ukclique > sport.* > sport.cricket

Dave Cornwell (10.02.2019, 17:48)
Another moderately pathetic effort. I know it isn't relevant in the
context of team selection or anything else really but I think Anderson
is probably the worst batsman I have ever seen at 1st class level. He
makes Tufnell look like Viv Richards. How can somebody who has great
hand eye coordination as a fielder and be such a good athlete be so
useless. He's had 200 Test innings to do better than his pathetic
dismissal.
Offramp (10.02.2019, 17:54)
On Sunday, 10 February 2019 15:48:23 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
> Another moderately pathetic effort. I know it isn't relevant in the
> context of team selection or anything else really but I think Anderson
> is probably the worst batsman I have ever seen at 1st class level. He
> makes Tufnell look like Viv Richards. How can somebody who has great
> hand eye coordination as a fielder and be such a good athlete be so
> useless. He's had 200 Test innings to do better than his pathetic
> dismissal.


'Twas a bad collapse - but Cricinfo does not blame Anderson:

"Roach to Anderson, OUT, snorting short ball, rearing up and gloved to slip! Excellent ball, to any batsman never mind England's venerable No. 11, he turned away and threw up his hands reflexively, the ball lobbing gently offthe top hand to fourth slip. Job done, West Indies."
John Hall (10.02.2019, 18:35)
In message <bJX7E.395117$dE1.129414>, Dave Cornwell
<davemccnospam> writes
>Another moderately pathetic effort.


I thought WI bowled really well in conditions giving them some movement
and with an almost new ball.

> I know it isn't relevant in the context of team selection or anything
>else really but I think Anderson is probably the worst batsman I have
>ever seen at 1st class level. He makes Tufnell look like Viv Richards.
>How can somebody who has great hand eye coordination as a fielder and
>be such a good athlete be so useless. He's had 200 Test innings to do
>better than his pathetic dismissal.


I think you are being far too kind to Tufnell, whose batting average was
5.10 compared to Anderson's 9.78 (before this innings, I imagine).
England have had plenty of number 11s worse than Anderson, and a few
number 10s too.
Richard Dixon (10.02.2019, 18:37)
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 3:48:23 PM UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
> I think Anderson
> is probably the worst batsman I have ever seen at 1st class level.




Richard
Dave Cornwell (10.02.2019, 23:02)
On 10/02/2019 16:37, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 3:48:23 PM UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
>> I think Anderson
>> is probably the worst batsman I have ever seen at 1st class level.

>
> Richard

I stand by my opinion with the qualification I mentioned of him having
200 Test innings and a hell of a lot of nets to improve and the fact
that unlike Tufnell who couldn't field either Anderson is a fine
allround athlete and should have been better.
Vidcapper (11.02.2019, 09:17)
On 10/02/2019 16:37, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 3:48:23 PM UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
>> I think Anderson
>> is probably the worst batsman I have ever seen at 1st class level.

>
> Richard


I was going to mention that myself... :)
Offramp (11.02.2019, 11:56)
On Monday, 11 February 2019 07:17:20 UTC, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On 10/02/2019 16:37, Richard Dixon wrote:
> I was going to mention that myself... :)


Fair enough, he scored 81 in that Test; the question Dave Cornwell could justifiably ask is why he doesn't score runs more often. He has played 200+ Test innings and if he has the ability to score 81, then perhaps he should have scored more like 3000 runs rather than just over 1000.
Richard Dixon (11.02.2019, 12:09)
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:56:18 AM UTC, Offramp wrote:

> Fair enough, he scored 81 in that Test; the question Dave Cornwell could justifiably ask is why he doesn't score runs more often. He has played 200+Test innings and if he has the ability to score 81, then perhaps he shouldhave scored more like 3000 runs rather than just over 1000.


Maybe we'll know after he retires. He went through a phase looking like he could vaguely hold a bat but maybe - like Broad - had a scare with a short ball that has thrown him mentally. Remember him losing his wicket to a short ball when England needed to survive until the end of the day vs. Sri Lanka at home a few years ago?

Richard
John Hall (11.02.2019, 12:39)
In message <48fbd612-7bc9-44e1-998c-4896cd66b72a>,
Offramp <alaneobrien> writes
>On Monday, 11 February 2019 07:17:20 UTC, Paul Hyett wrote:
>Fair enough, he scored 81 in that Test; the question Dave Cornwell
>could justifiably ask is why he doesn't score runs more often. He has
>played 200+ Test innings and if he has the ability to score 81, then
>perhaps he should have scored more like 3000 runs rather than just over
>1000.


The 81 was very much a fluke, scored on an amazingly docile pitch.
What's his second highest score? I can't recall his having reached 40 on
any other occasion, possibly not even 30.

Besides, I think it's a fallacy that the more innings a batsman has the
better he is going to become. In fact sometimes a batsman's scores
decline over time, as the bowlers get a chance to discover his
weaknesses.
hamish.laws (11.02.2019, 13:01)
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:45:21 PM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
> In message <48fbd612-7bc9-44e1-998c-4896cd66b72a>,
> Offramp <alaneobrien> writes
> The 81 was very much a fluke, scored on an amazingly docile pitch.
> What's his second highest score? I can't recall his having reached 40 on
> any other occasion, possibly not even 30.


34 against RSA in 2008, then a couple of 29s and a 28,27,26
Richard Dixon (11.02.2019, 13:19)
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 10:45:21 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
[..]
> "Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history
> that man can never learn anything from history."
> George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)




The 4 I'd have picked off the top of my head (Mullally, Malcolm, Tufnell, Panesar) are the worst 4 averages to have played since 1970.

Anderson not even in the bottom 10.

Richard
Richard Dixon (11.02.2019, 13:19)
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 11:19:11 AM UTC, Richard Dixon wrote:

> The 4 I'd have picked off the top of my head (Mullally, Malcolm, Tufnell, Panesar) are the worst 4 averages to have played since 1970.
> Anderson not even in the bottom 10.


(25 innings minimum qualification)
jzfredricks (11.02.2019, 14:27)
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 1:48:23 AM UTC+10, Dave Cornwell wrote:
> How can somebody who has great
> hand eye coordination as a fielder and be such a good athlete be so
> useless. He's had 200 Test innings to do better than his pathetic
> dismissal.


He used to be good! For his position.

He was even the regular night watchman. At one stage he held the record for most innings without a duck. Or something along those lines.

I suspect he's just given up on batting, and is instead focusing bowling well whilst extending his longevity.
Richard Dixon (11.02.2019, 15:49)
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 12:27:11 PM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:

> I suspect he's just given up on batting, and is instead focusing bowling well whilst extending his longevity.


I agree - just not "getting ready for a broken arm" (M Clarke) is probably his #1 aim.

That said - for his *last* 24 inns, he's averaged about 4.8 - so right down there with the Monties.



Richard
John Hall (11.02.2019, 18:34)
In message <f9b6a103-a00a-44dd-9767-d9bfd808d069>,
Richard Dixon <richsdixon1975> writes
>
>advanced;orderby=batting_average;orderbyad=revers e;qualmin1=25;qualval1=
>innings;spanmin1=1+Jan+1970;spanval1=span;team=1; template=results;type=b
>atting
>The 4 I'd have picked off the top of my head (Mullally, Malcolm,
>Tufnell, Panesar) are the worst 4 averages to have played since 1970.


I think on one dread occasion, the first three of those might have
played in the same XI.

Similar Threads