England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 5th day July 14, 2013

England not dependent on Anderson - Cook

50

Alastair Cook has stated that there is no bowler in world cricket he would rather have in his side than James Anderson, but insisted that England were not over-reliant upon him.

Anderson delivered a 13-over spell on the final morning to break the back of the Australian resistance and then, despite an attack of cramp, was forced back into service to claim the final wicket. He finished with 10 for 158 in the match and bowled a total of 55.5 overs earning England a 14-run victory and himself the Man-of-the-Match award.

Cook did admit, however, that Anderson had carried a heavy burden in this game and accepted that workload concerns were an issue with the second Investec Ashes Test beginning at Lord's on Thursday and nine more Ashes Tests to come before the end of January.

"Jimmy was outstanding," Cook said afterwards. "He always wants one more over, though 13 was probably quite a lot in that first hour.

"But no, I don't think we're over-reliant on him at all. He's a world-class bowler and you sometimes use him in these situations when you know there's a time-frame. He had an amazing rhythm in this game.

"Stuart Broad and Steven Finn have done outstandingly well for us over a huge amount of time, but it just happened to be Jimmy's day and Jimmy's game. Sometimes it happens like that.

"When a bowler hits a rhythm you just keep asking him if he's feeling alright. That's why you do the training in the gym: when your captain needs you to do it you are physically fit to do it. We know his skill but his heart to keep running in on a hot day on a flat wicket was outstanding.

"No, there's no bowler in the world I'd rather have. Not in any conditions. These were very subcontinent conditions and he was outstanding. He swings it both ways on an immaculate length and makes it very hard to score.

"You do worry about his workload in one sense but, when you're out in the middle, that is kind of irrelevant. You have to think about what is best for the team at that precise time. You can't be thinking about what will happen in two months time.

"It's the job for our backroom staff and us as a team to make sure we recover well because back-to-back Test matches are hard physically. We have to come back for Thursday ready."

Cook scored Test runs galore in Australia two years ago but his first Ashes Test as captain was something different. "I always said I would be the only England captain not to go bald, but after days like today, it might not help that," he said.

Asked by Sky Sports whether it had been his best performance in an England shirt, Anderson said: "Yeah I'd say so. We knew it wasn't going to be easy at the start of the day, but I thought the lads stuck to it and stayed calm when it was getting tough.

"I'm just delighted to get the win. I had the nerves going a little bit but I love bowling here, it's been good to me over the years and I'm happy that I could pick up some more wickets.''

Asked if he could maintain the same levels of workload across the series, he said: "If I'm bowling 13-over spells it's going to be difficult! But it's Ashes cricket. I love playing Test match cricket and the Ashes is right up there, and that's why we do the hard work in the gym - to get out there and bowl long spells.''

Australia's captain, Michael Clarke, was proud of his team in defeat but credited England's victory to the efforts of Anderson and Ian Bell, who made the only century of the match.

"I think the boys can certainly hold their head high. It was a wonderful game of cricket. Credit to England. England fought hard really hard throughout the five days and I think the two best performers of the Test match were Ian Bell making a hundred and Jimmy Anderson getting five-for in each innings, so they deserved the win."

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Bogelking on July 14, 2013, 16:08 GMT

    It is important for a captain to have enough players within the team, so that you can turn over to them when the team is in total peril. But as the first test gets over, there is not enough options for Cook to look at- to make inroads as far as the bowling is concerned-save Anderson. Whatever he may say of less dependency over Anderson, it was evident from the fact that he handed the ball to Anderson post lunch for a breakthrough. It is this dependency that Cook has to curb by instigating others in the team to pull up their socks. Finn appeared different from what he is and it is alarming for the English team, cause Anderson cannot work the magic again and again, although I do not mind him doing it. So it is high time that other bowlers within the team deliver the goods according to the onus placed by the skipper. Bresnan instead of Finn will be what I think of the pace battery at Lord's, but come on let us still believe in Finn to come up with some excellent stuff.

  • SirViv1973 on July 15, 2013, 20:02 GMT

    @Vleis, I don't think anyone is basing Jimmy being a fantastic bowler on one good performance. To be fair he pretty much does that every time he plays at TB and has been outstanding in every series he has played in the past few yrs with the possible exceptions of SAF last yr & to a certain extent NZL earlier this. I think your attempt at comparing Philander with Anderson is some what Flawed. Anderson is the leader of the attack & has a completely different role to what VP has with SAF. I would also add that in the last 2 yrs JA has played 9 test matches in Asia where we all know seamers tend to struggle. VP is still to play a test match there & to date has only played tests in the far more seam friendly environments of SAF,Eng,Aus & NZL.

