England v India, 5th Investec Test, The Oval August 14, 2014

Great servant Anderson digs deep for England

As James Anderson approaches the landmark of England's leading Test wicket-taker, he was hailed by his captain as "the most skilful bowler in the world"
  shares 20

Play 01:31
Dobell: Broad and Anderson asked for one last push

England will ask for one final push from their two most experienced bowlers in the final Test of the Investec series at The Oval.

For all the talk of the new era, it is still James Anderson and Stuart Broad upon whom England most rely in the field. The pair have shared 37 wickets at a cost of 22.59 each in the series to date and taken three of the four Man-of-the-Match awards. The other seamers - Liam Plunkett, Ben Stokes, Chris Woakes and Chris Jordan - have by contrast taken 18 between them at a cost of 47.61 each.

Both Broad and Anderson could easily have missed this game. Not only is the demand of five Tests in 42 days unreasonable upon such valuable players but Broad has a broken nose - he may wear a protective face mask in this game - and he is scheduled to undergo knee surgery once the series is over. The strain of leading the attack in all three formats may not show on the pitch where, Lord's apart, Broad has been exemplary for many months but it is beginning to show on the body.

Had the ICC disciplinary hearing gone against him, Anderson, too, might have missed this match. As it is, he goes into his 99th Test requiring seven wickets to draw level with Ian Botham's England record of 383 dismissals in Test cricket. Now aged 32, his longevity, consistency and skills are in some danger of being undervalued by familiarity. It may be when he retires that England realise his full value.

There were some raised eyebrows at the pre-match press conference when Alastair Cook hailed Anderson as "the most skilful bowler in the world", but it is not an unreasonable statement. Not with the caveat "seamer" anyway. Cook did not say "the best" or the "most valuable". And Anderson's ability to swing the bowl both ways, conventionally and using reverse, renders him dangerous in conditions in which others struggle.

Many other right-arm seamers can bowl outswing. Some of them can persuade the odd one to shape back in a fraction, too. But few can hoop it both ways as Anderson does with old ball and new. Not Dale Steyn, not Vernon Philander. Bhuvneshwar Kumar can do it, but not at the pace of Anderson. In the absence of Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif, Cook's praise is not so far wide of the mark.

Anderson's average is relatively modest. It hovers, at present, a fraction below 30: decent, certainly, but not in the league of the greats. Perhaps greatness will prove a bridge too far. He has been a fine, fine bowler for England but he is not Wasim Akram or Richard Hadlee. He is not Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee.

But, like Hadlee, he has sometimes had to shoulder more than his share of the burden. There have been times, too many times, when his captains have had nowhere else to turn and felt obliged to ask Anderson to stretch his spells by another over or two; to ask for one more spell before stumps.

It was Anderson who MS Dhoni described as the difference between the teams when England won in India. It was Anderson who produced the crucial spell to win the 2013 Trent Bridge Test against Australia. It was Anderson who claimed the most wickets when England won the 2010-2011 Ashes in Australia and Anderson, along with Broad, who led the way when England went to No. 1 in the Test rankings with victory over India in 2011. He has been at the heart of much that has been good about England in recent years.

But he has also been at the centre of much that has been less good. There was a moment in Australia that summed up the burden that Anderson shoulders in this side. With Broad off the field injured, Graeme Swann hit out of the attack and clearly struggling with the shoulder injury that forced him into retirement a few days later, Anderson was forced into another second-innings spell on a baking Perth afternoon against an Australia batting line-up already overwhelmingly on top.

Few remember that Anderson had been immaculate in the first innings. Few remember that England's batsmen had, yet again, let down their bowlers and forced them back into the field too soon. Few will remember that Broad was in the pavilion and that Cook had nowhere else to turn.

"He bowls quickly now but swings it both ways and it's very hard to pick up ... The reason he's a world-class bowler is he can do that. His skill levels have gone through the roof"
Alastair Cook on James Anderson

Instead they will remember George Bailey thrashing Anderson for 28 in an over. Symbolically, the sight of England's strike bowler being thrashed into the stands was one of the lowest moments of a grim tour. It was probably the moment it became impossible to deny that Australia's dominance was complete.

