about.

Yes, he has remarked on technical faults, but the thing he's said, over and over and over - is that much of the issues are in the batsmens heads this series, He's banged on like a shit-house door in a force 8.

Australia have been bowling to Englands weaknesses, no doubt about it - but many (top order) wickets thus far haven't come about purely because of that alone. The expression I kept hearing was " ....... not batting to the match situation ..... "

The bitter fact is, like I intimated in my post above - the donkeys mentioned were Australias best, and this squad are our best right now. It's up to them to show the nous - and the stones - to prove that they do have what it takes to at least make a half decent fist of the remaining two matches.

by PeterCS Wed 18 Dec 2013, 01:33

But my point is, unless you iron out the persistent faults (whether it is fishing wide ones that need not be played, swishing down the leg side, not getting the head over the ball, not addressing the ball squarely with the bat, not instinctively moving the feet according to the delivery - we've seen the whole bloody lot of textbook errors from the various batters), by (1) understanding exactly what these errors are, and (2) consistent practice in getting it right(er), then you are going to keep reproducing those mistakes to a clued-up attack.

You have to get to a point where at least a reasonable level of technical accuracy is a form of second nature, otherwise you will be found out more often than not .... and if you don't snick one you shouldn't have chased, or miss one you should have middled, then you take a flail at one with the predictable results.

The last of those in particular shows where the mental disintegration has set in - AFTER technical ignorance and lack of application - but the snicking and missing are frequently also a form of despair/desperation/exasperation. Where the batsman in question should (with appropriate technical assistance wherever this is helpful) have sorted it out before the match. He now flicks, slashes or chops his way to the pavilion.

I take your point about Boycott talking sense through his own despair/desperation/exasperation (which has a different cause). But Boyks himself - except when shitting himself facing the WIndy quicks, esp Mikey - was an extraordinary model of iron concentration (as well as a tireless practiser, and general cricket maniac). Hardly the norm, hardly normal. So it's all right for him to speak.

He's also stressing the mental weakness/softness because he is talking of the SITUATION NOW. I bet, if you asked him instead how this all arose, he would give rather more play to the technical deficiencies not addressed, which predated the present acid test of character he now emphasises.

As it is, he is focussing on: RIGHT, England are right up shit creek, especially in the batting. Who's going to find paddles? And who's going to go under and drown in the depressing cess?

by skully Wed 18 Dec 2013, 03:30

Growler wrote:Another interesting snippet I just read, skulls ........ Pup is the only one of the WACA starting XI to have experienced winning an Ashes series ( whilst being on the losing side on 4 occasions). The other 10 players have played in 18 losing series between them. Note series, not matches.

Haddin, Sids and Watson played in the last three losing series, while Midge, Rhino and Steve Smith joined them for the last two - whilst Warner Lyon & Buck only lost a few months ago, leaving George Bailey as the only one to know how bitter it feels.

I recall the stick Haddin & Watson were getting on here in 2009, joined over the next couple of years by Johnson for some vitriol. None should have come anywhere near a baggy green for most fans. Siddle was never more than an honest toiler, and Harris the epitome of the living dead.

But - here's the point - over the past 5 years, those cricketers were basically the best that Australia had at their disposal. Nobody blew the Shield apart with so many runs or wickets that everyone was raving about and the NSP couldn't ignore. Nobody kicked any of the donkeys out of the team did they? Yet the urn has been won far more easily than Waugh ever experienced against Athers & Co through the 90s .......

Now, I can't explain why Cook, KP, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann and Jimmy A - who've wiped your arses (spectacularly so last time they toured) so often - have played so dreadfully. Much of it has to be mental rather than technical ....... with the top order, more wickets have gone to shit shots than good balls. Bowling wise - we've had you in trouble every game - 5 down for not many, and then lost it completely.

Broad has bowled well enough, with the wickets to prove it (albeit not that cheaply). Bar his last 4 overs at Perth, Jimmy may not have been threatening, but was comfortably less than 3 rpo without much luck. Last time we had a 3rd seamer worth the name was Onions, and as for Swann - you'd get no complaints from me if Ghastly Piles came out of retirement - he couldn't bowl worse than "the worlds best spinner", and would have at least got a few runs at eight.

