Re: Jimmy Anderson is the best ever....

by Bradman Tue 04 Aug 2009, 10:45

He also got bitch slapped once or twice, and a batting average of forty would suggest he he was an all-rounder.

by WideWally Tue 04 Aug 2009, 10:55

I said all along that he was an all-rounder, but he was noted more for his fast bowling than for his fine batting.

by Basil Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:00

Bradman wrote:Wouldn't a leg slip limit your options? You couldn't have two sweepers for the hook. Though from memory Bob Simpson used to employ it. Seems to have gone out of fashion.

64 from 67 is not too shabby.

When Trueman played, batsmen tended to play with the bat in front of the bat so if the ball took the inside edge (say from Laker or any other offie) the ball tended to go behind square, hence the need for a leg-slip.

As opposed to now when batsmen tend to have the bat alongside or behind the pad, so an inside edge would be more likely to cannon off the pad to short square leg (which is different from leg-slip!) or even to silly point.

by taipan Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:03

Basil wrote:
Bradman wrote:Wouldn't a leg slip limit your options? You couldn't have two sweepers for the hook. Though from memory Bob Simpson used to employ it. Seems to have gone out of fashion.

64 from 67 is not too shabby.

When Trueman played, batsmen tended to play with the bat in front of the bat so if the ball took the inside edge (say from Laker or any other offie) the ball tended to go behind square, hence the need for a leg-slip.

As opposed to now when batsmen tend to have the bat alongside or behind the pad, so an inside edge would be more likely to cannon off the pad to short square leg (which is different from leg-slip!) or even to silly point.

Sure about that?

I seem to recall they changed the LBW rule in Trueman's time because of the excessive padding up.

by Bradman Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:04

I was actually talking about a leg slip being used to a quickie(the Bob Simpson ref), but you have a good point.

by Basil Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:09

taipan wrote:
Basil wrote:
Bradman wrote:Wouldn't a leg slip limit your options? You couldn't have two sweepers for the hook. Though from memory Bob Simpson used to employ it. Seems to have gone out of fashion.

64 from 67 is not too shabby.

When Trueman played, batsmen tended to play with the bat in front of the bat so if the ball took the inside edge (say from Laker or any other offie) the ball tended to go behind square, hence the need for a leg-slip.

As opposed to now when batsmen tend to have the bat alongside or behind the pad, so an inside edge would be more likely to cannon off the pad to short square leg (which is different from leg-slip!) or even to silly point.

The old LBW rule was certainly in place in 1957 when May and Cowdrey basically padded Sonny Ramadhin to death, and I think it was the mid 60s when the law was changed.

Sure about that?

I seem to recall they changed the LBW rule in Trueman's time because of the excessive padding up.

by taipan Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:12

Basil wrote:
taipan wrote:
Basil wrote:
Bradman wrote:Wouldn't a leg slip limit your options? You couldn't have two sweepers for the hook. Though from memory Bob Simpson used to employ it. Seems to have gone out of fashion.

64 from 67 is not too shabby.

When Trueman played, batsmen tended to play with the bat in front of the bat so if the ball took the inside edge (say from Laker or any other offie) the ball tended to go behind square, hence the need for a leg-slip.

As opposed to now when batsmen tend to have the bat alongside or behind the pad, so an inside edge would be more likely to cannon off the pad to short square leg (which is different from leg-slip!) or even to silly point.

The old LBW rule was certainly in place in 1957 when May and Cowdrey basically padded Sonny Ramadhin to death, and I think it was the mid 60s when the law was changed.
Sure about that?

I seem to recall they changed the LBW rule in Trueman's time because of the excessive padding up.

Um, wasn't Trueman playing then?

by Red Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:19

Joel Garner had a good pair of hands in the gully. His extra reach allowed him to pluck balls out of the air that his shorter teammates could only dream of reaching. Thommo was a very good fieldsman in the outfield.

by taipan Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:25

Red wrote:Joel Garner had a good pair of hands in the gully. His extra reach allowed him to pluck balls out of the air that his shorter teammates could only dream of reaching. Thommo was a very good fieldsman in the outfield.