He should not have been bowling. To use him in such circumstances, with a declaration imminent, was akin to using a sports car to deliver scaffolding. It was brutal use of a fine tool but it summed up England's over-reliance upon Anderson and his willingness to go the extra mile for his team. It is not surprising that Cook's support for him remains unquestioning.

This makes it all the more regrettable that Anderson feels - or felt - the need to chunter and abuse his way through spells. He doesn't need to stoop to such strategies. He is better than that.

Even Cook admits that, on first impression when the pair came face to face in a County Championship match as young men, that he took an instant dislike to Anderson. "He called me everything under the sun when I was batting," Cook said. "Then I went on an England A tour with him and we never spoke.

"We were called up to play for England together and we had to fly from Antigua to India and we were sitting together on the plane. The only words he had said to me before then were swear words and I was thinking: This is going to be an interesting 48 hours...

"Now we're really good friends. What amazes me is how he keeps trying to improve his bowling. I've faced a hell of a lot of his net bowling and you can always see he's trying to work on something, which is a great attitude.

"When I first played against him he bowled quickly and swung it into me. He is a very different bowler now. He bowls quickly now but swings it both ways and it's very hard to pick up. When I played Lancashire about three years ago, I was lining him up okay and then he came around the wicket and got me out third ball. No matter how many times you face him in the nets, the reason he's a world-class bowler is he can do that. His skill levels have gone through the roof."

So Anderson may not be remembered as a great. And there may be moments in retirement when he looks back on some of his behaviour and winces. But perfection is not really a human quality and Anderson can take pride in the knowledge that he is respected by his team and feared by the opposition. He has served his country with distinction and he has never, on the hottest days or on the flattest pitches, ever given less than his best or let his captain down. By most interpretations, that is a great career.

Anderson and Broad may well face another hard slog at The Oval. The days when this ground offered the quickest pitches in the country have, for now at least, gone so England will once again be reliant on the pair's skill, their persistence and their determination if they are to wrap up their first Test series win for a year.

Whatever happens in the next few days, England have a long journey ahead of them. Victory in the Investec series against an apparently dispirited and not entirely engaged India will not prove Sam Robson a Test-quality opener, or Woakes and Jordan Test-quality seamers. It will not prove Cook or Ian Bell have found the consistency they require or that the emerging batsmen have what it takes to defeat Mitchell Johnson et al in an Ashes series.

But, after a grim six months, victory would provide encouragement that they are at least heading in the right direction. That will do for now.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Twinkie on | August 15, 2014, 22:09 GMT

    That's what I always say. Good but not great. He's surely no Malcolm Marshall.

  • POSTED BY B.C.G on | August 15, 2014, 11:36 GMT

    Why compare Steyn & Jimmy?Steyn has the better stats but Jimmy has made Tendulkar,Kohli,Kallis & other high class batsmen dance to his bowling.Comparatively Steyn has struggled to dismiss Kohli & Tendulkar while KP,Warner & Sanga have bullied him.Both have their pros & cons.

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | August 15, 2014, 11:25 GMT

    "Posted by Moppa on (August 15, 2014, 10:23 GMT) Also, don't forget the Rhino - also quite skillful, sharp, and the heart of lion ..."

    Yep, totally agree with you here, for me the Rhino is the real deal, right up there with Steyn - what he's done recently is fantastic and the fact that he's running in on a smashed knee makes it close to legendary.

  • POSTED BY Moppa on | August 15, 2014, 10:23 GMT

    @Madpashcrickers, if you actually read Cook's comment, within one breath of saying that Anderson is the most skillful he says 'Steyn has been the no.1 bowler for a long time now'. And then he says 'those two are in the same league', but he very clearly does not say that Anderson is better than Steyn. After all, that would be patently absurd. I'm happy enough to say that Anderson is the most skillful seamer in the world, and that Steyn is the best overall - skillful, quick and with a bit more fight than old Jimmy, who can coast when things aren't in his favour. Johnson is definitely not 'skillful' in the Anderson sense, but quick, scary and effective! Also, don't forget the Rhino - also quite skillful, sharp, and the heart of lion.

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | August 15, 2014, 10:18 GMT

    "Posted by ydoethur on (August 15, 2014, 8:42 GMT) That Anderson, despite not being nearly as quick as those three (what is he? 10mph slower? A very significant difference) has managed to develop the skill to take wickets at much the same rate (and over the last three to four years, his record compares favourably to that of any bowler other than Steyn."

