Jimmy Anderson: The Exception that proves the rule?

[sussexpob]

The first time I heard of Jimmy Anderson was reading about him in a small side article in the Guardian in the summer of 2002. The words came from Duncan Fletcher, then England Head Coach, who had taken time out to cherish the talent he had witnessed while taking a trip to Old Trafford in between tests. Fletcher used terms like “pace”, “90mph plus” and “reverse swing” while palpably drooling. He foretold a star being born, one he was keen to elevate as soon as possible to the national team.

I have no doubt read many a similar article about other cricketers, ones that never stuck in the memory. The dreary days of my cricket upbringing through the dark pre-Fletcher times were spend wasting hope on similar players of the same era. By the time 1999 had come along and a clearly inept Aftab Habib was making Daniel Vettori look like the spinner equivalent of the Don, much hope had been lost. A new coach and a new set of players may have temporarily aroused interest, yet anyone with the misfortune to wake up on that cold November morning in 1999 and watch the capitulation of England in the first test in South Africa would have justified reasons for believing what they were witnessing was not the start of a cricketing revolution. By the time my county hero Chris Adams had flayed an edge to an eager Mark Boucher, ending his rather torturous stay at the crease which did a lot to confirm he was way out of his depth, England were 30-5. I believe this was the only time in my life I was ever happy to the leave the house in the morning to attend a lecture.

Yet there was something that sticks in the memory about this article to revived some form of excitement and hope. I will never be able to say why, especially when the opinion came from a man who had only months before tried to convince me that Uzman Afzaal was the answer to all of England’s batting problems (Afzaal can claim only one use in a cricketing context; he provided excellent catching practice for the Australian slip cordon), nevertheless I found myself clearing my late summer schedule for the Lancs v Sussex game at the end of the season eager to see this Anderson in action.

Little sticks in the memory of that game, other than Anderson bowled one huge wide, and the fact he was hardly given the ball after spraying it around badly on first change. He hardly looked a threat on a pitch where the other Lancs new ball bowlers made inroads, and rarely looked like he had any control. I was surprised when Anderson was picked for the Australia tri-series tour that winter based on what I had seen. He seemed a long way from a finished article.

By 2003 Anderson was in the test team, after an impressive ODI start. It began with a dream start at Lords with 5 wickets in the first innings, and followed by cheap wickets at CLS against Zimbabwe. It didn’t seem to matter that Zimbabwe’s world cup on-field protest and the Mugabe take over had cost them all their best players, or that conditions were perfect in that early summer for swing bowling..... the prophecy was coming true.

As the cool early summer gave way to one of the hottest ever recorded in decades(I remember leaving a match at Hove in the early afternoon that year to hide inside, the temperature was near 40 degrees!), Anderson would find South Africa a much tougher proposition. Aside from a Nottingham pitch that dried out in the blazing heatwave and resembled something more akin to what you would find in Lahore, where Anderson later in the innings commanded some control to go with his ability to reverse the ball, there was little on display from Anderson to convince of his abilty. He was always a yard too full looking for the swing, always trying to steam into the crease and throw his weight behind every ball. It was quick, it was “90 mph plus” at times, and he could reverse it; but the Saffer batsman were never far away from the free offer of a boundary, and never really put under much prolonged pressure. Wickets came as "oasis" balls in desert like spells of bad lengths, and poor lines. Anderson was capable of delivering you something unplayable, but only after you scored 70.

It was this lack of control that came to signify Anderson’s 5 day bowling. He wanted to bowl wicket taking balls, but had no appreciation of the art and science of his craft. Between 2004 and 2006, when he played he went for over 4 an over, unable to contain a batsman or apply pressure. After his poor 2006/07 Ashes (which he wasn’t 100% fit for in fairness) and an absolute massacring in back to back tests against India and Sri Lanka in 2007 (he conceded 182 in the first innings of the Oval test, and went at nearly a run a ball for 128 runs in the SL away test), it seemed it was over. Anderson hadn’t changed. He wanted to bowl quick and nasty, but only succeeded in getting battered.