Here's a statistic to chew on. Calendar years 2012 and 2013 combined ........ tests only BTW.

Jimmy Anderson - 1066 overs bowled / 27 matches = 39.48 overs/match.

Graeme Swann - 1074 overs bowled / 24 matches played = 44.75 overs/match

There's the reason Jimmy looks washed out - he's been flogged into the ground because no qunt else has been consistent enough to allow him a break - and that includes Broad & Swann.

Just for comparison of workload (NOT ability/place in pantheon of quick bowlers of this generation) .....

Dale Steyn - 630 overs bowled / 17 matches played = 37 overs/match.

Enough said ?

Two final thoughts.

1. I'm not getting into a "degree of edges" discussion - but go back to Trent Bridge this summer. KP tends to whack the ball down long-on's throat, Jimmy pops it gently to short leg either fending off a quick ball or done by spin. In those circumstances, virtually every batsman in the history of the game who does that is halfway back to the hutch before the fielder even begins to celebrate. Broad couldn't have been more out had a stump ripped Haddins gonads off.

2. We all know Jimmy's got more mouth than a cow's got qunt - but it really wasn't that wise to let Bialey know he'd like to punch him.

Those two incidents alone - without factoring in the general hubris surrounding the squad - were enough to ensure that Australia were going to do us over every opportunity they got. In the match situation, what do you reckon Boof whispered in Bailey's ear as he padded up, a declaration coming, a nice hard new ball due, and his favourite bowler having spent 3/4 of the series in the field ? Lets just say I bet he wasn't threatened with being dropped if he got out being "adventurous" .....

Cheers Growls, interesting stuff. I was aware that Clarke was the only Ashes winning player in the side.

by horace Wed 18 Dec 2013, 05:53

Skully - a question

Aside from a 5-0 scoreline, are there available ashes stats on
highest cumulative winning margin across the five test taking into wickets and runs into account....ie in this test we won by 150, but lost 16 wickets compared to the 20 lost by the opposition (I note that perth was the closest margin to date)

by embee Wed 18 Dec 2013, 06:16

h

statsguru has all the answers

by horace Wed 18 Dec 2013, 06:18

so skully is not our stats guru?

ta will look it up when I have time

by embee Wed 18 Dec 2013, 06:28

horrie linky

play around with that , h

by Anthony_Gonzales Wed 18 Dec 2013, 22:53

Anderson - 1066 overs in the last two years in tests. I looked up ODIs too - 180 overs. Around 1250 overs.

If we take 5 minutes per over, that comes out to be 104 hours over two years. 52 hours per the entire year. That is certainly not that much compared to the workload of professionals in other sports like basketball, tennis etc.

Back when pace bowlers used to play a lot of county cricket (as it was financially important to them), I am sure they put in a lot more work per year than that. Without having the "advantage" of modern fitness trainers, experts and what have you.

Plus he came into this current series with a massive three month break. That is huge by any standards. In any sporting universe.

One can speculate on the reasons behind Anderson's performances of late - loss of form? Happens to everybody. Permanent decline? Could be anything, but it is safe to rule out work overload, in my humble opinion.

by horace Wed 18 Dec 2013, 23:05

embee wrote:horrie linky

play around with that , h

Thanks Embee...will try and have a go...had a quick look and not sure its able to give me the answer

by PeterCS Wed 18 Dec 2013, 23:08

@AG:

I disagree.

Because you are inputting into the equation only physical load - overs bowled per calendar year.

The really draining thing in Anderson's case is the constant burden of responsibility for bowling fast, taking wickets AND bowling lots of overs when he bowls them. In other words, psychological as well as physical wear and tear.

In any better-balanced team, you would have two or three other (at least decent) seamers: a pack, assisting one another's efforts by testing the batsmen. Whereas Anderson has generally had the intermittently brilliant, but otherwise humdrum (or absent injured) Broad to exert pressure and take wickets at the other end.