AD was fairly useful in the outfield as well.

by Basil Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:26

taipan wrote:
Basil wrote:
taipan wrote:
Basil wrote:
Bradman wrote:Wouldn't a leg slip limit your options? You couldn't have two sweepers for the hook. Though from memory Bob Simpson used to employ it. Seems to have gone out of fashion.

64 from 67 is not too shabby.

When Trueman played, batsmen tended to play with the bat in front of the bat so if the ball took the inside edge (say from Laker or any other offie) the ball tended to go behind square, hence the need for a leg-slip.

As opposed to now when batsmen tend to have the bat alongside or behind the pad, so an inside edge would be more likely to cannon off the pad to short square leg (which is different from leg-slip!) or even to silly point.

The old LBW rule was certainly in place in 1957 when May and Cowdrey basically padded Sonny Ramadhin to death, and I think it was the mid 60s when the law was changed.
Sure about that?

I seem to recall they changed the LBW rule in Trueman's time because of the excessive padding up.

Um, wasn't Trueman playing then?

Trueman retired in 1968, so most of his career would have been played under the old rule. Another thing to say about Trueman as a fielder is that he could throw effectively with both arms. Not many can do that.

by taipan Tue 04 Aug 2009, 11:28

Sort of proves my point.

by Brass Monkey Tue 04 Aug 2009, 12:54

Not one mention of Bung? Stupid. Easily one of the better fast bowling outfielders I've seen.

by Bradman Tue 04 Aug 2009, 12:58

Well at least he can do something. Unfortunately we need bowlers at the mo.

by Brass Monkey Tue 04 Aug 2009, 13:02

Bradman wrote:Well at least he can do something. Unfortunately we need bowlers at the mo.

Phurt. Would've been better than both Siddle and MJ.

Anyway, don't detract from the point of his fielding. We're on the wrong thread for Bung castigation. How bad is it when the Aussie contingent move from Bing to Bung to Dung. Talk about a progression of hate.

by Bradman Tue 04 Aug 2009, 13:16

Look at his average. Even Thommo managed under thirty and he actually scared people.

by ever hopeful Tue 04 Aug 2009, 23:51

The thing with players like Anderson is to stick with them even when they're not doing so well. He's had too much criticism and it wrecks his confidence. E.g. JKLever just a few months ago:

"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..."

Not really helpful if you support England.

by JKLever Tue 04 Aug 2009, 23:54

ever hopeful wrote: He's had too much criticism

Poor lamb.

It was totally warranted, the Anderson Cycle was permanently stuck in 'bage' - he's only flipped it round to 'middling' as it is...

by ever hopeful Tue 04 Aug 2009, 23:56

JKLever wrote:
ever hopeful wrote: He's had too much criticism

Poor lamb.

It was totally warranted, the Anderson Cycle was permanently stuck in 'bage' - he's only flipped it round to 'middling' as it is...

So are you suggesting your harsh words helped him pull his socks up?

by JKLever Tue 04 Aug 2009, 23:59

The death threats I posted to Lancs CCC may have done the trick.

by ever hopeful Wed 05 Aug 2009, 00:02

JKLever wrote:The death threats I posted to Lancs CCC may have done the trick.

You didn't threaten to make them listen to...no, you wouldn't...not...not...GEOFFREY BOYCOTT! You fiend!

by Shoeshine Wed 05 Aug 2009, 00:10

ever hopeful wrote:The thing with players like Anderson is to stick with them even when they're not doing so well. He's had too much criticism and it wrecks his confidence. E.g. JKLever just a few months ago:

"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..."

Not really helpful if you support England.

His bowling average is down to about 33 now, and continuing to fall.

by G.Wood Wed 05 Aug 2009, 00:10

There would be a serious problem if it wasn't

by Shoeshine Wed 05 Aug 2009, 00:15

True enough. But he's done well in the last 18 months.

by LeFromage Wed 05 Aug 2009, 00:17

Against New Shiteland and the West Bollocks.

by Shoeshine Wed 05 Aug 2009, 00:20

Yes. Are you going to exclude the stats of those teams from everyone you talk about, from every country, or are you only going to do that for English players?

by Sponsored content