First Test: West Indies v England, Antigua, April 13-17.

[Arthur Crabtree]

On reading that article , it strikes me as Jimmy rather thinking out loud... clearly the Jadeja business did affect him ; and he has been forced perhaps to re-evaluate exactly where that famous line everyone is urged not to cross actually lies...

It has always seemed to me that Anderson's aggression is somewhat manufactured - as a device to spur him into a more effective performance...and it seems he at least believes it is necessary. (Certainly in interviews , and any off field viewing , he comes across as a fairly mild mannered fellow) . I am not sure he really does need it : as a bowler who relies mainly on skill rather than brute force you'd think he could manage quite well by remaining calm and determined ; but everyone has his own idiosyncratic ways , and what worked for Statham , for example , doesn't work for everyone. Even so : Jimmy seemed to harness his "angry" feelings pretty well in the latter part of the India series , without stepping out of line ; so I'd like to think he will be able to do so again.
Did he really feel inhibited during the WC ? Perhaps he did : when things are not going your way you can easily start to doubt everything you are doing ; and if you are somewhat conflicted already about how you ought to behave it is not hard to imagine that any change just might be having an effect on you... Since that whole campaign is now gone I think he'd do well to forget it and start fresh tomorrow. Perhaps watch a video of the last three India Tests to get him in the right mood ?

In any case I wish him well for his hundredth Test , and hope he can pass Sir Ian in some style.

Dhoni said he stood up to Anderson for the benefit of everyone in the world game. That's how badly he is viewed. If you end a career in playing cricket, and you leave a stream of enemies behind, is that something to shrug off? Isn't it better to have an individuality that people admire? Fine bowler of course, but the rest is just a shame. His admitting what he said to Jadeja was shocking.

[rich1uk]

I find this argument a bit strange AC , on one hand you have been very critical of the ECB for its attitude towards individuals and turning players into PR clones who don't think for themselves rather than embracing and managing natural differences between people but here want them to do exactly that because you don't like sledging.

Sledging and PR speak are both examples of players conforming. They are the same. I don't see a contradiction.

well we will have to disagree on that

I see Anderson's sledging as an outlet for his aggression rather than "conforming" and seeking to expect him to rein in that natural aggression is what is expecting conformity

[alfie]

I want people to play with passion. The best cricket I've seen was 2005 when the England bowlers didn't say much (though I'd rather they hadn't thrown the ball at the batters). The players talk about 'the line' but it means nothing if they are deciding where it is. For me, the behaviour of people like Johnson and Anderson is a huge turn off. And it's different from how players are in interviews, where their corporate blandishments are just a way of saying they don't want to communicate with the public, or possibly that they can't think for themselves. For me, abusive sledging is just playing at being aggressive. Many scary bowlers don't say a word.

Now I was composing when you put that up , Arthur , so hadn't seen it before. But I'd put Johnson in a similar class to Anderson - as a bowler who pretends to be angry , in order to psych himself up. Not something that comes naturally . Not that it matters in the effect . It doesn't always look good on TV.
However I am not as anti sledging as you. Perhaps being a (once fast) bowler myself has something to do with it...though I personally always preferred a cold stare - or perhaps a humorous remark - to any overt rudeness. It takes all sorts : some batsmen can be upset by aggressive verbals ; some are probably motivated to play even better in response ; so any bowler should be advised to pick his mark. (Or her mark : I have heard a few solid sledges doled out in women's cricket when watching on small grounds ) But I digress...

As long as it doesn't go over the top , I have no problem with a few verbals . They are all grown men ; and there are two umpires out there who should be able to hose things down before they get out of hand. Close up television pictures and stump mikes have had the unfortunate side effect of sometimes highlighting minor breaches of that "spirit of cricket" we all love to honour. Boorishness is not needed ; but I think we would do well not to go overboard on censoring any sort of verbal exchange. Sometimes the media start a commotion about something that none of the players involved are fussing about , and that hadn't really registered on the general public ; and I think we can do without that.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I find this argument a bit strange AC , on one hand you have been very critical of the ECB for its attitude towards individuals and turning players into PR clones who don't think for themselves rather than embracing and managing natural differences between people but here want them to do exactly that because you don't like sledging.