    Anderson's very average strike rate has been one of England's main setbacks in our steep decline from the No.1 spot, losing to Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, scraping a draw with New Zealand and being crushed by Australia where he was truly dismal.

  • POSTED BY tjsimonsen on | August 15, 2014, 10:13 GMT

    @jesse govender and aman15: Please read the article carefully and you will see that nowhere is it claimed that Anderson is the BEST bowler in the world, but the MOST SKILLFUL. That's not the same, quite far from actually. Until Steyn swings both the new and the old ball both ways, and exercise the same apparent control of what that ball does after pitching, he is not quite as technically skillful as Anderson (very close, but not quite there). Steyn is blindingly fast and naturally skiddy on top of being close to Anderson technically. So I agree that he is the best bowler in the world today, but I maintain that Anderson is technically more skillful.

  • POSTED BY on | August 15, 2014, 9:59 GMT

    Definitely not an all time great bowler. He is very good in England but outside of England, he has an Ishantheque average of almost 37.

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | August 15, 2014, 9:53 GMT

    "Posted by WBoy on (August 15, 2014, 9:01 GMT) A lot of etymologically challenged comments here. 'Most skilful', as Cook has claimed, means something quite different from 'best' ... "

    What exactly is this 'skill' that Anderson excels at then? - it's not bowling fast, it's not bowling accurately, it's not moving the ball around on a string - I'd love to know what this seemingly intangible asset is.

  • POSTED BY WBoy on | August 15, 2014, 9:01 GMT

    A lot of etymologically challenged comments here. 'Most skilful', as Cook has claimed, means something quite different from 'best'. Cook has never claimed, and I'm sure would not claim, that Cook is a better bowler than Steyn.

  • POSTED BY ydoethur on | August 15, 2014, 8:42 GMT

    @Madpashcricker, read the fourth paragraph again. Nobody is disputing that Dale Steyn is the world's best bowler. Nobody disputes that Harris has a better record than Anderson. Nobody disputes that on his day, Mitchell Johnson is an irresistible force (although those days don't come round as often as they should).

    That Anderson, despite not being nearly as quick as those three (what is he? 10mph slower? A very significant difference) has managed to develop the skill to take wickets at much the same rate (and over the last three to four years, his record compares favourably to that of any bowler other than Steyn, who is simply a class apart, and Philander, who after an awesome beginning seems to have struggled more recently) suggests it is not unreasonable to regard him as the world's most skilful seamer, the one who comes closest to thinking batsmen out the way Marshall or Hadlee used to (but not as quick and ergo not as good as they were).

  • POSTED BY Twinkie on | August 15, 2014, 22:09 GMT

    That's what I always say. Good but not great. He's surely no Malcolm Marshall.

  • POSTED BY B.C.G on | August 15, 2014, 11:36 GMT

    Why compare Steyn & Jimmy?Steyn has the better stats but Jimmy has made Tendulkar,Kohli,Kallis & other high class batsmen dance to his bowling.Comparatively Steyn has struggled to dismiss Kohli & Tendulkar while KP,Warner & Sanga have bullied him.Both have their pros & cons.

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | August 15, 2014, 11:25 GMT

    "Posted by Moppa on (August 15, 2014, 10:23 GMT) Also, don't forget the Rhino - also quite skillful, sharp, and the heart of lion ..."

    Yep, totally agree with you here, for me the Rhino is the real deal, right up there with Steyn - what he's done recently is fantastic and the fact that he's running in on a smashed knee makes it close to legendary.

  • POSTED BY Moppa on | August 15, 2014, 10:23 GMT

    @Madpashcrickers, if you actually read Cook's comment, within one breath of saying that Anderson is the most skillful he says 'Steyn has been the no.1 bowler for a long time now'. And then he says 'those two are in the same league', but he very clearly does not say that Anderson is better than Steyn. After all, that would be patently absurd. I'm happy enough to say that Anderson is the most skillful seamer in the world, and that Steyn is the best overall - skillful, quick and with a bit more fight than old Jimmy, who can coast when things aren't in his favour. Johnson is definitely not 'skillful' in the Anderson sense, but quick, scary and effective! Also, don't forget the Rhino - also quite skillful, sharp, and the heart of lion.

