Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Players => Topic started by: Buzz on August 11, 2014, 08:17:30 AM
-
http://www.thenational.ae/sport/cricket/fast-bowlers-broad-and-andersons-hunting-together-as-pair-is-paying-off (http://www.thenational.ae/sport/cricket/fast-bowlers-broad-and-andersons-hunting-together-as-pair-is-paying-off)
Fast bowlers Broad and Anderson’s hunting together as pair is paying off
What makes a great fast bowling pair?
Is it the camaraderie, when they complement each other intuitively? Or is friction between them preferred, jealousy turning into competitive drive and hurling both forward? Does it help if one is right-arm, the other left? Or if one bangs the ball in and the other kisses the surface? Or if one is meek, the other fiery?
There is no set template but it is a question worth revisiting right now, as James Anderson and Stuart Broad progress gradually up the charts of the best fast bowling pairs of all time. After taking 11 of the 20 wickets to fall in the fourth Test at Old Trafford, the pair now have 516 in 68 Tests together.
That puts them fifth in the list of the most successful pace pairs. They will almost certainly go past the three above them, though going past the most successful ever - Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh, with 763 wickets - is not a done deal.
Numbers have their limitations, of course. Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson do not feature on that list but boy, can anybody deny their combined ferocity, their legend built on triumph, fear, blood and song? But until this series it has felt like Anderson and Broad have not really received the appreciation specifically as a partnership as they ought to have done. One of the few drawbacks of being part of a celebrated duo is that the greatness comes impinging on individual acclaim.
With these two, that has somehow not been the case. The quality of Anderson is widely acknowledged; his mastery has been duly celebrated. Broad’s value is also clear and uncomplicated more because. Together? Bizarrely, it has not really happened much until now.
One reason for it is that modern England has thrived on a fast-bowling quartet, or, latterly, a trio of fast men with Graeme Swann equally key. Much of the attention has been focused either on individual components, or on the collective depth of English pace bowling.
It is only now, when that depth has begun to look more shallow, when Swann has gone, and only Anderson and Broad are left that the story of the pair is materialising.
What they could be missing is that signature moment, that one match or series in which their combined work stands above all else, giving birth to a super-couple nickname, or celebrated by song. The whitewash of India in 2011 could have been one, except that as good as the front pair was Tim Bresnan.
Had Broad not missed much of the 2010-11 Ashes, that could have been their moment, like Lillee and Thomson against the West Indies in 1975-76; or Walsh and Ambrose against Australia in 1998-99; or Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock at Johannesburg against England in 1999-00; or, finally, the Ws, Wasim and Waqar, at Hamilton, New Zealand in 1992-93.
The synchronicity of their peaks, which is crucial, has also been rare. Broad missed important parts of two of Anderson’s greatest triumphs. Anderson was disappointing in Australia last winter, where Broad was probably England’s best bowler. In the Ashes before that they managed a frisson of duo-dom.
Otherwise they even have the contrast in bowling styles that is so useful in lighting up a pair. Anderson bowls like great Dutch footballers think: in unforeseen curves. His trajectories, in and out, to right and left-handed batsmen, is art.
Broad deals in straight lines and sharp angles. Unlike Anderson, a classicist, Broad is modern, a product of the post-Glenn McGrath era: back of a length, the top of off-stump. He does bowl fuller, with success too, but almost always with the accompanying rueful observation that he should do so more.
Anderson is indisputably the leader in the arrangement, though. He is the better bowler, a man who has grand affairs with each ball he bowls. He does not grip one as much as keep it in a transitory caress, escorting it on its way. His handling of the ball and its actions is gentler, more sensitive; hold it this way, swing it that way, hold it here, swing it here.
Broad does not worry for details of the orb. He drives hard-nosed negotiations with the surface. Put in this much effort, give me this much bounce, or eam. But his modernity gives him adaptability and so, across the shorter formats, he is better-rounded.
They share an attitude though. Sometimes it feels overdone, as if they are the boy band who have been told by a cricket-equivalent of Simon Cowell to be edgier so they can target a slightly older audience. In this series, Anderson has actually bowled better since shutting up.
Could this series, with 37 wickets so far, do it for them? Perhaps they got that performance on Saturday, when India collapsed so feebly; so potent now that with Anderson unwell and Broad not even able to bowl, even the mere apparition of the duo ran India over.
osamiuddin@thenational.ae
Personally I think this article misses thinking about how well these two have bowled together in UAE, Sri Lanka and India - or fails to mention Anderson's lack of success in Australia. SA next winter will be the big one.