Would Steyn be quite the bowler he is if he regularly didn't have Philander, usually Morkel and where need be, Kallis in the side? I have my doubts. For one thing, the batsmen would not feel they needed to score off him. They could seek to just block him out until he tired, happy and at ease in the knowledge they could take runs freely at the other end. And if Steyn then had to bowl 30-35 overs in the heat, he might just tire a bit.

Anderson is in other words suffering a similar fate to Flintoff in 2007 .... and before that, Gough, when Caddick was absent or not firing. Kicking the turf, getting petty, cursing .... it's a familiar old story when England are short of good quicks.

As the spin relief, Swann, it is true, has also come up trumps in the last couple of years, again on occasion. But I would hazard a guess that Swann too has started to suffer some of the same "duty overload" as Anderson, and its deleterious consequences. The external signs when he bowls suggest such symptoms.

by Growler Wed 18 Dec 2013, 23:52

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:Anderson - 1066 overs in the last two years in tests. I looked up ODIs too - 180 overs. Around 1250 overs.

AG, I was comparing Jimmys workload over the last couple of years compared with his contemporaries. Your addition of ODI bowling on top emphasises my point even more. As I said, our spinner only bowls a handful more overs per match - which other team has their leading bowler worked like that ?

If we take 5 minutes per over, that comes out to be 104 hours over two years. 52 hours per the entire year. That is certainly not that much compared to the workload of professionals in other sports like basketball, tennis etc.

So, when he's not actually bowling, he's sat in the pavilion with a cold one is he? That's just silly. Doesn't net practice and general fitness training count? Saying Jimmy only "worked" about 50 odd hours a year is like saying Adam Scott rocked up at Augusta & strolled off with close on $ 1.5 million for playing four rounds of golf at about 3-4 hours each.

Back when pace bowlers used to play a lot of county cricket (as it was financially important to them), I am sure they put in a lot more work per year than that. Without having the "advantage" of modern fitness trainers, experts and what have you.

Aye, they bowled more - but when they weren't bowling they weren't fielding in the sense that we know it today. When bowlers of the vintage of Clive Lloyds pace attack, DKL & Thommo, Fred Truman etc were on the boundary, if the ball wasn't aimed directly at them, then it was a four ....... as for chasing the ball and diving to save a single run - it simply didn't happen. All bowlers would be a lot fresher if it were only batsmen running around in the field. I'm happy to concede the point about all the experts though.

Plus he came into this current series with a massive three month break. That is huge by any standards. In any sporting universe.

One can speculate on the reasons behind Anderson's performances of late - loss of form? Happens to everybody. Permanent decline? Could be anything, but it is safe to rule out work overload, in my humble opinion.

Nobody's disputing his form has declined over the last couple of series. Whether it's permanent decline, it's far too early to say. While I respect you opinion AG, I'm sorry but you simply haven't put forward an argument to rule out overload that stands up to scrutiny.

by LeFromage Thu 19 Dec 2013, 00:31

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:Anderson - 1066 overs in the last two years in tests. I looked up ODIs too - 180 overs. Around 1250 overs.

If we take 5 minutes per over, that comes out to be 104 hours over two years. 52 hours per the entire year. That is certainly not that much compared to the workload of professionals in other sports like basketball, tennis etc.

Back when pace bowlers used to play a lot of county cricket (as it was financially important to them), I am sure they put in a lot more work per year than that. Without having the "advantage" of modern fitness trainers, experts and what have you.

Plus he came into this current series with a massive three month break. That is huge by any standards. In any sporting universe.

One can speculate on the reasons behind Anderson's performances of late - loss of form? Happens to everybody. Permanent decline? Could be anything, but it is safe to rule out work overload, in my humble opinion.

He's always been a shoulder-slumper when things aren't going well. Australia's "leaked" dossier from 2009 (I think) referred to Anderson as a "pussy" who would crumble if they could get on top of him early. He's had plenty of success since then, but the comment isn't without foundation.

In that series, he took his 12 wickets @ 45.