  • H_Z_O on July 15, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    @Vleis and I didn't say England were a poor batting or bowling unit ;). Just that, in my view, South Africa were the best batting unit in the world, even back then. If we had a chance, it was with Swann out-bowling Tahir, which he didn't.

    And I wouldn't say Jimmy's the best in the world. Steyn's head and shoulders above everyone, Philander included. I'd argue Anderson might have a claim to being next in line, although Philander and Siddle's records are superb too.

    I also don't think Cook meant that he was the best in the world, just that there's no bowler in the world he'd rather have. That speaks to his confidence in Jimmy. Smith would undoubtedly say the same about Steyn (who is the best in the world).

    It reminds me of when Saker said Jimmy was the most skilful bowler in the world. There's an argument he can do more with the ball than Steyn. What makes Steyn so amazing is his ability to do what he does at a pace Anderson can only dream of.

  • Vleis on July 15, 2013, 19:15 GMT

    @ H_Z_O: I didn't say that JA is a rubbish bowler. I think that he is a very good bowler, but it makes me laugh that everyone is banging on about him being the best in the world after one great performance - even his captain is falling into this trap. So, to squash some of the hyperbole, I've presented hard facts. I agree that context is important, but your argument is flawed, as the facts show that during Philander's 16 tests England were #1 longer than SA - i.e. hardly a poor bowling unit (or batting unit). Besides, sometimes being the lone world class bowler of the pack can be beneficial - e.g. Hadlee, Muralitharan, etc.

  • H_Z_O on July 15, 2013, 18:18 GMT

    @Vleis As good as Philander is, do you think maybe, just maybe, the fact he bowls with Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel helps him? Bowlers hunt in packs, and even guys like McGrath benefitted from guys like Warne.

    Likewise the fact he never has to play a Test match against Amla, De Villiers, Kallis or Smith? That's why a lot of stats analysis falls flat, people neglect context. There is no doubt Philander's a class bowler, but I'd love to see how he does when Steyn and Morkel aren't there. As yet he's never played a Test without them.

    Would Jimmy's stats be better if he had Steyn and Morkel instead of Broad or Finn? What about if he had South Africa's fielding unit, which boasts some of the best in the world? England's fielding's been declining of late, including, interestingly, back during the series against South Africa. We dropped Amla repeatedly and he's good enough without being given lives.

    South Africa are #1 for a reason. But that doesn't mean Jimmy's a rubbish bowler.

  • Vleis on July 15, 2013, 16:25 GMT

    Rather than comparing Steyn to JA, let's compare JA to SA's #2 bowler. Philander's played 16 tests (half at home) and has a bowling average of 17.1. Jimmy has a high bowling average, but is much better now than he was earlier in his career, so let's compare Vernon's figures to JA's most recent 16 tests (half at home). JA's average is 27.4, which is more than 10 runs per wicket worse than Philander's! If you need more convincing, let's compare how they did in the battle for #1 in the world last summer. Vernon did not have his best series, but took 12 wickets at 23.7...whereas JA took 9 wickets at 40.7! So, when the #1 spot was on the line, JA got thoroughly outplayed by Vernon....in his own country. And let's not even get started about their batting. Cook may want JA in his team above all others, but he is wrong.

  • SirViv1973 on July 15, 2013, 15:11 GMT

    @The big Boodha, Just so you are clear about one thing Denbach never has & never will be anywhere near the Eng test side!

  • SirViv1973 on July 15, 2013, 14:59 GMT

    @Capt Meanster, I will agree that we have been lucky that Jimmy has stayed fit over the past few yrs & picked up few injuries. However your comments regarding the rest of our attack never picking up injuries is laughable. Tremlett got injured in the UAE 18 mths & was not even able to start playing CC again until 3 months ago. Swann missed the whole of the series in NZL earlier this year. Finn was only fit enough to play 1 of the 4 tests in Ind before Xmas, Broad broke down on several occasions during last year & even when he was playing in 2012 he was nowhere need 100% neither was Bresnan! If we go back a few yrs to 2009 Onions was pretty much a first choice player but he suffered a bad back injury which kept him out of all cricket for well over a yr & has never been able to ball with the same pace since returning hence why Eng have been reluctant to pick him since.

  • Harmony111 on July 15, 2013, 14:51 GMT

    @SICHO: I don't know what to say. It seems you misread my comment and thought I was saying that Eng can do well even without Jimmy and that you were telling ME how SA have other good pacers too in the absence of Steyn. I can only ask you to re-reead what I said in my prev comment. I am quoting the relevant part of my comment here ---"Without Anderson, England's attack is worse than what SA would be without Steyn."---

  • SirViv1973 on July 15, 2013, 14:47 GMT

    I think some posters have short memories. Jimmy was always going to be the go to man at this venue, look at his stats there 47W in 7 games @16.36. This will not be the case in every match. Swann took 10 for at Hedingly & Broad 7-44 in the 2nd inns at Lords against NZL, and who can forget Monty's phonemanal series in Ind only a few moths ago! Yes there are some questions surrounding the 3rd seamer & whether it should be Finn, Bez or Onions, but Eng are far from one trick pony in the bowling department.