-
I'm looking forward to seeing how Gerry will manipulate stats to prove that the 3rd highest wicket taking partnership in the history of the game is not world class.
-
Probably world clad or up there for the era but not up there with greats for me as I can't compare them to
Lille/Thompson
Walsh/ambrose
Waquar/Wasim
Donald/pollock
Holding/Roberts
There stars are up there with them but are not in there class for me
-
Probably world clad or up there for the era but not up there with greats for me as I can't compare them to
Lille/Thompson
Walsh/ambrose
Waquar/Wasim
Donald/pollock
Holding/Roberts
There stars are up there with them but are not in there class for me
Is it possible that we look back with rose tinted hindsight? Or is it that wickets taken by a pair is not an appropriate stat and we should use a combination of Wickets taken, strike rate and average (as a pair) to determine whether they are really world class?
-
Do Broad/Anderson perform much better at home than away?
-
Probably world clad or up there for the era but not up there with greats for me as I can't compare them to
Lille/Thompson
Walsh/ambrose
Waquar/Wasim
Donald/pollock
Holding/Roberts
There stars are up there with them but are not in there class for me
These have long retired, history tends to remember the good times and forget the bad. Anderson/Broad are world class and will be remembered in the same bracket your list above once their boots are hung up, along with Steyne/Morkel and McGrath/Lee.
-
I would say yes they are world class. They have had success as a pairing and now rank top 5 in wickets taken together.
That said it doesn't mean they are "the best" bowling partnership. There are some better playing currently and many more who have since retired that could be deemed world class, despite not having the same volume of success. Sometimes you have to give praise where it's due rather than always looking to criticise or point out someone / many others who are in your opinion better.
-
It's hard to just use wickets or runs to define greatness as much more cricket played today
Having seen most of the above bowl on different pitches around the world I would not put broad and Anderson in there bracket
Maybe rose tinted glasses a little but day to day around world the above performed for long periods of there career broad and Anderson seem to do it in spats and both have struggled away from home till recently
My view as grew up in a golden age of fast bowling and apart from steyn I would not put any of the fast bowlers of today up against that lot
-
My view as grew up in a golden age of fast bowling and apart from steyn I would not put any of the fast bowlers of today up against that lot
Just to play devil's advocate here slightly but what if we never see bowlers of that ilk ever again.....are they the benchmark to determine greatness? Who is the determinant of what makes greatness or will it always be down to a subjective decision which means there is a huge amount of discussion? We can't rely on stats alone as opportunities and volume of cricket has increased so are current bowlers stats inflated? Pitches have improved so potentially harder to get wickets for the bowlers?
There are endless discussions and endless questions so some will agree and others won't. That will also tie in with the patriotism factor
-
That's the problem I don't think with the volume of cricket now there will ever be a cluster of fast bowlers like there was in 90's
Hard to measure greatness across eras as today pitches different, bats different, balls different, boundaries different
But I just look at who I have seen in my lifetime and broad and Anderson are good but not up there with others
You can only really rate players you have seen as I've heard off my dad trueman and snow were fantastic bowlers but I can't rate them as never saw them
-
Depends on your definition of world Class I guess.
-
You can make most things look sugar coated with the application of the right stats.
I'd say they are International class. You can only be World class when you have shown your success in pretty much all conditions, not all, most.
I'd say in the next two years they could progress, but they've only got two years left until Jimmy starts to wain.
-
In 2015 - we have a tour to the Windies, home against (I think) NZ, then an Ashes, then UAE then SA...
come out of that and they will be world class...
-
Reading the title I initially thought batting! Imagine the amount of runs they would score opening the batting at our level!
-
How would you rate the top opening pairs in Test cricket atm?
Johnson/Harris
Steyn/Philander
Anderson/Broad
Southee/Boult
I think probably.
-
Can't wait to hear Gerry SA opinion on this. If it doesn't have Steyn or another Saffa in the headline it does count and it's certainly not world class.
-
I guess based on the current players in world cricket they are world class, long way from being greats of the game. I actually think Broad looks more dangerous than Anderson in most conditions, as mush as the UK guys like to defend him Anderson really is average away from home.
-
Just want to dispel as myth here.
My username Gerry SA isn't Gerry South Africa, but my initials. S is fathers surname. A is mothers surname. Spanish naming tradition that both surnames are used.
Just to clear that up.
As for this topic. There are other pairs better but they aren't to shabby...