His stats will say that his career turned around in 2008, but I still think he was the same type of bowler then just getting more fortune. That NZ 7-for at Nottingham was noticeable for how vicious he was trying to bowl, the example being Flynn being knocked out after a barrage of pace. He was still looking for magic balls, and was pulling them off on a green deck and terribly weak batting line up. For me the first noticeable change in Anderson was in 2009 at CLS vs the Windies.

He was almost suddenly more controlled, noticeably slower. His jerky and hurried action had smoothed, if not perfectly, but he seemed to be able to put the ball where he wanted. When Chris Gayle left one that scraped the bail on the way through, the next ball was a couple of inches inside the stump line, and he went lbw. He had batsman committing to play the inswinger, then sent down the outwsinger. He got everything out of the pitch he could. He took advantage of batsman mistakes by getting the ball on target, by continually requiring something from them. His career changed after that match, maybe not immediately, but it wouldn’t take long. He had matured into a fine test match bowler.

For all those original touted attributes, Anderson only became an asset to England when he stopped trying to bowl fast and rely on swing. He became more successful when he appreciated the basics; line and length, bowling to setup a batsman, able to make the best of conditions by making sure the swing/seam you can generate at least makes a difference. There is no point bowling 97mph heavy swinging balls if they drift past a batter stumps and go for 4 wides.

It continually surprises me that cricket commentators or fans alike chase this fallacy of the “big bowling attributes” that need to be present in a successful fast bowler. Mike Atherton once stated a fast bowler can only thrive in test cricket if they have at least two of the required three skills; pace, pronounced movement and accuracy. Yet this would ignore a whole host of slower bowlers that have been successful. Accuracy has always been for me the only attribute you need to be a test player. If it comes with some mental guile then all the better, at this point you are probably a true world beater.

Nothing can represent this more than Anderson. He is able to eek out everything in a pitch, in the weakness of the batsman, because he knows how to work over a batters technique and mentality. He is able to now get batsman to come across their stumps with outswing, and then drift it into the planted leg. He is able to make batsman play with the inswing, and the knick off with the one that goes the other way. Sri Lanka are no great team, but more than a few great teams would have been blow away with his barrage in the first test, in those conditions. Another key example that always sticks out to me was McGrath at Lords in 2005, not statistically his best bowling, but he just kept all the batsman playing and wondering where they can score, and the small amount of indifferent bounce, swing or seam he was able to generate, in no way exceptionally pronounced, did the rest. The overworn cliche of "buying a ticket" you hear from the least creative of football commentators seems apt... if its not hitting wood or a leg, you arent getting a player out, so make a batsman play defending his stumps.

Anderson’s best attribute for English cricket moving on to the future years could be his legacy in judging the suitability of players solely based on physical attributes that seem to stand out over less appealing, less pronounced, but ultimately equally if not more important that others. It pains me when someone would comment on Rushworth being “too slow” for test cricket when the greatest exponent of the art in the 21st century bowled at 80mph and never reverse swinged the ball. We seem to want highlight reel players over clever, cunning, intellectual thinkers.

When people bemoan the lost art of pace bowling, they often forget that it was those attributes that made the greats. Sure, Michael Holding or Wasim Akram could knock your head off, but they could also work out a batsman or contain them. A true “enforcer” is someone who wins matches, not someone who breaks up the middle of the pitch pointlessly tiring themselves out trying to bowl quick. Yet when we talk of these greats, we talk of the pace or the bouncer that knocked someone over, not of the repetitive monotony of giving the batsman nothing to score off. We remember Mitchell Johnson trying to knock out teeth, but not Asif drifting in and knocking out your off stump.

You get the feeling with Anderson, had someone encouraged him to develop his skills a few years earlier rather than aimlessly waste them trying to be something he wasn’t, we might be talking about one of the great quicks of cricket history. Certainly a player of his calibre just starting his career would be challenging for it. I am left to feel though that Anderson’s success serves more to represent the waste of talent that England have let slip by over my decades of watching test cricket.

A bowler, regardless of their type is only as good as their performance. Great test match bowling never died, it just became confused for something else.

[greyblazer]

What a coincidence? I was debating about control on Twitter haha.

[sussexpob]

What a coincidence? I was debating about control on Twitter haha.

Great minds and all, GB.

I was actually meant to write this after the first test but never got the time.

[Dr Cricket]

Good post.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Fine post.

