Exactly - it's tantamount to ruining the future of England cricket, he really has done nothing to be slated for.

Exellent point even in 2005 if the England seam attack had a problem, it was in being able to finish of the tail, Warne and Lee in 2005 nearly retained the Ashes for Australia, it's good to see a bowler polishing of the tail.

I think he has only played 7 Test matches - and taken 19 wickets, with a decent strike rate.

__________________
Ern

The following says it all, really:Note the "maintaining a suffocating hold" bit: that's exactly where England have failed.. and in the last two Tests, no one has been more culpable than Sajid.

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...521364,00.html

The academy tours are all well and good and can certainly further a player's learning and world experience. But I believe that it is important to identify players with test match potential, around Mahmood's age, get them in the test side and - most importantly - keep them there so that when they reach 26 or 27 they are world class test match players. Just to give a few examples from the current England set-up: Trescothick, Vaughan, Hoggard, Bell... . From Australia, Michael Clarke is building a great foundation for a superb test career despite playing some loose shots in his early test career and despite being very suceptible to some conditions around the world. Ricky Ponting didn't set the world on fire (his test record did not compare to Cook's when Ponting was Cook's age), but he was spotted - as a young guy - to have immense potential. Ten years later and Australia have a player to really boast about.

Australia have made a mistake I believe with both Hussey and Clark. In my opinion it is a travesty that players of their quality are making their test match debuts so late in their careers. Had they begun playing at 27 or so, Australia would have got quite a lot more out of them.

I believe that test match success does not follow from first-class success, nor successful academy tours. I believe that test match success requires a temperament that can only be unveiled by playing test cricket. In some sense a poor technique at test level can often not be a player's downfall.

It's a hard call to make, but if there exists a player who looks like test cricket will come naturally to them, get them in when you believe them to be mentally capable and - if you are a good enough judge - they will have already paid dividends before Hussey and Clarke's age.

__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

My point is that Mahmood had taken 15 wickets in 5 matches before coming to Australia, he should have been in he first Test rather than Anderson who I fear is finished.

The same could easily happen to Mahmood if he is not sure of his place, he needs cricket.

He does not rely on short deliveries, he is not afraid to pitch the ball up ( as TMS commentators recomend), with practice he will become an effective bowler, a little more accuracy and with his pace, he will be hard to play, he really does need a good coach.
I agree with that article Rachael, some exellent points, Clark is a real find but England IMO don't have an equilivent, also England have not played as a team, the seeds were sown after the Ashes in 2005, England sat back on memories, Australia went single minded to win back the Ashes. - And it showed.

__________________
Ern

Anderson is an opening bowler. Playing him when the ball is soft hoping there is reverse swing is plain silly. They were wondering why he was bowling so well in the warm up games and not in the Tests. The reason being he got the new ball. Mahmood got a wicket that was bowler friendly and was brought in for his batting which was non existent. If Hoggard and Harmison are opening the bowling Anderson should not be playing. In India Harmison was injured and Anderson got the new ball and bowled well. Anderson is not finished. He is only 24 and at the start of his career. He has alot of supporters like Lillee, Cooley, Chapple, Marsh, Gatting, Boycott, Fleming etc.

darkside - I know just what you mean, for ages I was posting that Anderson should be played or allowed to go back to Lancashre, at least he would have got some cricket under his belt.
But the time is not right for him to be even in the England squad, he just has not played enough cricket, also being perpetual tea boy has not helped, he should be looking two years on.
Well why did Cooley not make sure Anderson got a place in the side?, I remember his debut on the last tour to Australia, he bowled well in the one dayers having been plucked from the acadomy, but a couple of poor games and he soon went out of favour, I think 18 months as Englands teaboy must have left some scars, I hope he makes it back - but the England set up has ruined him IMO.

__________________
Ern

Greig on Mahmood: "Rubbish. Absolute garbage" and "At last, the place to bowl. Just short of a length on the line of off stump".

And what does that prove?

To be fair, Greig could have said those words about any bowler in test match history. I myself have seen Glenn McGrath (not too shabby a bowler by anyone's standards) bowl a 'rubbish' ball and then bowl a ball on off-stump and on a good length.

__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

Well hopefully we will have him at Lancs for most of the season.

Cooley is not a selector though. Anderson had a run in the Test side until he got his knee injury before the Bangladesh series and then sprained his ankle playing squash. By then Simon Jones had reappeared and Anderson was reserve for a long time getting the odd game here and there. It would be interesting to see how Anderson would have done with a long run in the side after playing a full season for his county. He did get a long run in the one day side until they decided they needed a bowler that could bat and he was dropped. He was number ten in the ICC ODI rankings at that time.

Cooley changed his action in case he got injured and then he did. He has now gone back to his old action thank goodness. Why change an action if a player is not injured. There is no guarantee the new action will not cause an injury. I see Shine wants to change Broad's action. I think his dad will put his foot down on that.

Mahmood has outbowled Anderson and harmison on what i have seen during this series so i would be more concerned about them than Saj.It isn't his fault he is a better bat than the rest of the tail and has to go in at 8.What would Rachael prefer,Hoggard at 8?????