Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Jimmy joins the 300 club.
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Hague
May 17, 2013, 1:14:22 PM5/17/13
to
I suspect he would have got there earlier if not for Troy Cooley's attempts
to improve his action. It's interesting to compare him with the other three
members of the England 300 club. FST was the first and probably the quickest
of them. His main weapon was the late outswinger, although later on in his
career he developed a devastating off- cutter. Probably the best pace bowler
in the world for much of his career. Willis was the next, and his armoury
was more limited than Fred's, relying on pace and steep bounce which he got
by virtue of his height of 6'6". Next was ITB who as a young man was a
superb bowler, with a late outswinger to rival Trueman's, although not quite
at the same pace. He also had a very good bouncer, which was particularly
effective against late order batsmen. Anderson has not been well served by
bowling coaches, but is using his natural abilities well now. He's not as
quick as Trueman or Willis, but is the only one of the four to swing the
ball both ways, and that with no perceptible change in his action. If he
remains uninjured, I think he will take 400 wickets.
Steve Hague
to improve his action. It's interesting to compare him with the other three
members of the England 300 club. FST was the first and probably the quickest
of them. His main weapon was the late outswinger, although later on in his
career he developed a devastating off- cutter. Probably the best pace bowler
in the world for much of his career. Willis was the next, and his armoury
was more limited than Fred's, relying on pace and steep bounce which he got
by virtue of his height of 6'6". Next was ITB who as a young man was a
superb bowler, with a late outswinger to rival Trueman's, although not quite
at the same pace. He also had a very good bouncer, which was particularly
effective against late order batsmen. Anderson has not been well served by
bowling coaches, but is using his natural abilities well now. He's not as
quick as Trueman or Willis, but is the only one of the four to swing the
ball both ways, and that with no perceptible change in his action. If he
remains uninjured, I think he will take 400 wickets.
Steve Hague
Dave Cornwell
May 17, 2013, 1:31:19 PM5/17/13
to
Yes well done Jimmy, England has needed his services over the last
decade and wouldn't have had the success they have had at times without him.
Mike Holmans
May 17, 2013, 2:10:46 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:31:19 +0100, Dave Cornwell
<davemc...@nospam.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Steve Hague wrote:
>> I suspect he would have got there earlier if not for Troy Cooley's attempts
>> to improve his action.
You're probably right, but I doubt it would have been all that much
earlier. During what one might call the wasted years, he wasn't always
fit, so he wouldn't have played anyway. He would only have been in
real contention for 2006 and 2007, once Simon Jones had disappeared,
and would have had to demonstrate real quality to be picked as a
second new-ball swing bowler alongside Hoggard while Harmison was
still in the frame. Fletcher's rather misguided obsession with pace
would still have meant that Plunkett and Mahmood were given extended
runs ahead of him.
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Plunkett and Mahmood
experiments failed and that Anderson would almost certainly have been
no worse, but with the land of selection lying as it did, he probably
got cheated out of only a handful of games.
Of course, one might argue that if he hadn't spent so much time
mucking about with his action, he'd have improved sooner. The problem
with that is that Allan Donald was the bowling coach after Cooley left
in 2005, and Anderson made little or no progress under his guidance.
It was only when England brought Ottis Gibson on board in 2007 that
Anderson found a coach who understood swing bowling and could help him
really improve.
>>
>------------------------------
>Yes well done Jimmy, England has needed his services over the last
>decade and wouldn't have had the success they have had at times without him.
"Decade" is a bit much. Five years is more like it.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<davemc...@nospam.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Steve Hague wrote:
>> I suspect he would have got there earlier if not for Troy Cooley's attempts
>> to improve his action.
earlier. During what one might call the wasted years, he wasn't always
fit, so he wouldn't have played anyway. He would only have been in
real contention for 2006 and 2007, once Simon Jones had disappeared,
and would have had to demonstrate real quality to be picked as a
second new-ball swing bowler alongside Hoggard while Harmison was
still in the frame. Fletcher's rather misguided obsession with pace
would still have meant that Plunkett and Mahmood were given extended
runs ahead of him.
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Plunkett and Mahmood
experiments failed and that Anderson would almost certainly have been
no worse, but with the land of selection lying as it did, he probably
got cheated out of only a handful of games.
Of course, one might argue that if he hadn't spent so much time
mucking about with his action, he'd have improved sooner. The problem
with that is that Allan Donald was the bowling coach after Cooley left
in 2005, and Anderson made little or no progress under his guidance.
It was only when England brought Ottis Gibson on board in 2007 that
Anderson found a coach who understood swing bowling and could help him
really improve.
>>
>------------------------------
>Yes well done Jimmy, England has needed his services over the last
>decade and wouldn't have had the success they have had at times without him.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Offramp
May 17, 2013, 2:11:42 PM5/17/13
to
That's a good resumé.
ITB I think had a perfect action for an out-swinger. He could also bowl very very fast. That spell at Old Trafford in 1981 was brutal.
The thing about Willis was that if you asked almost anyone (except Bob Dylan) in 1980 if Willis would get 300 wickets - no one would've said yes.
He also opened that failed shoe shop with Alan Freeman & Jeremy Hardy.
ITB I think had a perfect action for an out-swinger. He could also bowl very very fast. That spell at Old Trafford in 1981 was brutal.
