Australia have 2 new matchwinners for the Ashes !

First topic message reminder :

With bizarrely 2 ashes test series this year, it looks as though Australia are going to win at least one of these of not both of them. Firstly they have found this guy called Jackson Bird who bowls a menacing consistent line and length wicket to wicket and could be the new Glenn McGrath that Australia are looking for. Secondly they now have in Mitchell Johnson a second potential matchwinning bowling all-rounder who can bat consistently well in his new batting position at number 7 whilst still being a big menace and a threat with the ball when bowling. In contrast, our own team don't even have 1 bowling all-rounder who can score runs consistently well and also play a huge part as a bowler when we are out in the field bowling.

Stella wrote:Harris is always injured, forget about him. That leaves Siddle, Hilfenhaus (doubt he will play) and Johnson as bowlers with plenty of test match experience.
We have, Jimmy and Broad plus Finn, Onions and Bresnan, who have played a few tests between them.

Yes but the reserve Aussie pace bowlers behind this trio of Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Mitch Johnson are more menacing and there are plenty more of them than the reserve pace bowlers what we have behind Jimmy, Broad and Finn. I wouldn't rate/fancy our chances of bowling out the Australians on a baking hot day if we had the medium pace of Onions and Bresnan bowling for us whilst the wicket was not offering anything to the bowler and had no overhead cloud cover whatsoever to provide some swing movement.

I agree that Pattinson and Starc are potentially very good Finn is as well.

Stella wrote:I agree that Pattinson and Starc are potentially very good Finn is as well.

Well then this highlights the problem we have and that is that whilst we have 1 guy with supposedly menacing pace in Finn, the Aussies have 2 guys who definitely have serious express pace in Pattinson and Starc. Add in Cummins as well and the Aussies have a 3 to 1 advantage in the number of raw speedsters that they can choose from.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I agree that Pattinson and Starc are potentially very good Finn is as well.

Well then this highlights the problem we have and that is that whilst we have 1 guy with supposedly menacing pace in Finn, the Aussies have 2 guys who definitely have serious express pace in Pattinson and Starc. Add in Cummins as well and the Aussies have a 3 to 1 advantage in the number of raw speedsters that they can choose from.

But Jimmy and Broad are arguably better than Johnson and Siddle.

I do think an attack of Pattinson, Starc, Siddle and Watson is pretty decent though.

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I agree that Pattinson and Starc are potentially very good Finn is as well.

Well then this highlights the problem we have and that is that whilst we have 1 guy with supposedly menacing pace in Finn, the Aussies have 2 guys who definitely have serious express pace in Pattinson and Starc. Add in Cummins as well and the Aussies have a 3 to 1 advantage in the number of raw speedsters that they can choose from.

But Jimmy and Broad are arguably better than Johnson and Siddle.

I do think an attack of Pattinson, Starc, Siddle and Watson is pretty decent though.

Well Jimmy is arguably better than Johnson and Siddle, fair enough there. However I don't agree that Broad is better than Johnson and he certainly isn't as menacing as Sid Viscious.

Jimmy is a much better bowler than Johnson and Siddle in English conditions I'd say.

If we're talking about raw pace alone Finn and Meaker are Englands fastest whilst Australia have Pattinson, Starc and Cummins who bowl around the same pace.

England's biggest concern at the moment will be Broad. When bowling like he was earlier in the season he's a huge asset as he adds some aggression, can bowl with a new and old ball plus he can bat a bit (though his batting has probably got worse recently). The problem is that if we're going to get the medium pace Broad from the last couple of series he'll get nowhere.

Don't discount Onions though. In English conditions the guy is lethal!

king_carlos wrote:Jimmy is a much better bowler than Johnson and Siddle in English conditions I'd say.

If we're talking about raw pace alone Finn and Meaker are Englands fastest whilst Australia have Pattinson, Starc and Cummins who bowl around the same pace.

England's biggest concern at the moment will be Broad. When bowling like he was earlier in the season he's a huge asset as he adds some aggression, can bowl with a new and old ball plus he can bat a bit (though his batting has probably got worse recently). The problem is that if we're going to get the medium pace Broad from the last couple of series he'll get nowhere.