  • Bogelking on July 14, 2013, 16:08 GMT

    It is important for a captain to have enough players within the team, so that you can turn over to them when the team is in total peril. But as the first test gets over, there is not enough options for Cook to look at- to make inroads as far as the bowling is concerned-save Anderson. Whatever he may say of less dependency over Anderson, it was evident from the fact that he handed the ball to Anderson post lunch for a breakthrough. It is this dependency that Cook has to curb by instigating others in the team to pull up their socks. Finn appeared different from what he is and it is alarming for the English team, cause Anderson cannot work the magic again and again, although I do not mind him doing it. So it is high time that other bowlers within the team deliver the goods according to the onus placed by the skipper. Bresnan instead of Finn will be what I think of the pace battery at Lord's, but come on let us still believe in Finn to come up with some excellent stuff.

  • SirViv1973 on July 15, 2013, 20:02 GMT

    @Vleis, I don't think anyone is basing Jimmy being a fantastic bowler on one good performance. To be fair he pretty much does that every time he plays at TB and has been outstanding in every series he has played in the past few yrs with the possible exceptions of SAF last yr & to a certain extent NZL earlier this. I think your attempt at comparing Philander with Anderson is some what Flawed. Anderson is the leader of the attack & has a completely different role to what VP has with SAF. I would also add that in the last 2 yrs JA has played 9 test matches in Asia where we all know seamers tend to struggle. VP is still to play a test match there & to date has only played tests in the far more seam friendly environments of SAF,Eng,Aus & NZL.

  • H_Z_O on July 15, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    @Vleis and I didn't say England were a poor batting or bowling unit ;). Just that, in my view, South Africa were the best batting unit in the world, even back then. If we had a chance, it was with Swann out-bowling Tahir, which he didn't.

    And I wouldn't say Jimmy's the best in the world. Steyn's head and shoulders above everyone, Philander included. I'd argue Anderson might have a claim to being next in line, although Philander and Siddle's records are superb too.

    I also don't think Cook meant that he was the best in the world, just that there's no bowler in the world he'd rather have. That speaks to his confidence in Jimmy. Smith would undoubtedly say the same about Steyn (who is the best in the world).

    It reminds me of when Saker said Jimmy was the most skilful bowler in the world. There's an argument he can do more with the ball than Steyn. What makes Steyn so amazing is his ability to do what he does at a pace Anderson can only dream of.

  • Vleis on July 15, 2013, 19:15 GMT

    @ H_Z_O: I didn't say that JA is a rubbish bowler. I think that he is a very good bowler, but it makes me laugh that everyone is banging on about him being the best in the world after one great performance - even his captain is falling into this trap. So, to squash some of the hyperbole, I've presented hard facts. I agree that context is important, but your argument is flawed, as the facts show that during Philander's 16 tests England were #1 longer than SA - i.e. hardly a poor bowling unit (or batting unit). Besides, sometimes being the lone world class bowler of the pack can be beneficial - e.g. Hadlee, Muralitharan, etc.

  • H_Z_O on July 15, 2013, 18:18 GMT

    @Vleis As good as Philander is, do you think maybe, just maybe, the fact he bowls with Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel helps him? Bowlers hunt in packs, and even guys like McGrath benefitted from guys like Warne.

    Likewise the fact he never has to play a Test match against Amla, De Villiers, Kallis or Smith? That's why a lot of stats analysis falls flat, people neglect context. There is no doubt Philander's a class bowler, but I'd love to see how he does when Steyn and Morkel aren't there. As yet he's never played a Test without them.

    Would Jimmy's stats be better if he had Steyn and Morkel instead of Broad or Finn? What about if he had South Africa's fielding unit, which boasts some of the best in the world? England's fielding's been declining of late, including, interestingly, back during the series against South Africa. We dropped Amla repeatedly and he's good enough without being given lives.

    South Africa are #1 for a reason. But that doesn't mean Jimmy's a rubbish bowler.