The thing about Willis was that if you asked almost anyone (except Bob Dylan) in 1980 if Willis would get 300 wickets - no one would've said yes.
He also opened that failed shoe shop with Alan Freeman & Jeremy Hardy.
John Hall
May 17, 2013, 2:20:39 PM5/17/13
to
In article <b2593149-ba66-4997...@googlegroups.com>,
Offramp <alane...@gmail.com> writes:
>That's a good resum�.
Agreed.
:)
I mustn't forget to congratulate Anderson (not that he's likely to read
this newsgroup, of course).
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
Offramp <alane...@gmail.com> writes:
>That's a good resum�.
Agreed.
I mustn't forget to congratulate Anderson (not that he's likely to read
this newsgroup, of course).
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
Steve Hague
May 18, 2013, 2:48:10 AM5/18/13
to
Offramp wrote:
> That's a good resum�.
> That's a good resum�.
avid cricket watcher throughout his career, and can't remember seeing more
than the odd effort ball that was more than fast medium from him. The only
footage I have of him bowling is on a DVD of the 1981 Headingly Test, where
he bowled beautifully, but at no great pace. Old looked considerably
quicker, but Botham swung the ball late and was much more dangerous.
Steve Hague
John Hall
May 18, 2013, 5:55:05 AM5/18/13
to
In article <kn77uo$5sa$1...@dont-email.me>,
I don't recall anyone saying that Botham was capable of high pace, only
that he was capable of a lively fast-medium early in his career, as
opposed to the medium pace of the latter two-thirds of it.
that he was capable of a lively fast-medium early in his career, as
opposed to the medium pace of the latter two-thirds of it.
D Ramapriya
May 18, 2013, 6:23:17 AM5/18/13
to
> > That's a good resumé.
Saw him after a long time y'day when he and Willis chatted up
Anderson. While Willis has retained his cricketing physique, Botham
(who never was lean, of course) appears to have piled on more than a
stone!
Ramapriya
Anderson. While Willis has retained his cricketing physique, Botham
(who never was lean, of course) appears to have piled on more than a
stone!
Ramapriya
Offramp
May 18, 2013, 9:36:47 AM5/18/13
to
It was Edgbaston I was thinking of.
it is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjSDvdgTOzg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
And there seems to be an optical illusion; from behind the batsman he seems much faster.
From the now-standard viewpoint he does seem a quickish fast-medium.
it is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjSDvdgTOzg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
And there seems to be an optical illusion; from behind the batsman he seems much faster.
From the now-standard viewpoint he does seem a quickish fast-medium.
Steve Hague
May 18, 2013, 9:46:07 AM5/18/13
to
I'll bet that's not happened since 1981.
Steve Hague
Steve Hague
May 19, 2013, 3:59:23 AM5/19/13
to
John Hall wrote:
> In article <kn77uo$5sa$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Steve Hague <steve....@virgin.net> writes:
>> Offramp wrote:
>>> That's a good resum�.
>>> ITB I think had a perfect action for an out-swinger. He could also
>>> bowl very very fast. That spell at Old Trafford in 1981 was brutal.
>>> The thing about Willis was that if you asked almost anyone (except
>>> Bob Dylan) in 1980 if Willis would get 300 wickets - no one would've
>>> said yes.
>>> He also opened that failed shoe shop with Alan Freeman & Jeremy
>>> Hardy.
>>
>> I've heard it said before that Botham was capable of high pace, but
>> I was an avid cricket watcher throughout his career, and can't
>> remember seeing more than the odd effort ball that was more than
>> fast medium from him. The only footage I have of him bowling is on a
>> DVD of the 1981 Headingly Test, where he bowled beautifully, but at
>> no great pace. Old looked considerably quicker, but Botham swung the
>> ball late and was much more dangerous.
>> Steve Hague
>>
>>
>
> I don't recall anyone saying that Botham was capable of high pace,
> only that he was capable of a lively fast-medium early in his career,
> as opposed to the medium pace of the latter two-thirds of it.
I think that's a bit unfair. His pace decreased as his waistline grew, and
> In article <kn77uo$5sa$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Steve Hague <steve....@virgin.net> writes:
>> Offramp wrote:
>>> That's a good resum�.
>>> ITB I think had a perfect action for an out-swinger. He could also
>>> bowl very very fast. That spell at Old Trafford in 1981 was brutal.
>>> The thing about Willis was that if you asked almost anyone (except
>>> Bob Dylan) in 1980 if Willis would get 300 wickets - no one would've
>>> said yes.
>>> He also opened that failed shoe shop with Alan Freeman & Jeremy
>>> Hardy.
>>
>> I've heard it said before that Botham was capable of high pace, but
>> I was an avid cricket watcher throughout his career, and can't
>> remember seeing more than the odd effort ball that was more than
>> fast medium from him. The only footage I have of him bowling is on a
>> DVD of the 1981 Headingly Test, where he bowled beautifully, but at
>> no great pace. Old looked considerably quicker, but Botham swung the
>> ball late and was much more dangerous.
>> Steve Hague
>>
>>
>
> I don't recall anyone saying that Botham was capable of high pace,
> only that he was capable of a lively fast-medium early in his career,
> as opposed to the medium pace of the latter two-thirds of it.
more importantly he lost his outswinger, but that didn't start to happen
until his late twenties, about seven years into his England carreer. It was
a gradual process over a couple of years.
Steve Hague
0 new messages