Don't discount Onions though. In English conditions the guy is lethal!

Only when there is cloud cover is Onions lethal. Without this aid he is nothing more than cannon fodder as Tino Best showed when he took an England bowling attack including Onions to the cleaners. But I do agree with you about Broad. We need to get the same Broad that bowled so well against India in 2011 rather than the cannon fodder Broad than bowled his the usual tripe in the Indian test series last year.

The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

Not every fast bowler can bowl like Holding though. And anyway you could equally say that on mumerous occasions Glenn McGrath skittled sides just by bowling incredibly accurate fast medium line and length.
The fact is if you are as good as the likes of Holding and McGrath were you will give batsmen trouble whatever pitch you bowl on. No bowler on either side is in the same sort of class bracket as those guys.

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

The Oval used to be one of the fastest wickets in the country as Jonty Rhodes found out when Fanie De Villiers foolishly bounced Devon Malcolm. I believe the maintenance regime of the Oval square has differed in the last 10+ years but then you wouldn't find that on wiki.

Diggers wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

Not every fast bowler can bowl like Holding though. And anyway you could equally say that on mumerous occasions Glenn McGrath skittled sides just by bowling incredibly accurate fast medium line and length.
The fact is if you are as good as the likes of Holding and McGrath were you will give batsmen trouble whatever pitch you bowl on. No bowler on either side is in the same sort of class bracket as those guys.

I think Anderson is now the complete fast bowler. His control of sideways movement is probably unparalled in world cricket at the moment.

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

The Oval used to be one of the fastest wickets in the country as Jonty Rhodes found out when Fanie De Villiers foolishly bounced Devon Malcolm. I believe the maintenance regime of the Oval square has differed in the last 10+ years but then you wouldn't find that on wiki.

I am aware that the Oval wicket has been changed from that of the fast bouncy one in 1994 to the current slower one. Anyway the point is regardless of what wicket Michael Holding bowled on V England at the Oval in 76 he still would have got the same results as many of the dismissals were bowled or lbw due to Holding bowling a yorker type length to England's hapless batsmen, who subsequently got defeated by the sheer speed of the ball coming through the air at 90+ mph.

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

The Oval used to be one of the fastest wickets in the country as Jonty Rhodes found out when Fanie De Villiers foolishly bounced Devon Malcolm. I believe the maintenance regime of the Oval square has differed in the last 10+ years but then you wouldn't find that on wiki.

I am aware that the Oval wicket has been changed from that of the fast bouncy one in 1994 to the current slower one. Anyway the point is regardless of what wicket Michael Holding bowled on V England at the Oval in 76 he still would have got the same results as many of the dismissals were bowled or lbw due to Holding bowling a yorker type length to England's hapless batsmen, who subsequently got defeated by the sheer speed of the ball coming through the air at 90+ mph.

So why mention it was a flat track without one blade of grass on it? You confuse yourself.

seanmichaels wrote:

Diggers wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

Not every fast bowler can bowl like Holding though. And anyway you could equally say that on mumerous occasions Glenn McGrath skittled sides just by bowling incredibly accurate fast medium line and length.
The fact is if you are as good as the likes of Holding and McGrath were you will give batsmen trouble whatever pitch you bowl on. No bowler on either side is in the same sort of class bracket as those guys.

I think Anderson is now the complete fast bowler. His control of sideways movement is probably unparalled in world cricket at the moment.

He may be complete as a pace bowler but I still think that a strong batting lineup with players who have strong techniques and defenses can make Anderson's bowling nothing more than mediocre, as South Africa showed last summer. In any case Anderson isn't a genuine fast bowler, as his speeds are nowhere near 90+ mph.

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

The Oval used to be one of the fastest wickets in the country as Jonty Rhodes found out when Fanie De Villiers foolishly bounced Devon Malcolm. I believe the maintenance regime of the Oval square has differed in the last 10+ years but then you wouldn't find that on wiki.