In the last 18 months, he's averaged 40 against SA - who got on top of him early, their first knock being 600-odd - averaged 37 in NZ, where he went for 137 in his first bowl, and now 58 in this series, where he hasn't been at the races from ball one.

by Anthony_Gonzales Thu 19 Dec 2013, 01:12

PeterCS wrote:@AG:

The really draining thing in Anderson's case is the constant burden of responsibility for bowling fast, taking wickets AND bowling lots of overs when he bowls them. In other words, psychological as well as physical wear and tear.

In any better-balanced team, you would have two or three other (at least decent) seamers: a pack, assisting one another's efforts by testing the batsmen. Whereas Anderson has generally had the intermittently brilliant, but otherwise humdrum (or absent injured) Broad to exert pressure and take wickets at the other end.

Peter - psychological / mental wear and tear is part of any sport. In fact to be able to handle that is one of the major things that separates champions from the rest.

One can argue that the mental pressure is more in other sports, because they are all organized in annual leagues / season with a proper well defined structure, where every team gets to know where exactly it is that compared to the rest. Even the quantity of matches a team plays depends on its performance. In short, there is a clear reckoning for every team, with precise results, very regularly. That means more pressure. In individual sports, there is nobody else to rescue you from your off days. Cricket does not have either of the two factors.

There are many examples of cricketers who have been pretty much the sole players in their teams. Bowlers like Imran and Hadlee. The former had the burden of captaincy as well, plus batting. He seemed to thrive on it. Perhaps Anderson doesn't quite have the same level of mental strength - I can only guess. This seems to tie in with what Dello has opined above.

by Anthony_Gonzales Thu 19 Dec 2013, 01:34

Growler wrote:
Anthony_Gonzales wrote:

If we take 5 minutes per over, that comes out to be 104 hours over two years. 52 hours per the entire year. That is certainly not that much compared to the workload of professionals in other sports like basketball, tennis etc.

So, when he's not actually bowling, he's sat in the pavilion with a cold one is he? That's just silly. Doesn't net practice and general fitness training count? Saying Jimmy only "worked" about 50 odd hours a year is like saying Adam Scott rocked up at Augusta & strolled off with close on $ 1.5 million for playing four rounds of golf at about 3-4 hours each.

No, of course the rest is part of the whole thing as well. But that is the case with any other sport. In fact the schedules, the fitness and training regimes in many other sports are a lot more demanding.

I mean you can, for example, consider the schedule of say a NBA player - and there has been lots written about it. A match that finishes late at night. Then next morning, there is the mandatory practice session. Then a match again the very same night. Superstars like Kobe Bryant etc all have to go through the grind, day in day out. There was this news story recently about how Kobe tries to steal an hour or so in the afternoon just to get a little rest. It really has become crazy.

Fitness and training session of someone like Nadal can literally put shivers down your spine.....these guys work like maniacs.

There was this news and photo story the other day about Broad, KP etc being at a bar till 3.30 am just 2-3 days before the start of a test match in this series. That kind of relaxed life is just about unimaginable in a lot of modern sports, where there is just so much money involved, so much demands of fitness, very tight schedules, all sorts of commercial obligations. It is so common for a 3-4 hour grinding tennis match to finish way past midnight. Then you have guys like Djokovic and others sitting at 1-2 am in a full press conference room, patiently answering all sorts if inane questions. When the next match is barely 36 hours away or so, or even loss. The demands of modern professional sports are just relentless. Most people would agree that cricket does not quite fall into the same category.

by Anthony_Gonzales Thu 19 Dec 2013, 01:38

[quote="Growler"]

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:
Back when pace bowlers used to play a lot of county cricket (as it was financially important to them), I am sure they put in a lot more work per year than that. Without having the "advantage" of modern fitness trainers, experts and what have you.

[color=#3333cc]Aye, they bowled more - but when they weren't bowling they weren't fielding in the sense that we know it today. When bowlers of the vintage of Clive Lloyds pace attack, DKL & Thommo, Fred Truman etc were on the boundary, if the ball wasn't aimed directly at them, then it was a four ....... as for chasing the ball and diving to save a single run - it simply didn't happen. All bowlers would be a lot fresher if it were only batsmen running around in the field. I'm happy to concede the point about all the experts though.