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | August 15, 2014, 10:18 GMT

    "Posted by ydoethur on (August 15, 2014, 8:42 GMT) That Anderson, despite not being nearly as quick as those three (what is he? 10mph slower? A very significant difference) has managed to develop the skill to take wickets at much the same rate (and over the last three to four years, his record compares favourably to that of any bowler other than Steyn."

    Anderson's very average strike rate has been one of England's main setbacks in our steep decline from the No.1 spot, losing to Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, scraping a draw with New Zealand and being crushed by Australia where he was truly dismal.

  • POSTED BY tjsimonsen on | August 15, 2014, 10:13 GMT

    @jesse govender and aman15: Please read the article carefully and you will see that nowhere is it claimed that Anderson is the BEST bowler in the world, but the MOST SKILLFUL. That's not the same, quite far from actually. Until Steyn swings both the new and the old ball both ways, and exercise the same apparent control of what that ball does after pitching, he is not quite as technically skillful as Anderson (very close, but not quite there). Steyn is blindingly fast and naturally skiddy on top of being close to Anderson technically. So I agree that he is the best bowler in the world today, but I maintain that Anderson is technically more skillful.

  • POSTED BY on | August 15, 2014, 9:59 GMT

    Definitely not an all time great bowler. He is very good in England but outside of England, he has an Ishantheque average of almost 37.

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | August 15, 2014, 9:53 GMT

    "Posted by WBoy on (August 15, 2014, 9:01 GMT) A lot of etymologically challenged comments here. 'Most skilful', as Cook has claimed, means something quite different from 'best' ... "

    What exactly is this 'skill' that Anderson excels at then? - it's not bowling fast, it's not bowling accurately, it's not moving the ball around on a string - I'd love to know what this seemingly intangible asset is.

  • POSTED BY WBoy on | August 15, 2014, 9:01 GMT

    A lot of etymologically challenged comments here. 'Most skilful', as Cook has claimed, means something quite different from 'best'. Cook has never claimed, and I'm sure would not claim, that Cook is a better bowler than Steyn.

  • POSTED BY ydoethur on | August 15, 2014, 8:42 GMT

    @Madpashcricker, read the fourth paragraph again. Nobody is disputing that Dale Steyn is the world's best bowler. Nobody disputes that Harris has a better record than Anderson. Nobody disputes that on his day, Mitchell Johnson is an irresistible force (although those days don't come round as often as they should).

    That Anderson, despite not being nearly as quick as those three (what is he? 10mph slower? A very significant difference) has managed to develop the skill to take wickets at much the same rate (and over the last three to four years, his record compares favourably to that of any bowler other than Steyn, who is simply a class apart, and Philander, who after an awesome beginning seems to have struggled more recently) suggests it is not unreasonable to regard him as the world's most skilful seamer, the one who comes closest to thinking batsmen out the way Marshall or Hadlee used to (but not as quick and ergo not as good as they were).

  • POSTED BY on | August 15, 2014, 8:31 GMT

    If if wasn't for the ECB management changing his action in the early days Anderson's career his statistics would be better a lot better than are now, so in view of this it is to his credit he has turned everything around and become a match winner.

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | August 15, 2014, 8:23 GMT

    If Cap'n Cook cares to take a swift look over to the ICC rankings he'll find his breezy over-optimism tempered somewhat by the realisation that Anderson is currently only the fourth most skilful bowler in the world - by a distance - light years behind Steyn and not that close to Harris or Johnson either.

    It's not difficult to see why this should be - if you watch Anderson's bowling over a series or so it's clear that 1) he's not particularly quick, 2) he's not particularly accurate and 3) he doesn't move the ball much except in helpful conditions, and then no more than any other decent test seamer.

    For someone of his very moderate pace not to be able to bowl a consistent line and length tells you exactly why he would never get close to the best.

    I don't believe England will be able to beat Australia or South Africa for the foreseeable future unless we find better bowlers than Anderson.