I am aware that the Oval wicket has been changed from that of the fast bouncy one in 1994 to the current slower one. Anyway the point is regardless of what wicket Michael Holding bowled on V England at the Oval in 76 he still would have got the same results as many of the dismissals were bowled or lbw due to Holding bowling a yorker type length to England's hapless batsmen, who subsequently got defeated by the sheer speed of the ball coming through the air at 90+ mph.

So why mention it was a flat track without one blade of grass on it? You confuse yourself.

Well simply because that Oval wicket in 1976 was a flat batting track without a blade of grass. And I have only mentioned this because I am saying that a pace bowler with extreme pace like a Holding and what the Aussies have now with Pattinson, Cummins, Starc, can defeat the batsman's defense's through sheer pace through the air without having the need of any assistance or otherwise from a wicket.

seanmichaels wrote:

Diggers wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

Not every fast bowler can bowl like Holding though. And anyway you could equally say that on mumerous occasions Glenn McGrath skittled sides just by bowling incredibly accurate fast medium line and length.
The fact is if you are as good as the likes of Holding and McGrath were you will give batsmen trouble whatever pitch you bowl on. No bowler on either side is in the same sort of class bracket as those guys.

I think Anderson is now the complete fast bowler. His control of sideways movement is probably unparalled in world cricket at the moment.

He is a very good bowler...personally I think maybe a tad overated. He averages over 30 for a reason still. If you look at his last few series he was pretty much on his career average in India which is good going but he averaged 40 against South Africa and nearly 27 against the Windies. He is rarely devastating through a series but he's certainly always very useful.

Diggers wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

Diggers wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:The only pitches that suit menacing pace out of the 10 are likely to be Old Trafford and the WACA. Thta's why Johnson has only ever had 1 decent test against England.

But as Michael Holding showed at the Oval in 1976, a fast bowler can still blast out the opposition batting lineup through sheer pace even on the flatest of wickets without even 1 blade of grass on it as long as the bowler can deliver the ball at 90+ mph whilst delivering yorker after yorker.

Not every fast bowler can bowl like Holding though. And anyway you could equally say that on mumerous occasions Glenn McGrath skittled sides just by bowling incredibly accurate fast medium line and length.
The fact is if you are as good as the likes of Holding and McGrath were you will give batsmen trouble whatever pitch you bowl on. No bowler on either side is in the same sort of class bracket as those guys.

I think Anderson is now the complete fast bowler. His control of sideways movement is probably unparalled in world cricket at the moment.

He is a very good bowler...personally I think maybe a tad overated. He averages over 30 for a reason still. If you look at his last few series he was pretty much on his career average in India which is good going but he averaged 40 against South Africa and nearly 27 against the Windies. He is rarely devastating through a series but he's certainly always very useful.

Averaged 29 last year, 24 the year before, 22 the year before that
His career average has dropped considerably in that time. Hes taken wickets in all conditions and has shown he can move the ball both ways on dead Asian pitches. Not at his most effective in 2012 but still clearly over a sustained period hes been amongst the best seamer in the world despite playing in ome very tough tours ( and dodging some of the soft ones)
Yes he isnt a complete genuine fast bowler, but hes only surpassed in the current crop of seamers by Steyn.
He has improved and continues to do so. the lack of a great career average isnt because hes rubbish, its because he used to be.

For sure he is a very good bowler, but if he was rubbish earlier in his test career then all that means is that he has had a relatively short period of being top drawer later in his career, he has only played 77 tests which isnt a huge amount in this day and age. You can easily make a case that he has only really had two or three very good years.
I would probably agree that only Steyn is better than him right now though a lot of people outside of England may well choose Philander over Anderson as a more or less like for like replacement.
Anyway as Ive said he is a very good bowler, however when I think back over the years of truly outstanding bowlers Ive seen Jimmy Anderson isn't one of the names that springs instantly to mind.

Here's an interesting question :- If Anderson was bowling like he is now back in 2005, would you have him over someone like Simon Jones as the England's 3rd pace bowler?

