James Anderson vs Simon Jones

[Mike Small]

After the heated debate on Read or Jones (which is well and truely still going on) I thought I might start another thread on perhaps the only other 'iffy' place in our line up. Yes, the fourth seamer, Simon Jones had the upper hand in the Caribean but James Anderson took the initiative towards the end of this summer taking a handful of wickets against the Windies. Now though its all back to square one - if the first test against South Africa were to start in a couple of days both Jones and Anderson would be equal fav to get the nod for a place in the final XI. Who would you play?

I'd personally like both blokes, but against South Africa in South Africa I'd prefer Anderson over Jones. Anderson has a decent record bowling against the Saffers before and he kind of got in the thick of things with their skipper - and I REALLY liked that. Plus, he's also got the experience of already having bowled in South African conditions since he was an integral part of the world cup side we send there. I'd think he would be a good bet.

[R W S]

Great question Mike.

And - more relevant - a question that the selectors are ten tmes more likely to ask than the R Vs J.
So here's how is breaks down for me . . .

Damn those Saffers. We havent beaten then on their own turf for many many years - 30+ (I have the cricinfo numbers but so do we all). And for that matter they have only lost at home once for ages - that's the challenge before us - not unlike the records we broke in the carribean - a big 'ask'.

Who amongst us is honest in enough to recognise that if we had screwed up at 0-1 (after losing by a an innings in the first test ) down going in to the third test and setting the Saffers only 202 to win at Trent Bridge we would be where we are today?

That was down to Kirtley - a man no longer even considered.

So we have a 'luxury problem' - and that says something in itself.

Do we want to beat the Saffers or find a team to win the Ashes? When you know the answer to that question the initial premise is clear.

Jones - a man with more potential than even GBH - and we all know that we cannot wait any longer to find out if he is the real deal - with a man who can take wickets (or at least bowl like he did at Lords in the summer) with the old ball then we are world beaters - otherwise Jimmy will help us bridge the gap until we can try again - it really is that simple.

[Ernest]

I am picking Anderson, just because he is probably fitter than Simon Jones, who was brought back much to early.

Ern

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by R W S

Jones - a man with more potential than even GBH - .

RWS,

Until that slide I believed that he would be better than Harmison. He was quick, very confident and aggresive, but since then he has looked so much less of a threat. Maybe over time he can get back to that, but at the moment I feel he is still a long way off. It is very sad.

Anderson, if he can get his head settled on delivery, if he can learn to bowl maidens, if he can find that initail ability to bowl in the high 80's etc, he could be a very effectve. If you look closely at his action it is very similar to Shaun Pollock, so if he can get that ability to bowl consistently on or around off-stump, then we can really benefit from him.

We have a huge luxury at the moment because Harmison, Flintoff, Hoggard and Giles are all in the top twenty of the PWC, so the fourth bolwer does not have to be the match-winner, but I believe that of the two Anderson should get the job. For this reason it was so good to see him getting such a long bowl in the last Test.

[Pabs]

I just don't see what all the fuss is about with Jones. To me he's a Steve Kirby type of bowler - a big galoot who can bully people out on bad pitches but will get smacked all over the shop when conditions are against him. Not nearly as fast as his reputation suggests (even before the accident), bowls far too many long hops, little variation, all brawn and no brains.

Anderson has more talent in his little finger, IMHO.

[Rachael]

LOL - I like to see a poster choosing words carefully so as to avoid upsetting the "aggression and hostility is all" types :-)

In truth.. I'm inclined to agree.

When Jones was returning from injury Aggers found the hype bemusing and pointed out that even on a good day he wasn't exactly the model of dependability... and on a bad day he could make Devon Malcolm look like Brian Statham. Nothing since has realy suggested that such a verdict was that far out.

Troy C might work a miracle and produce a gem.. but right now he's seemingly in for no other reason than to make up the numbers and cery occasionally pick up cheap, tail end wickets when he's lucky enough to get a ball that's reverse swinging and be on song.

Anderson? Greater talent.. but he needs to spend time (and let's face it, that might mean years) sorting out an action that allows him to step up to the next level: a classic case of a kid so handicapped by bad habits not being picked up early that he's got "un-learning" to do. A bettr prospect than Jone, to my mind.. but perhaps not until his head is upright at the point of delivery and he's able to watch what the **** he's doing!

Who let the kid release the ball whilst staring at the ground

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Lets face it, whoever is picked aint going to see alot of the bal, so I wouldnt pick either. I'd go for a seamer who who could field well or could throw the bat about with a bit of meaning a la giles.

Or (dare I say it) Caddick ????????

[Pabs]

Originally Posted by Rachael

LOL - I like to see a poster choosing words carefully so as to avoid upsetting the "aggression and hostility is all" types :-)

Hi Rachael

As it happens I've got a lot of time for aggression and hostility - I just don't think Jones is the real deal!

As for Anderson, opinion is very much divided on how - and indeed whether - he needs to rebuild his action. I remember reading an article by somebody I respected a while back which basically said that his natural action was fine and that Cooley & co were ruining him. Unfortunately I can't remember who wrote the piece, or where I read it! Will have a dig around.

Meanwhile, there are some interesting comments here, especially the Bob Cottam piece:
http://www.geocities.com/unofficial_...n/analysis.htm

P.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Pabs

Hi Rachael

As for Anderson, opinion is very much divided on how - and indeed whether - he needs to rebuild his action. I remember reading an article by somebody I respected a while back which basically said that his natural action was fine and that Cooley & co were ruining him. Unfortunately I can't remember who wrote the piece, or where I read it! Will have a dig around.
.

Of couse his natural action was fine, he showed that when he was shoved in the full England ream, fresh from the acadomy, what the lad needs is some bowling, instead of being the perminent tea boy, not coaching.

Who are these coaches anyway, how do they get their qualifications to coach cricketers, and to change actions.

Coaching is Ok as an aid, no more.

Ern

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

what the lad needs is some bowling, .

Ern are you Fred Trueman in disguise ?

As it is I agree with you, he needs to bowl a lot more for Lancashire. The Central Contracts system is great and some players do need protection from being over-used, but for Anderson being the perpetual 12th man for most of the summer has not done him any favours...

Moving onto Jones, I am still astounded that Glamorgan dropped Jones after he was released by England earlier this year. That for me was childish and stupid act.