  • Vleis on July 15, 2013, 16:25 GMT

    Rather than comparing Steyn to JA, let's compare JA to SA's #2 bowler. Philander's played 16 tests (half at home) and has a bowling average of 17.1. Jimmy has a high bowling average, but is much better now than he was earlier in his career, so let's compare Vernon's figures to JA's most recent 16 tests (half at home). JA's average is 27.4, which is more than 10 runs per wicket worse than Philander's! If you need more convincing, let's compare how they did in the battle for #1 in the world last summer. Vernon did not have his best series, but took 12 wickets at 23.7...whereas JA took 9 wickets at 40.7! So, when the #1 spot was on the line, JA got thoroughly outplayed by Vernon....in his own country. And let's not even get started about their batting. Cook may want JA in his team above all others, but he is wrong.

  • SirViv1973 on July 15, 2013, 15:11 GMT

    @The big Boodha, Just so you are clear about one thing Denbach never has & never will be anywhere near the Eng test side!

  • SirViv1973 on July 15, 2013, 14:59 GMT

    @Capt Meanster, I will agree that we have been lucky that Jimmy has stayed fit over the past few yrs & picked up few injuries. However your comments regarding the rest of our attack never picking up injuries is laughable. Tremlett got injured in the UAE 18 mths & was not even able to start playing CC again until 3 months ago. Swann missed the whole of the series in NZL earlier this year. Finn was only fit enough to play 1 of the 4 tests in Ind before Xmas, Broad broke down on several occasions during last year & even when he was playing in 2012 he was nowhere need 100% neither was Bresnan! If we go back a few yrs to 2009 Onions was pretty much a first choice player but he suffered a bad back injury which kept him out of all cricket for well over a yr & has never been able to ball with the same pace since returning hence why Eng have been reluctant to pick him since.

  • Harmony111 on July 15, 2013, 14:51 GMT

    @SICHO: I don't know what to say. It seems you misread my comment and thought I was saying that Eng can do well even without Jimmy and that you were telling ME how SA have other good pacers too in the absence of Steyn. I can only ask you to re-reead what I said in my prev comment. I am quoting the relevant part of my comment here ---"Without Anderson, England's attack is worse than what SA would be without Steyn."---

  • SirViv1973 on July 15, 2013, 14:47 GMT

    I think some posters have short memories. Jimmy was always going to be the go to man at this venue, look at his stats there 47W in 7 games @16.36. This will not be the case in every match. Swann took 10 for at Hedingly & Broad 7-44 in the 2nd inns at Lords against NZL, and who can forget Monty's phonemanal series in Ind only a few moths ago! Yes there are some questions surrounding the 3rd seamer & whether it should be Finn, Bez or Onions, but Eng are far from one trick pony in the bowling department.

  • liz1558 on July 15, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    @SICHO- That's not true about SA. Steyn produced all the most important breakthroughs against England and Australia in the recent series. Take him out of the side and Morkel does nothing. His figures (and Philander's) have sometimes been better than Steyn's, but they look very playable without Steyn. JA is England's best, but he's not as good as Steyn, and two years ago Broad found a groove against India and Pakistan that JA has never matched. If it doesn't swing, and he doesn't need much swing, JA can look a little innocuous, and has flat Tests - Headingley against NZ. On that occasion Finn was the go to man. It's not that England's attack is better balanced, but that Steyn can overcome any conditions, and that's what makes him very special. More so than Anderson.

  • ThyrSaadam on July 15, 2013, 14:07 GMT

    Sometimes there are players whose performance stand tall among others within the team. As much as Cook would like to deny, they have 2 /5 bowlers who fall in that class- Anderson, and Swann. When they perform well, it may seem that the team is reliant on them. But Cook as a captain will be found wanting if either of these two dont deliver, as tactically he hardly brings anything to the table.

  • crh8971 on July 15, 2013, 12:38 GMT

    Anderson is a vastly improved bowler & has developed fantastic control. His overall career record is not that great but if he can maintain his current level for a few more years he will finish with an outstanding record. There is also no reason why he cannot be successful into his mid 30's as he doesn't rely on pure pace and looks like he very fit and trains hard. Reminds me a little of Richard Hadlee with his seem control. Swann basically had one good spell where he pitched a couple and picked up some nice LB's. I thought Patto bowled very well without much luck & Siddle was his lion hearted self. Starc looks fairly innocuous but then grabs wickets in clusters. Be good to see the pitch a little harder & quicker at Lords as this would suit all the bowlers from both sides.

  • H_Z_O on July 15, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    @Mitty2 I said before the series that in the same way as England had more batting depth (5 of our top 7 average over 40, only 1 of yours does) , but the best batsman on either side was Michael Clarke, Australia have more bowling depth, but the best bowler on either side is Jimmy, with Swann being the best of the spinners (but not by a huge margin). Your pace reserves are way stronger than ours, especially when you look at who you left out, and your spinners are young.