The definitive moment I remember in Anderson's early career, was in the Test in Joburg in 2005 when Hoggard, Jones, Freddie and Harmi were an item. Anderson was picked for the fourth Test, instead of Jones, supposedly because his conventional swing would be more useful in the conditions. And really he offered little. No pace, no swing, no line and no length. And it appeared, no heart. Hoggy and Freddie ended up bowling over after over on a pretty decent batting pitch.

And the other side, at home against Pakistan in 2010, when he seemed to be a perfectly evolved creature adapted to thrive in a particular environment, and was unplayable in the conditions. Though he has become a bit more than that since (and showed his mettle in the away Ashes win), I still feel he is a cunning preditor that thrives in a certain habitat. Which not only gives him a relatively ordinary away record, but the sort of game he had v SA at the Oval in 2012.

[Making_Splinters]

Anderson was nearly destroyed by Cooley's meddling and to a lesser degree Shine. Luckily he managed to time his career to surface after Cooley vanished and he could bowl with a slightly altered natural action that gave him his swing etc in the first place.

[sussexpob]

And the other side, at home against Pakistan in 2010, when he seemed to be a perfectly evolved creature adapted to thrive in a particular environment, and was unplayable in the conditions. Though he has become a bit more than that since (and showed his mettle in the away Ashes win), I still feel he is a cunning preditor that thrives in a certain habitat. Which not only gives him a relatively ordinary away record, but the sort of game he had v SA at the Oval in 2012.

I remember watching the end of Courtney Walsh's career, I believe it was his last test. Somewhere near the end he bowled his 5000th test over, and the commentators present in the box discussed for about an hour what a fine achievement that was, and how it would probably never be beaten by another fast bowler. Walsh had a 17 year test career. I believe this record was close to being surpassed by McGrath, but he fell short. Its possible sometime this summer that Anderson will pass 3000 overs since 2010 alone. In a period of about 5 years of test cricket, apart from Broad who is not far behind, no pacer comes within a 1000 overs of Anderson. He has even outbowled any spinner too.

I think this sheer work load accounts for a lot of the rise and falls of his recent times. A good indication was in 2013, when by the fourth Ashes test inside a series where he had bowled some very long spells, and inside which at that point all of the tests were back to back, Anderson looked spent by CLS. After a long summer, they then packed off for a long Ashes tour, and the pressure of all that cricket combined with the sheer amount of playing took its toll on all that squad. I hesitate to think of one bowler who has had to play 71 tests in 5 years, and inside that time also play 10 Ashes tests in the space of 5 or 6 months.

Anderson has bowled more than Trueman did in his career during this period. Trueman was around for 13 years at the highest level. To expect that frequency of bowling to come without fatigue is asking to much. No one can play to their highest level under those conditions all the time.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Anderson has bowled more than Trueman did in his career during this period. Trueman was around for 13 years at the highest level. To expect that frequency of bowling to come without fatigue is asking to much. No one can play to their highest level under those conditions all the time.

In his fc career?

Trueman missed a lot of international cricket due to being dropped by the MCC for lacking deference. So he didn't have a typical career even for that era. But I would have thought Trueman would have bowled more fc+Test overs than Anderson?

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'm pretty sympathetic towards the workload of present day international players (the long trips away back then must have had their own stresses though). And as I tend to say, bowling in a four man attack for most of the time brought fatigue and injury on Anderson (and Broad and Swann, but especially Anderson).
Edited after your clarification.

[sussexpob]

Anderson has bowled more than Trueman did in his career during this period. Trueman was around for 13 years at the highest level. To expect that frequency of bowling to come without fatigue is asking to much. No one can play to their highest level under those conditions all the time.

In his fc career? Trueman missed a lot of international cricket due to being dropped by the MCC for lacking deference. So he didn't have a typical career even for that era. But I would have thought Trueman would have bowled more fc+Test overs than Anderson?

Of course its tests, FCis different, Trueman played professional cricket apparently from 1949 to 1972!!! He might not be indicative of a normal test career, but the point is he was the first to 300 wickets and therefore the person with the longest career span up till the modern era and the Windies quicks..... and Anderson has bowled more in tests this decade then a lot of those in the 300-400 wicket career ranges.