Yes. Jones could break down any minute. Anderson is reliable as well as quick and good. Would prefer him to a paceman who breaks down often.

If jones was the third seamer in 2005 who was the 4th?


Id also add he would more likely have been a replacement for Hoggard since he was the more similar...and the player he eventually did replace.

I'm not so sure, that set of bowlers worked as a pack and Anderson offers different problems to the ones Jones asked, maybe they would have troubled the Aussies less.
But ultimately I'm sure Jones would swap his career for Jimmys which is a far more pertinent point in the grand scheme of things.

Looking at the two "wolfpacks" (now and 2005 ashes):

Out and out pace bowler : Harmisson > Finn
Skiddy fastish bowler : Jones > Onions
Sultan of swing : Hoggard < Anderson
Other fast bowler : Flintoff > Broad

However over their careers harmisson was a massive flake, Jones injury prone, Hoggard lazy, Flintoff injury prone and unable to function properly in a 4 man attack. Finn and Onions still it in the "still to be proven" category, Anderson spent half his career being injured/mediocre but has been consistently good for over 3 years now, Broad keeps threatening to be the new old flintoff but loses form again.

Its rare that you get 4 seamers hitting their best form together like England did in 2005.

Well, the 2005 lot were superb that summer. Had hypothetically Anderson been in form I suspect he'd have been ahead of Jones (who peaked, and then sadly got injured in the process during that series).

On a comparison I'm not sure about Harmison > Finn necessarily. Harmy had his moments but was never consistent with it, even in '05. Other than in '04 (when we played NZ and WI, who were close to their lowest ebb) you never really had huge amounts of confidence in him. It came as a surprise when in the years after he pulled his finger out from time to time (OT '06, Oval '08). Finn has been reasonably consistent of late. Of course, he is yet to bowl the destructive spells that Harmy has but in the end I think he'll be a much better bowler.

I always thought Hoggard was an excellent servant to England. He was never amongst the best couple of quicks in the world like Jimmy is, but he could produce big performances when we needed to bowl teams out (OT '05, Jo'burg 04/05). He was pretty reliable to take an early wicket too.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Looking at the two "wolfpacks" (now and 2005 ashes):

Out and out pace bowler : Harmisson > Finn
Skiddy fastish bowler : Jones > Onions
Sultan of swing : Hoggard < Anderson
Other fast bowler : Flintoff > Broad

However over their careers harmisson was a massive flake, Jones injury prone, Hoggard lazy, Flintoff injury prone and unable to function properly in a 4 man attack. Finn and Onions still it in the "still to be proven" category, Anderson spent half his career being injured/mediocre but has been consistently good for over 3 years now, Broad keeps threatening to be the new old flintoff but loses form again.

Its rare that you get 4 seamers hitting their best form together like England did in 2005.

And a good thing they all did hit form at the same time, otherwise we would have had no chance. Remember the disasters of 2006 what with Harmison's first ball wide and having to rely on Saj Mahmood to be the 3rd pace bowler!

Apparently when a young Harold Larwood made his test debut V Australia at the Oval in 1926 his pace frightened the life out of the Aussie batsmen. Have we got a a modern day version of Harold Larwood somewhere in county cricket, and if so who is that bowler?

gboycottnut wrote:And a good thing they all did hit form at the same time, otherwise we would have had no chance. Remember the disasters of 2006 what with Harmison's first ball wide and having to rely on Saj Mahmood to be the 3rd pace bowler!

We were very lucky that no major injuries hit us in '05. The back-up bowling was virtually non existant after Jimmy. That said a mistake was made in '06. Mahmood (or Plunkett, who was an unused squad member) were never likely to pose a consistent threat to the Aussie batting line-up, and so I think we'd have done better to take one of Ryan Sidebottom or Jon Lewis. It wouldn't have changed the series result, but they might not have got the beating Mahmood did.

Jon Lewis.