Sledging and PR speak are both examples of players conforming. They are the same. I don't see a contradiction.

well we will have to disagree on that

I see Anderson's sledging as an outlet for his aggression rather than "conforming" and seeking to expect him to rein in that natural aggression is what is expecting conformity

Anderson didn't sledge until about four years into his career. So how natural is it? Surely the stereotype of the pace bowler is one of aggression and intimidation, so a verbally outspoken bowler is the norm?

But happy to let it go. Good to read yours and Alfie's views as ever.

[alfie]

On reading that article , it strikes me as Jimmy rather thinking out loud... clearly the Jadeja business did affect him ; and he has been forced perhaps to re-evaluate exactly where that famous line everyone is urged not to cross actually lies...

It has always seemed to me that Anderson's aggression is somewhat manufactured - as a device to spur him into a more effective performance...and it seems he at least believes it is necessary. (Certainly in interviews , and any off field viewing , he comes across as a fairly mild mannered fellow) . I am not sure he really does need it : as a bowler who relies mainly on skill rather than brute force you'd think he could manage quite well by remaining calm and determined ; but everyone has his own idiosyncratic ways , and what worked for Statham , for example , doesn't work for everyone. Even so : Jimmy seemed to harness his "angry" feelings pretty well in the latter part of the India series , without stepping out of line ; so I'd like to think he will be able to do so again.
Did he really feel inhibited during the WC ? Perhaps he did : when things are not going your way you can easily start to doubt everything you are doing ; and if you are somewhat conflicted already about how you ought to behave it is not hard to imagine that any change just might be having an effect on you... Since that whole campaign is now gone I think he'd do well to forget it and start fresh tomorrow. Perhaps watch a video of the last three India Tests to get him in the right mood ?

In any case I wish him well for his hundredth Test , and hope he can pass Sir Ian in some style.

Dhoni said he stood up to Anderson for the benefit of everyone in the world game. That's how badly he is viewed. If you end a career in playing cricket, and you leave a stream of enemies behind, is that something to shrug off? Isn't it better to have an individuality that people admire? Fine bowler of course, but the rest is just a shame. His admitting what he said to Jadeja was shocking.

Ah , we aren't going to agree on this , Arthur. I like Dhoni : but in that particular case I am just a little suspicious of his motivation. The "benefit of everyone in the world game" ? Sounds a bit like a politician... A bit of backing up his man , Jadeja (and fair enough) And a bit of upsetting a key opponent ? I am not sure that Anderson is viewed quite that way by the overall majority of Test players - I havent taken a survey

By the way , I liked your interesting stats gathering re bowler workloads and strike rates. Could spend a long time analyzing all that...didn't know Gough rated so high. I wonder if FS Trueman would have done so well with stump mikes censoring his every word

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yes I came out with a rather arbitrary and unresearched comment that a SR below 50 makes you among the greats. And Gough is more or less there, and he's ahead of some who are seen as unquestionable legends, like Lillee and McGrath. His SR is the same as Garner's. And Caddick's figures stand up too. Maybe being in a losing side (until 2000) led us to underestimate them. Though they must have gone for runs to give them averages of 28 and 29. Maybe greats have to produce their best in wins.

[rich1uk]

I find this argument a bit strange AC , on one hand you have been very critical of the ECB for its attitude towards individuals and turning players into PR clones who don't think for themselves rather than embracing and managing natural differences between people but here want them to do exactly that because you don't like sledging.

Sledging and PR speak are both examples of players conforming. They are the same. I don't see a contradiction.

well we will have to disagree on that

I see Anderson's sledging as an outlet for his aggression rather than "conforming" and seeking to expect him to rein in that natural aggression is what is expecting conformity

Anderson didn't sledge until about four years into his career. So how natural is it? Surely the stereotype of the pace bowler is one of aggression and intimidation, so a verbally outspoken bowler is the norm?