Who would be more typical? Malcom Marshall in a 13 year career is only a handful of overs more than Anderson in the chosen period.

[sussexpob]

Anderson was nearly destroyed by Cooley's meddling and to a lesser degree Shine. Luckily he managed to time his career to surface after Cooley vanished and he could bowl with a slightly altered natural action that gave him his swing etc in the first place.

Well I believe in Andersons case, Fletcher and the England coaches were desperate to produce a player with the requisite speed. When he didnt improve as initially thought, they tried to meddle with his action to produce a net result of bowling more accurate, but still at pace. It never worked.

There isnt much difference in actual actions from 2002/03 having reviewed what little footage of a young Anderson is available to now. Yet in 2002/03 Anderson was steaming into the crease, the extra pace carried into the stride maybe leads to a lower arm, but generally you get the feeling Anderson is trying to bowl the skin off the ball. He still now has quite a flaying action, its energetic once he gets into his stride and not the smoothest, but it works on the basis that the run up is far more rhythmical, and that gives him stability on delivery. His arm is slightly higher and his wrists are in better positions.

It seemed rather than re-inventing the wheel, suggesting he adapt his run up to be more stable and controlled has worked wonders for his ability to put the ball where he wants..... but he sacrificed 5mph for that ability. Obviously that must have been unquestionable until 2008/09 to the England coaches

[Arthur Crabtree]

Like Chris Woakes?

[Arthur Crabtree]

I thought they got Anderson to change because he was bowling with a half-and-half action, his upper body was aligned at odds with the lower, so they thought a back injury was inevitable. Then, bowling with a less natural action, he began to pick up injuries... so he went back to one more like his original method. Though his action now is still a bit different from his early one.

[sussexpob]

I thought they got Anderson to change because he was bowling with a half-and-half action, his upper body was aligned at odds with the lower, so they thought a back injury was inevitable. Then, bowling with a less natural action, he began to pick up injuries... so he went back to one more like his original method. Though his action now is still a bit different from his early one.

Fletcher was obsessed with having a pace attack all capable of bowling 90mph. I believe he said as much in defending his consistent non-selection of Ryan Sidebottom, who its worth pointing out, maintains the same career average per wicket as any one else that has played for England in my lifetime ( different point, but is there an England bowler with 50 wickets since the start of the 1990's that averaged under 28? Weirdly, I believe Gough/Botham/Headley/Finn/Anderson/Broad/Fraser/Sidebottom/Si Jones all averaged 28!! It seems a barrier to English bowlers). It therefore always seemed natural that Fletcher wanted to make Anderson better, but it was out of the question to sacrifice pace. I obviously accept that such a narrative and conclusion serve the main purpose of my OP well, but of course, I wrote the OP with my honest beliefs so I am not trying to adapt an argument to your counter points.

I believe that the main problem was not susceptibility to injury, but that the coaching staff believed Anderson's left side and in particular his head fell away in his action quite violently, and that was leading to a bit of "spray and pray" style accuracy. They attempted to get him more upright and stable in his action, but with that twisty and unravelling style all that meant was his back was under huge amounts of stress.The action change came I believe after a poor summer in 2005 where he was deemed unpickable, and it lead to the serious stress fracture that kept him out in 2006 pretty quickly. It was madness he travelled to OZ in 2006-07, as I said in the OP (and to GB only a few days ago, and at various stages in the last 10 years in his defence about that tour) he never should of been there. He hadnt recovered from a serious injury and looked barely able to bowl.

I guess the main point of all this is, how much did this affect his performance over a career? It probably delayed his career a couple of years from blossoming, but in reality he played little between 2004/05 and the end of the Fletcher period, and the Oz tour was a free ticket (even at the time people were ignoring his performance based on the very apparent lack of fitness). In fact, it seems he only played 4 tests in this period, and under Moores he had a handful of tests before he really started firing big time.

[sussexpob]

As for going back to his natural action, there is one notable difference, and that is the right arm. Having looked it up Anderson credits his swinging powers to bowling "like an off spinner", and you can definitely see that post 2008-2010 ish time that his arm loops in a much higher and wider arc. In order to get through that action though, he has had to slow it down. There are subtle differences, but they made a big difference.