  • POSTED BY markatnotts on | August 15, 2014, 7:59 GMT

    @MiddleStumpMike, you are conveniently forgetting batting averages have gone up siginificantly in the last decade or so, to the point 40 is no longer the benchmark it was for much of the 60's to 90's, more runs are being scored at a faster rate in Test cricket. Which of course means Steyn's record is all the more phenomenal, along with Philander (over a small sample) and Harris, but it also means an average of c30 still shows a good Test match bowler these days - more of a high level 2?

  • POSTED BY liz1558 on | August 15, 2014, 7:01 GMT

    MiddleStumpMike - that's a bit too clinical. Willis' last 3 Tests, when he was clearly past it, saw his acreage jump from just over 24 to 25+. Ian Botham took 210 at just over 21 in his first 42 Tests. Beefy's average climbed in conjunction with his waistline, as his pace dropped from fast to medium. In fact Botham in those first 42 Tests out performed Dale Steyn in average, economy rate and 5 and 10 wicket hauls.

    As for Anderson, after a lacklustre start to his career, he has taken his last 230 wickets at just over 26 in 52 Tests. Which is very good, but still well short of Steyn.

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | August 15, 2014, 5:20 GMT

    @MiddleStumpMike Selective statistics are *not* statistics. Unfortunately, it is what you have done. You cannot compare career averages directly in this way save in broad terms because the bowlers played for different teams in different environments against different opponents.

  • POSTED BY aman15 on | August 15, 2014, 4:30 GMT

    @jesse govender Absolutely spot on. There is just no comparison between steyn and anderson. Steyn not only beats anderson in every single parameter but beats by him quite a margin. For instance, steyn has the best strike rate among bowlers with atleast 200 test wickets, forget 300 or 350 wickets while anderson has one of the worst strike rates for bowlers with atleast 350 wickets. Also Steyns away record record is phenomenal. The less said about Andersons away record, the better.

  • POSTED BY on | August 15, 2014, 3:42 GMT

    Steyn v Anderson: 75 v 98 matches 383 v 376 - wickets 7/51 v 7/43 - best figures/innings 11/60 v 11/71 - best figures/match 22.5 v 29.86 - average 3.24 v 3.06 - economy 41. v 58.4 - strike rate 24 v 16 - five wicket hauls 5 v 2 - ten wicket hauls

    Other than a slightly better economy Steyn is better than Anderson is every single way. I dont know why people insist on debating this. Steyn is a different class to Anderson! The END!

  • POSTED BY tpjpower on | August 15, 2014, 1:53 GMT

    If you took away Anderson's worst 25% of performances, he could well be deemed a 'great'. It's not that he has never delivered spells worthy of that moniker; rather, he's too frequently mixed the truly outstanding with the rather mediocre. Having taken a while to find his feet as a Test-quality fast bowler, he has - possibly because of overburdening - never managed the long-term consistency of a player like Dale Steyn. He is a very skillful cricketer, but he has never been quite good enough to spearhead a Test attack to greatness.

  • POSTED BY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on | August 14, 2014, 20:16 GMT

    Selective statistics can be used to prove or disprove just about anything, but raw averages over a long career tell the story.

    As Dobell rightly points out all champion fast bowlers (Steyn, Ambrose, Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee, McGrath, Wasim Akram, Fred Trueman ....) have much better averages - in the low 20s or less. The next level (Botham, Bob Willis, Darren Gough ....) have averages in the mid to late 20s and the third level have averages around 30 or more. Of these only Trueman had the benefit of uncovered pitches.

    So Anderson is a very good level three fast bowler whose longevity in terms of number of matches and years played has allowed him to take the number of wickets he has.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | August 14, 2014, 20:12 GMT

    Good on George :)

    Jimmy Anderson is the reason England are on top right now.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | August 14, 2014, 20:12 GMT

    Good on George :)

    Jimmy Anderson is the reason England are on top right now.

  • POSTED BY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on | August 14, 2014, 20:16 GMT

    Selective statistics can be used to prove or disprove just about anything, but raw averages over a long career tell the story.

    As Dobell rightly points out all champion fast bowlers (Steyn, Ambrose, Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee, McGrath, Wasim Akram, Fred Trueman ....) have much better averages - in the low 20s or less. The next level (Botham, Bob Willis, Darren Gough ....) have averages in the mid to late 20s and the third level have averages around 30 or more. Of these only Trueman had the benefit of uncovered pitches.

