U
User482
Guest
There we are then.It seems to following the pattern of our last tour to India: score 400, they make 650, lose by an innings.
There we are then.It seems to following the pattern of our last tour to India: score 400, they make 650, lose by an innings.
I know everyone keeps on about a lack of fast bowlers, but Anderson has taken 12 wickets at 26. Unfortunately, the rest of them have been average to utterly hopeless, as were all of the batsmen, with the exceptions of Malan and Bairstow.A few factors at play I reckon:
- Too much focus on not having Stokes
- Bayliss & Strauss' total lack of management
- Lack of a genuinely fast bowler, and a spinner
- Broad, Cook and Ali were all hopeless (A career ending series? For those 3, I think it could be.)
There was an interesting discussion on 5live last night.3 times in our last 5 overseas tests, weve made 400 in the first innings and lost by an innings. If we want to prioritise winning overseas, we need to ensure the championship is played at a time of year which would help players other than "English seamers". Playing so much cricket in April n September means that the flat decks just aren't there to develop true quicks and spinners.
That's true, but it excuses the fact that only one of our bowlers has played well. Anderson has shown that it's possible to take wickets and be economical, despite being an "80mph swing bowler".There was an interesting discussion on 5live last night.
The crux of it was that real pace bowling is very hard work, and English conditions are such that a good fast medium bowler at 80mph who can swing and seam it will be just as effective but without having to break a sweat, so there is no real incentive to develop fast bowlers as the risk / reward is too high.
If he'd picked up a few tail-enders cheaply when they were setting up a declaration, I'd agree, but I don't think that's the case. But in a way, you are right: none of his wickets have really mattered because there has been no other bowling support to create a match-winning opportunity.Were any of Anderson's wickets taken when it mattered though? I don't think they were.
So while he's been economical, he's not really been effective (unless I'm wrong about when he was getting wickets, which is entirely possible).