    @whofriggincares I've said all along that a combined four-man attack of both sides would be, imho, Anderson, Siddle, Pattinson and Swann, with Starc next in line, just edging out Broad because of his lefty-ness. If Tremlett can rediscover his form now he's back from injury, we might have a good backup option there, but Harris is a far better backup than Bresnan or Finn. It's not that those guys are bad, but Harris was incredible in 2010, your best bowler by miles. If he'd been fit more, he'd be leading your attack now.

  • whofriggincares on July 15, 2013, 9:16 GMT

    Comparing the attacks is an interesting exercise isn't it. Lets start by saying Anderson is the best out of the two sides and is challenging Steyn for the best in the world mantle. An extremely gifted skilled bowler in his prime and at the top of his game a true match winner. Broad is dangerous but inconsistent and Finn obviously is a very good bowler when in form but currently is not going that well , Swann is in the top handful of spinners in the world but seems to struggle to have a match winning effect against Australia, fact. Siddle is first picked (IMO) the backbone of our attack, Pattinson has the potential to be Anderson like and his figures to date stack up with any bowler in the world. Starc is dangerous but inconsistent like Broad. And the spinners spot for us is an ongoing problem, hopefully Agar can progress quickly and if not Lyon has something to offer if they keep throwing up tracks like this. I think Bird could be the trump card in this series not releasing pressure.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 15, 2013, 8:44 GMT

    Anderson only scored one run in the whole match, and took zero catches! How can England be dependent on him?

  • Narayan.Shastri on July 15, 2013, 7:15 GMT

    It is a well-known fact that fast bowlers always hunt in packs or rather two in tandem. I would like to point out that James Anderson needs crucial support from the other end. With just four days left before the next Test, England need to suitably strategise. Although England won, it was a narrow margin. Just imagine if that was not a nick... Haddin was still there...

  • Mitty2 on July 15, 2013, 5:19 GMT

    @whoster, in retrospect, Siddle's wickets were more due to your batsmen's fault than anything else - with the obvious exception of Root - although that's a little unfair because he did work a few of them over. (Here's my bias) Externally, we have a far greater plethora of quicks to chose from (although the squad should include Sayers and Copeland instead of Faulkner and Starc - yes Starc) with harris being the best bowler in the country - as rated by Ponting - and Bird having the best FC and test (limited to two) average than every other bowler on tour, and out of England's squad for that matter.

  • YorkshirePudding on July 15, 2013, 4:57 GMT

    In terms of Swann not posing a threat, Trent Bridge hasnt been a good hunting ground for Swann in international cricket, in 4 games hes taken 7 wickets at 51, and 4 of those where in this last test.

    Compare that to Lords where he has 31 wickets @ 27 from 17 innings.

    Both Anderson and Broad also enjoy Lords and have bowling averages which are less than their career averages.

  • CustomKid on July 15, 2013, 4:40 GMT

    Cook is kidding himself. The team is a one trick pony and Cook is an unimaginative captain with little tactical skill at all. When Agar put him to the sword as well as Australia being 0/80 odd he was clueless. His get out of jail card is Anderson and what a card to have.

    God forbid if he doesn't fire or gets injured. That said the AUS top 6 is that bad the English bowlers might have some joy with out Jimmy. Broad is inconsistent at best and Swan beats up on minnos mostly and doesn't pose a threat unless it's turning square or a fifth day pitch representing the moon.

    Pound for pound I think the bowlers on both sides end up relatively equal. If it's green and seaming AU will exploit it as much as ENG. If it's flat there isn't much difference.

    The big difference is the quality of the top 6 or 7. In green conditions ENG will tough it out and make some runs, AUS will fold well below that total such as 117-9. The AUS tail is better for sure but where it counts it advantage ENG.

  • SICHO on July 15, 2013, 3:55 GMT

    @Harmony111; just couldn't stop laughing after seeing your comment. Broad and Finn ( with Bresnan and Onions too) are nowhere near Philander and Morkel. Actually South Africa can cope with the loss of Steyn than England can with the loss of Anderson, when Anderson doesn't fire, England doesn't fire i.e. 637/2. Hell!! even Tino Best can agree with me. SA used to depend on Steyn 4-5 years ago, but not now, when Smith really needs a wicket he can actually call any of the trio, Cook on the other when he needs a wicket, well, we know were he goes. We did see last year against SA when Anderson was no longer the magic bowler, non of the bowlers actually stepped up. When Broad is pressured for a long time, you will see the real Broad, arguing and shouting with umpires.

  • TheBigBoodha on July 15, 2013, 1:58 GMT

    @whoster, AUS would have relatively little trouble replacing Siddle. Bird has a 1st-class/test average 10 runs/wicket fewer than Siddle. Problem solved. AUS has a whole host of quicks of similar ability queued up. ENG have Bresnan, Dernbach, Onions.