You are correct about the more demands of fielding these days. But I'd argue that the more overs bowled by them would easily over-weigh the greater efforts of fielding these days. The cricket ball still weighed the same back then. It still required the same effort to bowl. It put the same strain on the back, the whole body. And there is nothing more physically demanding in cricket than pace bowling.

by Growler Thu 19 Dec 2013, 02:46

But AG - that's why you seem to be missing my point, buddy. Comparing an NBA schedule v a tennis player v a cricketer is a bit "my dad's bigger than your dad", and I've no intentions of going there.

Almost everyone is saying that JA looks washed out - not that he's bowling that badly in itself the way they say eg Bresnans chucking pies, or Broad's bowling short shite just begging to be carted, see?

I don't say that it's just a case of overwork, but from here you still don't seem to have acknowledged that Jimmy & Swann have had almost identical overs and that it may be affecting him. You're still dismissing the notion despite your statement that pace bowling is the most demanding aspect of cricket.

by PeterCS Thu 19 Dec 2013, 11:58

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:
PeterCS wrote:@AG:

The really draining thing in Anderson's case is the constant burden of responsibility for bowling fast, taking wickets AND bowling lots of overs when he bowls them. In other words, psychological as well as physical wear and tear.

In any better-balanced team, you would have two or three other (at least decent) seamers: a pack, assisting one another's efforts by testing the batsmen. Whereas Anderson has generally had the intermittently brilliant, but otherwise humdrum (or absent injured) Broad to exert pressure and take wickets at the other end.

Peter - psychological / mental wear and tear is part of any sport. In fact to be able to handle that is one of the major things that separates champions from the rest.

One can argue that the mental pressure is more in other sports, because they are all organized in annual leagues / season with a proper well defined structure, where every team gets to know where exactly it is that compared to the rest. Even the quantity of matches a team plays depends on its performance. In short, there is a clear reckoning for every team, with precise results, very regularly. That means more pressure. In individual sports, there is nobody else to rescue you from your off days. Cricket does not have either of the two factors.

There are many examples of cricketers who have been pretty much the sole players in their teams. Bowlers like Imran and Hadlee. The former had the burden of captaincy as well, plus batting. He seemed to thrive on it. Perhaps Anderson doesn't quite have the same level of mental strength - I can only guess. This seems to tie in with what Dello has opined above.

I take your point, to a point. Especially the bit I've bolded.

But I still think your argument contradicts itself (in other words, I am agreeing with Growler on this issue - IS fast bowling for large numbers of overs at a time very tiring, or not?).

Second, I don't take your point at all in your second paragraph. The ritualisation/stylisation of other sports that you mention generally means there is a set, more finite load of work, and thus an ability to expect, measure and pace one's input, rather than the bottomless pit of overs Test cricket can serve up on unrelenting pitches for an unlucky bowler when there is also insufficient relief.

Thirdly, you seem rather to be ignoring my argument - for example, the ongoing and worsening effects of insufficient other bowler support, the mental-spiritual attrition and exhaustion which that can cause over time.

And you quote two extraordinary examples, it seems almost to belittle Anderson's stamina and achievements. The extraordinarily self-disciplined Hadlee was always quick to pay tribute to Chatfield for his support, and ability to maintain pressure and danger from the other end. Plus he had lots of medium pacers (all the NZ team seemed to be notional all-rounders at some points). Added to which, the patient saint Hadlee only rarely dragged his country's team up to be a competitive force - when all NZ's best elements fired at once - so if you're saying Anderson should be happy to be part of a team which is for much of the time sixth, seventh in the world, fair enough.

Imran was an unusual lion. A man apart. He did however generally have a couple of spinners (the magician Abdul Qadir foremost in the earlier years and others such as Tauseef Ahmed, at worst one or two accurate enough medium pacers such as Mudassar Nazar, and throughout the most fruitful part of his bowling career, a couple of spraying carthorses called Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis getting in his way. They must REALLY have exhausted his body and spirit, eh?