But happy to let it go. Good to read yours and Alfie's views as ever.

maybe the first four years of his career, the years that weren't as good, were when he was bottling up his emotions

[Arthur Crabtree]

I reduced the limit from 100 wickets to 70 wickets for home Tests (if I'd made it 50, Finn would have been the best post Victorian by a distance). I thought Anderson would have been top of this, but Fred Trueman and Bob Willis are a long way in front. Again, Broad and Anderson are very close.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling

Sorry, I actually posted minimum 50 wickets. Poster error.

[rich1uk]

that's one of the reasons I have usually defended broad , as when he is fit and gets a good run he compares very favourably with Anderson who is always rated way above him as a bowler

I do worry a little about broad and the impact, no pun intended, of getting that bad hit in the face last year, he obviously isn't in the team for his batting but he really looks terrified when batting recently

[Arthur Crabtree]

maybe the first four years of his career, the years that weren't as good, were when he was bottling up his emotions ;)

Hmmm! For me he never quite recaptured the genius of his first year in the game...

[westoelad]

Tom Cartwright was generally regarded amongst his peers as being the most knowledgeable regarding the art and skills of bowling. He had this to say about sledging
"Sledging is infantile playground behaviour,isn't it?...It's pathetic. We do it because the Aussies go it. But why do we have to copy what they do? Step outside cricket and ask yourself,Is this the sort of ethic we can't to encourage in the world,the way we want to deal with each other?"
Difficult to disagree with this sentiment. We've also been reminded of some of Richie' s perspectives recently. Like how words like tragedy and disaster have no place in cricket and perhaps most appropriately to the sledgers " Exercise your brain before you open your mouth".

[alfie]

Yes I came out with a rather arbitrary and unresearched comment that a SR below 50 makes you among the greats. And Gough is more or less there, and he's ahead of some who are seen as unquestionable legends, like Lillee and McGrath. His SR is the same as Garner's. And Caddick's figures stand up too. Maybe being in a losing side (until 2000) led us to underestimate them. Though they must have gone for runs to give them averages of 28 and 29. Maybe greats have to produce their best in wins.

Have to look at economy rates as well , I think..

[Arthur Crabtree]

that's one of the reasons I have usually defended broad , as when he is fit and gets a good run he compares very favourably with Anderson who is always rated way above him as a bowler

I do worry a little about broad and the impact, no pun intended, of getting that bad hit in the face last year, he obviously isn't in the team for his batting but he really looks terrified when batting recently

Yes, you can't include him as a useful number eight any more.

Still remains to be seen if Broad has recovered from his latest op, but yes, by results, he and Anderson are equals. Though the Lancastrian deserves credit for his longevity.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yes I came out with a rather arbitrary and unresearched comment that a SR below 50 makes you among the greats. And Gough is more or less there, and he's ahead of some who are seen as unquestionable legends, like Lillee and McGrath. His SR is the same as Garner's. And Caddick's figures stand up too. Maybe being in a losing side (until 2000) led us to underestimate them. Though they must have gone for runs to give them averages of 28 and 29. Maybe greats have to produce their best in wins.

Have to look at economy rates as well , I think..

Sure. Gough's econ won't be worse because he steadily went at 0.5 rpo more than McGrath, but because on some occasions, when there was nothing happening, Gough will have gone for runs, and GMcG will have bottled an end up. But the most salient point about a strike bowler is their ability to take wickets quickly.

In my view, Gough was always carrying weight that stopped him from bowling long enough spells to take bigger hauls of wickets in an innings. So that counts against him. I had Fraser in my lifetime XI, and he took the big hauls. Maybe Goughie deserves the spot though.

[alfie]

Yes. What I meant was that - rather obviously perhaps - Gough's poor Econ rate worked to inflate his average despite the good strike rate. But I'd agree the strike rate is more important ; though you really need to look at all figures. Plus the opposition , support , pitches etc , to get the full picture.
And figures aren't everything. I don't need to look at the figures to tell me Willis was a far better bowler than Caddick , for example.
And I guess some of that is subjective anyway. Still a useful reference table so I'll bookmark it ...