    There's no way Anderson is going to last ten tests like this. He is the wrong side of 30. Nor is there any hope he will bowl this well every game. Nor can he take a such a workload every game. That's one of the reasons why Australia's tail will just keep adding big runs this series. Anderson and Swann have to get tired eventually, then any of Agar, Pattinson, Starc and even Siddle will score big. I can see Australia posting very big scores as the series goes on & Anderson tires. Top order batsmen will score runs sooner rather than later (Rogers, Watson, Clarke, Hughes), tiring both Swann and Anderson, and then the long batting line-up will pile on the runs. This is a realistic scenario, not the "I can't see ENG losing" denial.

  • browners76 on July 15, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    Apparently Swann and Broad posed zero threat. I guess Clarke, Hughes, Smith, Watson, and Haddin were dismissed by the cricket fairies. Just as I expect Pattinson and Starc to bowl better as the series goes on so will Broad and Swann. Remember Broad played with a shoulder problem and wasn't 100%. Tremlett for Finn would be a great swap but I think the selectors will do the usual and play safe.

  • on July 15, 2013, 1:35 GMT

    as someone pointed out How Australia relied on Mcgrath, could also say West Indies Relied on Curtly, only difference is these tqo bowler, bowled well within them self, Mcrgrath could of bowled 150kph but bowled mid 130, just as Curtly. Anderson is bowling on the limit or just over, all the time , How often did Mcgrath or Curtly break down or miss a match due to fitness? Lets see Anderson bowl 14 years at this Intensity. Oh by the way dont come up with that freak accident in 2005

  • jmcilhinney on July 14, 2013, 23:38 GMT

    @Harmony111 on (July 14, 2013, 18:58 GMT), if you were an Aussie then you wouldn't be happy to give up this series just to win the next.

  • jmcilhinney on July 14, 2013, 23:37 GMT

    @RandyUK on (July 14, 2013, 16:12 GMT), as long as Phil Hughes is in that team, Swann will always pose a threat. I guess you could ask Michael Clarke how much of a threat Broad was.

  • elsmallo on July 14, 2013, 22:11 GMT

    I think Australia's reserve bowling options - Harris, Faulkner, where is Mitchell Johnson - are a little better than England's in Onions and Bresnan, although these guys are both underrated and Tremlett is there somewhere. No doubt Aus don't have a bowler to compare to Anderson though. Stick with Pattinson and Starc and maybe in five years they will do!

  • pom_don on July 14, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    @RandyOZ Swann & Broad posed zero threat?........you must have been looking at a different game, admittedly not at the top of their game, but I wouldn't swap either for any Aus bowler! We should have finished earlier (much) we were lucky (very) with the Broad decision but much more unlucky with the Trott & Agar decisions, it could have struggled to get to day 5, great nail biting stuff in the end which is always better for the viewers....bring on round 2

  • heathrf1974 on July 14, 2013, 21:32 GMT

    He is definitely the number one bowler in the world. Although, Steyn has a better career average, there is no bowler more consistent. As an Aussie I get nervous when he's bowling. I don't don't get like that with Steyn who can sometimes go for a few or gets his wickets in spurts.

  • Harmony111 on July 14, 2013, 18:58 GMT

    If I was an Aussie then I would bat ultra defensively in the next 4 tests to make sure that Jimmy has to bowl as much I can make him. Being 150/3 in 90 overs won't trouble me at all. Keep in mind that even if Aus lose this Ashes series they can always regain it when it is played in Aus later this year, and given the heavy work load Jimmy would undertake in these 5 tests, there is every chance that he won't be touring. Without Anderson, England's attack is worse than what SA would be without Steyn.

  • Iddo555 on July 14, 2013, 17:35 GMT

    Poor showing from Swann, still, his record at trent bridge isn't great. Hoping for the Swann we all know and love to turn up at Lords. Anderson, great as usual, whatever the pitch, he does the business. Finn, well he needs to go and work at his game, he's all over the place Broad, he bowled well and batted well

    Bresnan for finn and I don't see England losing this series

    Can't wait until thursday, bring on round 2

  • SICHO on July 14, 2013, 17:17 GMT

    well England might not admit it , but yes, they are too reliant on Anderson, which is not a good thing. I don't care how fit he is, but if keeps bowling this much, he will break down sooner or later. Remember there's still 9 Tests to go, so the other bowlers better step up, or they might suffer the loss of Anderson.

  • on July 14, 2013, 17:16 GMT

    Anderson is the key difference between the two sides. He is a great bowler and there is no shame in accepting that England is dependent on Anderson. Without Anderson England's bowling attack will be very weak.