In any case, as I have been implying, to compare anyone against the very best, the unique, is a bit invidious, surely? ~ Is your next trick to call M Clarke's batting pretty crap really - because he can't even remotely match Bradman's Test average - or even FFS Herbert Sutcliffe's, Hammond's, Hutton's, Weekes', Headley's, Pollock's, Kallis's, Pujara's?

by PeterCS Thu 19 Dec 2013, 13:23

One thing needs to be mentioned here, however, is that Anderson has his limitations.

As does almost every bowler. Well, *every* bowler.

In Jim's case, he is famously basically a swing bowler. The concealed hand conceals the tricks. If there is nothing in the air, he is reliant on seam movement off the pitch, where he is not as effective - though also no mug. But if the track is a pretty slow road, dead even and unresponsive, he is usually struggling.

But as previously mentioned, .... everyone has limits.

Steyn is an odd case. Because of his zip, he can get something threatening out of most pitches. The oddity is that he sometimes can run through sides, with a 5-20 spell, yet at other times - even the day before, the day after - he may clock up a 0-80/90. Because S Africa has two or three other very decent bowlers, that doesn't usually damage his team much - and he's then as likely to resume the devastation the next day if the innings hasn't already been finished off by the others). Overall, of course, that's world class, probably ATG class. But strangely inconsistent all the same. A purple patch bowler.

by Growler Thu 19 Dec 2013, 14:13

Further to yours Peter, a quick search reveals that the two greats mentioned by AG - Imran and Sir Richard - both played 16 Test matches in their busiest two years playing for the national team.

Imran

1986 - 222.2 overs in 6 matches
1987 - 291.3 overs in 10 matches
= 32 overs/match on average

Hadlee

1985 - 431.2 overs in 10 matches
1986 - 311.4 overs in 6 matches
= 46 overs/match on average. Admittedly that's 6 more overs / match than Jimmy - but playing 1/3 fewer matches in the same timeframe

Two from an earlier time - one of whom our Geoffrey compares modern bowlers against. Fred Truemans hardest years were 1959 & 1960, in which time he bowled 711 overs in 20 Tests.

In 1980 & 1981, DK Lillee played in 23 Tests, bowling 1015 overs.

Now, its no secret that I had a gut feeling about Anderson from the start, and for many years I felt as though I was in a minority of one. Good as he is, even I wouldn't suggest that he belongs in the same category as the latter two as a bowler. However, I think there's at least a degree of significance regarding physique. Jimmy is a bit like a whippet, whilst the FST & DKL more resemble bulldogs. Lillee in particular strengthened immensely after a stress fracture of his back early in his career.

Finally on Peters' point regarding opening partners taking a bit of mental pressure off Jimmy - while he may be a division below Trueman and Lillee, anyone who thinks Stuart Broad is remotely as good as Brian Statham or Jeff Thomson should have a net thrown over them and have a good sedative administered ......

by Anthony_Gonzales Thu 19 Dec 2013, 16:37

PeterCS wrote:
Anthony_Gonzales wrote:
PeterCS wrote:@AG:

The really draining thing in Anderson's case is the constant burden of responsibility for bowling fast, taking wickets AND bowling lots of overs when he bowls them. In other words, psychological as well as physical wear and tear.

In any better-balanced team, you would have two or three other (at least decent) seamers: a pack, assisting one another's efforts by testing the batsmen. Whereas Anderson has generally had the intermittently brilliant, but otherwise humdrum (or absent injured) Broad to exert pressure and take wickets at the other end.

Peter - psychological / mental wear and tear is part of any sport. In fact to be able to handle that is one of the major things that separates champions from the rest.

One can argue that the mental pressure is more in other sports, because they are all organized in annual leagues / season with a proper well defined structure, where every team gets to know where exactly it is that compared to the rest. Even the quantity of matches a team plays depends on its performance. In short, there is a clear reckoning for every team, with precise results, very regularly. That means more pressure. In individual sports, there is nobody else to rescue you from your off days. Cricket does not have either of the two factors.

There are many examples of cricketers who have been pretty much the sole players in their teams. Bowlers like Imran and Hadlee. The former had the burden of captaincy as well, plus batting. He seemed to thrive on it. Perhaps Anderson doesn't quite have the same level of mental strength - I can only guess. This seems to tie in with what Dello has opined above.