    So Anderson is a very good level three fast bowler whose longevity in terms of number of matches and years played has allowed him to take the number of wickets he has.

  • POSTED BY tpjpower on | August 15, 2014, 1:53 GMT

    If you took away Anderson's worst 25% of performances, he could well be deemed a 'great'. It's not that he has never delivered spells worthy of that moniker; rather, he's too frequently mixed the truly outstanding with the rather mediocre. Having taken a while to find his feet as a Test-quality fast bowler, he has - possibly because of overburdening - never managed the long-term consistency of a player like Dale Steyn. He is a very skillful cricketer, but he has never been quite good enough to spearhead a Test attack to greatness.

  • POSTED BY on | August 15, 2014, 3:42 GMT

    Steyn v Anderson: 75 v 98 matches 383 v 376 - wickets 7/51 v 7/43 - best figures/innings 11/60 v 11/71 - best figures/match 22.5 v 29.86 - average 3.24 v 3.06 - economy 41. v 58.4 - strike rate 24 v 16 - five wicket hauls 5 v 2 - ten wicket hauls

    Other than a slightly better economy Steyn is better than Anderson is every single way. I dont know why people insist on debating this. Steyn is a different class to Anderson! The END!

  • POSTED BY aman15 on | August 15, 2014, 4:30 GMT

    @jesse govender Absolutely spot on. There is just no comparison between steyn and anderson. Steyn not only beats anderson in every single parameter but beats by him quite a margin. For instance, steyn has the best strike rate among bowlers with atleast 200 test wickets, forget 300 or 350 wickets while anderson has one of the worst strike rates for bowlers with atleast 350 wickets. Also Steyns away record record is phenomenal. The less said about Andersons away record, the better.

  • POSTED BY CricketingStargazer on | August 15, 2014, 5:20 GMT

    @MiddleStumpMike Selective statistics are *not* statistics. Unfortunately, it is what you have done. You cannot compare career averages directly in this way save in broad terms because the bowlers played for different teams in different environments against different opponents.

  • POSTED BY liz1558 on | August 15, 2014, 7:01 GMT

    MiddleStumpMike - that's a bit too clinical. Willis' last 3 Tests, when he was clearly past it, saw his acreage jump from just over 24 to 25+. Ian Botham took 210 at just over 21 in his first 42 Tests. Beefy's average climbed in conjunction with his waistline, as his pace dropped from fast to medium. In fact Botham in those first 42 Tests out performed Dale Steyn in average, economy rate and 5 and 10 wicket hauls.

    As for Anderson, after a lacklustre start to his career, he has taken his last 230 wickets at just over 26 in 52 Tests. Which is very good, but still well short of Steyn.

  • POSTED BY markatnotts on | August 15, 2014, 7:59 GMT

    @MiddleStumpMike, you are conveniently forgetting batting averages have gone up siginificantly in the last decade or so, to the point 40 is no longer the benchmark it was for much of the 60's to 90's, more runs are being scored at a faster rate in Test cricket. Which of course means Steyn's record is all the more phenomenal, along with Philander (over a small sample) and Harris, but it also means an average of c30 still shows a good Test match bowler these days - more of a high level 2?

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | August 15, 2014, 8:23 GMT

    If Cap'n Cook cares to take a swift look over to the ICC rankings he'll find his breezy over-optimism tempered somewhat by the realisation that Anderson is currently only the fourth most skilful bowler in the world - by a distance - light years behind Steyn and not that close to Harris or Johnson either.

    It's not difficult to see why this should be - if you watch Anderson's bowling over a series or so it's clear that 1) he's not particularly quick, 2) he's not particularly accurate and 3) he doesn't move the ball much except in helpful conditions, and then no more than any other decent test seamer.

    For someone of his very moderate pace not to be able to bowl a consistent line and length tells you exactly why he would never get close to the best.

    I don't believe England will be able to beat Australia or South Africa for the foreseeable future unless we find better bowlers than Anderson.

  • POSTED BY on | August 15, 2014, 8:31 GMT

    If if wasn't for the ECB management changing his action in the early days Anderson's career his statistics would be better a lot better than are now, so in view of this it is to his credit he has turned everything around and become a match winner.