  • alexrdavies on July 14, 2013, 16:44 GMT

    Anderson had a great week. Talk of being 'dependent' is silly. We're blessed with a match-winner, that's all.

    Trott, Swann, Prior, Pietersen, Anderson and Broad have all won games almost single-handedly for England - just as Waugh, Hayden, Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist used to do for Australia.

    It doesn't mean we're depending on a different play each week: it means we're blessed with a strength in depth that took us to world number 1 not too long ago. Just watch us come back.

  • whoster on July 14, 2013, 16:34 GMT

    All world teams are to an extent dependent on their best bowler - and England are no exception. How would Australia have fared in this game without Siddle? How would SA and Pakistan fare without Steyn and Ajmaal? Let's face it - all of these teams will be weaker without their best bowler, so it's a bit of a non-story. Finn's bowling was shocking at times during this game - though he did also bowl a couple of decent spells. Let's not forget though, that Finn has 90 wickets from 23 Tests and an average under 30 - so he's certainly played his part over time. All of England's four main bowlers have proved themselves over time, and that's why they have 831 Test wickets between them - and why all four are ranked in the top 15 bowlers in world cricket.

  • DeckChairand6pack on July 14, 2013, 16:27 GMT

    Steven Finn was missing in this match and you cannot carry a passenger in any situation, particularly if you go for a 4 man attack. Swann was forgettable once more. Aus won't be too discouraged as they nearly squeaked it, their middle order was missing once more.

  • RandyOZ on July 14, 2013, 16:12 GMT

    Anderson is the only one the Aussies are worried about. As predicted by myself Swann and Broad posed zero threat.

  • on July 14, 2013, 16:10 GMT

    Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy.. What an outstanding bowler.. Simply delightful to watch.

  • SamWintson92 on July 14, 2013, 16:08 GMT

    Cook has rightly said that Eng isn't dependent on Anderson as he can take 10 wickets per test !

  • mtfb on July 14, 2013, 16:06 GMT

    I don't like this four bowler attack. Bring in Onions for Finn and Bresnan for Bairstow.

  • on July 14, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    I think everyone's looking into this a bit too much. Of course England desperately want Jimmy Anderson in the side - he's a class act. Alastair Cook HAD to say what he said here because it's a TEAM game though, and saying that England are dependent on Anderson is a bit of an insult to the other class England bowlers. Who knows, maybe it'll be Broad's match next time, or Finn's. I don't think it matters too much. Well played Jimmy though!

  • Jaffa79 on July 14, 2013, 16:00 GMT

    Not reliant as Broad and Swann did good jobs this Test but Finn needs to step up. Bresnan, with his reverse swing skills would've been better on this surface and might play at Lords

  • Ruri on July 14, 2013, 15:51 GMT

    Nope. You could take anyone out of the side, even Cook or Swann and still possibly win a match. You take Anderson out and there is nothing. How about the last two times that Anderson has not played? SL managed a draw, and Tino Best hit 95 at 11 in a rain affected draw against the Windies. Jimmy is clearly the most important player on the team, I hope he gets plenty of ice baths and rest before Thursday.

  • Harlequin. on July 14, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    @Chris_P - agreed, if Jimmy has to do that every match then he'll break down eventually.

    England may rely on Jimmy more than the other bowlers (though on turners you could argue Swann) but the same could be said of many of the worlds teams, past and present. Finn and Broad can both take stacks of wickets on their day, they are just not as consistently good as Anderson. Finn is likely to be dropped for the next test (if it wasnt Lords I'd say definitely), i like Tremlett to replace him but it will probably be Bres.

  • jmcilhinney on July 14, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    England certainly were dependent on Anderson in this game and the most worrying thing was Steven Finn's poor performance. His spell against Hughes and Agar in the first innings relieved the pressure there and allowed them to get gain confidence and get going and his spell at the end of the second innings almost cost England the game too. I actually don't think that he bowled all that badly in that last spell in the second innings but, on that pitch, Haddin was confident that he could hit through the line with minimal risk. Given the state of the pitch, Bresnan would almost certainly have been a better selection for this game. It's quite likely that the Lords pitch will suit Finn more though, so don't count him out just yet. Broad bowled well this game and, despite his slices of luck, looked better with the bat as well so he's no issue. I don't think anyone needs to be too concerned about Swann either. He didn't dominate here but he will still be a big factor.

  • nathangonmad on July 14, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    Yeah and Australia didn't rely at all on Warne or Mcgrath at all.