I take your point, to a point. Especially the bit I've bolded.

But I still think your argument contradicts itself (in other words, I am agreeing with Growler on this issue - IS fast bowling for large numbers of overs at a time very tiring, or not?).

Second, I don't take your point at all in your second paragraph. The ritualisation/stylisation of other sports that you mention generally means there is a set, more finite load of work, and thus an ability to expect, measure and pace one's input, rather than the bottomless pit of overs Test cricket can serve up on unrelenting pitches for an unlucky bowler when there is also insufficient relief.

Thirdly, you seem rather to be ignoring my argument - for example, the ongoing and worsening effects of insufficient other bowler support, the mental-spiritual attrition and exhaustion which that can cause over time.

And you quote two extraordinary examples, it seems almost to belittle Anderson's stamina and achievements. The extraordinarily self-disciplined Hadlee was always quick to pay tribute to Chatfield for his support, and ability to maintain pressure and danger from the other end. Plus he had lots of medium pacers (all the NZ team seemed to be notional all-rounders at some points). Added to which, the patient saint Hadlee only rarely dragged his country's team up to be a competitive force - when all NZ's best elements fired at once - so if you're saying Anderson should be happy to be part of a team which is for much of the time sixth, seventh in the world, fair enough.

Imran was an unusual lion. A man apart. He did however generally have a couple of spinners (the magician Abdul Qadir foremost in the earlier years and others such as Tauseef Ahmed, at worst one or two accurate enough medium pacers such as Mudassar Nazar, and throughout the most fruitful part of his bowling career, a couple of spraying carthorses called Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis getting in his way. They must REALLY have exhausted his body and spirit, eh?

In any case, as I have been implying, to compare anyone against the very best, the unique, is a bit invidious, surely? ~ Is your next trick to call M Clarke's batting pretty crap really - because he can't even remotely match Bradman's Test average - or even FFS Herbert Sutcliffe's, Hammond's, Hutton's, Weekes', Headley's, Pollock's, Kallis's, Pujara's?

I didn't really mean to belittle Anderson's achievement. I know he has performed very well. But since I don't follow English cricket (or for that matter cricket in general) as religiously as I used to, I was just *wondering* if he indeed slumps shoulders when the going gets tough, as Dello stated. As I said, I can only guess.

You are also right that it is not fair to compare against the very best. I concede this point, happily.

Imran actually didn't have much support at all. Qadir was not a factor generally outside Pakistan (in general - might have been some exceptions). Wasim took a while to mature as a bowler and by the time he did, Imran was well on his way down and was not the mainstay of bowling and not looked as such either. Waqar was even later if I recall correctly.

Again, I don't follow English cricket as closely as you guys do, but isn't Swan been the best spinner alongwith Ajmal for the last few years? I believe his record is very good. He never performed in Australia before either, so his lack of performance there this time may not indicate much. Broad hasn't been too bad either. He has 59 wkts this year at 25 - which is very very good. What I am trying to say that Anderson hasn't been quite support-less as you guys may seem to indicate.

Again, my main point in the very first post was about the purely physical part.

Regarding Anderson being ineffective on slow tracks, as his limitation, again you would be right judge on that. But from what I recall generally, even on such tracks, England's bowling generally has done fine. Like when they got whitewashed 3-0 against Pak in the Arabian desert. If I recall, he bowled quite well in that series. It was the shambolic and almost hilarious English batting which led to their defeats.

Cheers

by PeterCS Thu 19 Dec 2013, 17:42

Fair enough, Ant.

Personally, I think anyone's shoulders would go down eventually. Even the perpetual, metronomic bowling machine that was Glenn McGrath had Warne, Gillespie or Fleming (both incidentally underrated as contributors to Australia's - and indeed Pidge's - success), to share the bowling strain, and to increase the pain on the batsmen.

Yes, the UAE farce was much like a smaller prefiguration of the present debacle down under. The bowlers only really begin to buckle when the batsmen have again thrown it away (and physically as well as psychologically have thereby subjected their bowling colleagues to more heat, slog and potential demoralisation far earlier than their efforts had deserved).

by Sponsored content