-
this is in today's times.
brilliant from Bob Willis
Anderson is brilliant but too mouthy, says Willis
Simon Wilde
Last updated August 17 2014 12:01AM
Bob Willis fears a 'going-over' in next summer's Ashes (Ben Gurr)
Record-breaking bowler is set to overtake Sir Ian Botham's record, but he should cut out the swearing, says Willis
SOME time soon, if not in what remains of the Oval Test then in the Caribbean early next year, James Anderson will displace Sir Ian Botham as England’s all-time leading wicket-taker. Botham, on 383, led by five when play began yesterday.
The careers of these two bowlers — both, at their best, absolute masters of swing — followed opposite trajectories. Botham’s success mostly came in his early years before injuries took their toll; Anderson’s superb fitness enabled him to capitalise when he belatedly became a regular in the side.
As someone who frequently shared the new ball with Botham and who has watched many of Anderson’s matches as a Sky TV commentator, Bob Willis, who held the record for 18 months directly before Botham, is well placed to make comparisons.
“They are both fantastic bowlers in English conditions,” he said. “For me, Ian just shades it overseas. His performance in the Jubilee Test in Mumbai in 1980 was remarkable. Jimmy struggled more on sub-continental wickets. Ian bowled pretty well in Australia, not so good in the West Indies. Jimmy could look a little ordinary in Australia when he couldn’t get the Kookaburra to swing.
“It’s quite close on how they went in England. In his prime, Ian was probably quicker. Both displayed great natural away-swing with the new ball; probably Ian only latterly was involved with reverse-swing. In terms of disguising what he does with the ball, and late reverse-swing, Jimmy would be better. I can’t remember Ian hiding the ball as he ran up. No one then tried to keep one side dry and shine the other, or rough it up by throwing it into the turf. Bowlers have become more sophisticated. They have had to.”
Anderson was fortunate that by the time he had learnt all the tricks, he still hadthe physical capabilities to put them into practice. In 44 Tests up to late 2009, his 148 wickets cost 34.9 each; since then he has taken 228 at only 26.6 in 54 matches. In his first 54 Tests, Botham claimed 249 wickets at 23.3; latterly his average in 48 games ballooned to 37.8.
Willis is less impressed by Anderson’s need to engage verbally with opponents. It was not unknown for Botham to indulge in sledging but for Anderson it seems to be more calculating and less friendly.
“I don’t understand why sledging would upset any professional cricketer but clearly it does,” said Willis. “In Jimmy’s case it might be like Glenn McGrath, where chuntering seemed to motivate him, but he’s taken it too far. I just don’t see the point of swearing at the opposition.”
Regarding England’s long-term future, Willis is concerned about the back-up bowling to Anderson and Stuart Broad. “I don’t see Chris Woakes as the answer and Chris Jordan has to improve a lot. He needs to learn quickly about wrist position and not gripping the ball too tightly. That’s a common fault with bowlers when they get tense.”
Another worry, plainly, is a collective fragility among the batsmen against the short ball. This was first highlighted during the winter’s rout Down Under and little has happened since to suggest things have improved. Willis expects Australia to plan accordingly next summer.
“English players don’t face short-pitched bowling in domestic first-class cricket. Now that there aren’t any overseas quick bowlers in county championship cricket, there are precious few bouncers bowled. It’s not just happy hookers like Alastair Cook and Stuart Broad — I’m not confident about the way Joe Root or Moeen Ali play the short ball.
“I expect the Australians to replace Peter Siddle with one of their young quicks and if they can keep Ryan Harris and Mitchell Johnson fit, they will give England a severe going- over.”
Willis has a reputation as one of cricket’s most trenchant commentators. Among the many angry bees in his bonnet is the subject of illegal bowling actions, once taboo but now under the spotlight of the ICC’s umpires and administrators. Saeed Ajmal last week became the most high profile of several international bowlers to have his action reported.
“I’m pleased,” Willis said. “I admire and agree with almost everything that Michael Atherton says but his encouragement of unorthodox bowling actions is not to be encouraged. You can usually tell with the naked eye whether someone has a dodgy action and anybody who bowls with his sleeves rolled down is, to me, trying to hide something.
“If [ICC umpire] Ian Gould is leading a charge, good on him. Every doosra that is bowled is illegal and it should be banned. As players, when it was raining and we were confined to the dressing-room, we used to while away time flicking the ball out of the front of the hand, a la the doosra, and we all thought we were throwing it. Nothing seems to have changed.”
The Oval Test match is the 200th broadcast live by Sky Sports TV since it first covered England on the West Indies tour of 1990
-
Finally an Englishman who makes sense :D