  • Cpt.Meanster on July 14, 2013, 15:22 GMT

    Cook will say all this because he knows Anderson will be fit for the next 9 games. It's all a different story when a match winning player is unfit. England never have had to contend with a list of injuries to their fast bowlers and other key players for some time now. Things will change one day and then we shall see how dependent or in-dependent England remain.

  • Chris_P on July 14, 2013, 15:20 GMT

    Not too sure about that Cooky. You better pray he doesn't break down or start looking after him a bit better, he is carrying the pace attack. As an Aussie, I don't mind all the extra work he is doing, no one has plenty of gas to last 10 gruelling tests at optumum level, so we might re-visit that response a little later, shall we? But well done for the first test, excellent effort.

  • Fan01 on July 14, 2013, 15:09 GMT

    Anderson is the leader of Eng's Bowling attack...Everyone knew England are dependent on Anderson!!!! Other bowler they can look for is Swann...Yeah Board can do it..But to win test matches at this level, ENG need Anderson in their line up...Without Anderson,ENG can't dream of winning test matches consistently!!!

  • on July 14, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    Yes, Alistair... Back that up with giving Jimmy a rest at Lords. You're a bright lad... you can admit some dependence on a great player.

  • on July 14, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    Yes, Alistair... Back that up with giving Jimmy a rest at Lords. You're a bright lad... you can admit some dependence on a great player.

  • Fan01 on July 14, 2013, 15:09 GMT

    Anderson is the leader of Eng's Bowling attack...Everyone knew England are dependent on Anderson!!!! Other bowler they can look for is Swann...Yeah Board can do it..But to win test matches at this level, ENG need Anderson in their line up...Without Anderson,ENG can't dream of winning test matches consistently!!!

  • Chris_P on July 14, 2013, 15:20 GMT

    Not too sure about that Cooky. You better pray he doesn't break down or start looking after him a bit better, he is carrying the pace attack. As an Aussie, I don't mind all the extra work he is doing, no one has plenty of gas to last 10 gruelling tests at optumum level, so we might re-visit that response a little later, shall we? But well done for the first test, excellent effort.

  • Cpt.Meanster on July 14, 2013, 15:22 GMT

    Cook will say all this because he knows Anderson will be fit for the next 9 games. It's all a different story when a match winning player is unfit. England never have had to contend with a list of injuries to their fast bowlers and other key players for some time now. Things will change one day and then we shall see how dependent or in-dependent England remain.

  • nathangonmad on July 14, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    Yeah and Australia didn't rely at all on Warne or Mcgrath at all.

  • jmcilhinney on July 14, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    England certainly were dependent on Anderson in this game and the most worrying thing was Steven Finn's poor performance. His spell against Hughes and Agar in the first innings relieved the pressure there and allowed them to get gain confidence and get going and his spell at the end of the second innings almost cost England the game too. I actually don't think that he bowled all that badly in that last spell in the second innings but, on that pitch, Haddin was confident that he could hit through the line with minimal risk. Given the state of the pitch, Bresnan would almost certainly have been a better selection for this game. It's quite likely that the Lords pitch will suit Finn more though, so don't count him out just yet. Broad bowled well this game and, despite his slices of luck, looked better with the bat as well so he's no issue. I don't think anyone needs to be too concerned about Swann either. He didn't dominate here but he will still be a big factor.

  • Harlequin. on July 14, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    @Chris_P - agreed, if Jimmy has to do that every match then he'll break down eventually.

    England may rely on Jimmy more than the other bowlers (though on turners you could argue Swann) but the same could be said of many of the worlds teams, past and present. Finn and Broad can both take stacks of wickets on their day, they are just not as consistently good as Anderson. Finn is likely to be dropped for the next test (if it wasnt Lords I'd say definitely), i like Tremlett to replace him but it will probably be Bres.

  • Ruri on July 14, 2013, 15:51 GMT

    Nope. You could take anyone out of the side, even Cook or Swann and still possibly win a match. You take Anderson out and there is nothing. How about the last two times that Anderson has not played? SL managed a draw, and Tino Best hit 95 at 11 in a rain affected draw against the Windies. Jimmy is clearly the most important player on the team, I hope he gets plenty of ice baths and rest before Thursday.

  • Jaffa79 on July 14, 2013, 16:00 GMT

    Not reliant as Broad and Swann did good jobs this Test but Finn needs to step up. Bresnan, with his reverse swing skills would've been better on this surface and might play at Lords

  • on July 14, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    I think everyone's looking into this a bit too much. Of course England desperately want Jimmy Anderson in the side - he's a class act. Alastair Cook HAD to say what he said here because it's a TEAM game though, and saying that England are dependent on Anderson is a bit of an insult to the other class England bowlers. Who knows, maybe it'll be Broad's match next time, or Finn's. I don't think it matters too much. Well played Jimmy though!