Jon Who?

gboycottnut wrote:Apparently when a young Harold Larwood made his test debut V Australia at the Oval in 1926 his pace frightened the life out of the Aussie batsmen. Have we got a a modern day version of Harold Larwood somewhere in county cricket, and if so who is that bowler?

I'm not sure we've got a 'modern day Harold Larwood'.

But if we're looking for pace then Meaker is the quickest in the country (along with Tymal Mills). I wouldn't expect him to frighten an international batting line-up though. Our best bet is to work Warner, Hughes, Wade and Khawaja over technically (I assume Khawaja will play - if he doesn't they'll probably have Johnson at 7 which I think England would be happy with). If Jimmy, Finn and (hopefully) Broad find form they will challenge those four a lot more than SL have, and in our conditions, more than SA did in Australia.

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Apparently when a young Harold Larwood made his test debut V Australia at the Oval in 1926 his pace frightened the life out of the Aussie batsmen. Have we got a a modern day version of Harold Larwood somewhere in county cricket, and if so who is that bowler?

I'm not sure we've got a 'modern day Harold Larwood'.

But if we're looking for pace then Meaker is the quickest in the country (along with Tymal Mills). I wouldn't expect him to frighten an international batting line-up though. Our best bet is to work Warner, Hughes, Wade and Khawaja over technically (I assume Khawaja will play - if he doesn't they'll probably have Johnson at 7 which I think England would be happy with). If Jimmy, Finn and (hopefully) Broad find form they will challenge those four a lot more than SL have, and in our conditions, more than SA did in Australia.

You know your stuff. On modern wickets there's very little difference between 85 & 90 mph unless you can let them go from 7ft+. Steyn is probably the only guy who bowls top notch gas and worries batsmen because he has lateral movement. It is all about lateral movement these days and the later the better. This is what makes Steyn so feared. Anderson, I'd argue has more control over which way he moves it. A classic seamer who hurries you.

seanmichaels wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Apparently when a young Harold Larwood made his test debut V Australia at the Oval in 1926 his pace frightened the life out of the Aussie batsmen. Have we got a a modern day version of Harold Larwood somewhere in county cricket, and if so who is that bowler?

I'm not sure we've got a 'modern day Harold Larwood'.

But if we're looking for pace then Meaker is the quickest in the country (along with Tymal Mills). I wouldn't expect him to frighten an international batting line-up though. Our best bet is to work Warner, Hughes, Wade and Khawaja over technically (I assume Khawaja will play - if he doesn't they'll probably have Johnson at 7 which I think England would be happy with). If Jimmy, Finn and (hopefully) Broad find form they will challenge those four a lot more than SL have, and in our conditions, more than SA did in Australia.

You know your stuff. On modern wickets there's very little difference between 85 & 90 mph unless you can let them go from 7ft+. Steyn is probably the only guy who bowls top notch gas and worries batsmen because he has lateral movement. It is all about lateral movement these days and the later the better. This is what makes Steyn so feared. Anderson, I'd argue has more control over which way he moves it. A classic seamer who hurries you.

Maybe not in terms of numbers, but for a batsman it is a big enough difference facing a ball at 85 mph compared to one at 90+ mph.

I'm pretty hopeful Finn is going to be a fantastic bowler. He's as quick as he wants to be and even despite a couple of injuries bowled pretty well on unhelpful pitches in India. His skill in ODI's is testament to his control and whilst Anderson is likely to be the better bowler in the Ashes in England I think Finn will be the main man in Australia.

If Broadus can find some form it will be a huge bonus and more than enough to defeat Australia given that you'd have to fancy one if not both of Swann and Panesar to have a regular impact.

Sure it's possible injuries will play a part but it's not something anyone can predict and equally any replacements could easily prove their worth.

This is the first time in my life (38yrs) I actually think England will win the Ashes.

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Apparently when a young Harold Larwood made his test debut V Australia at the Oval in 1926 his pace frightened the life out of the Aussie batsmen. Have we got a a modern day version of Harold Larwood somewhere in county cricket, and if so who is that bowler?

I'm not sure we've got a 'modern day Harold Larwood'.

But if we're looking for pace then Meaker is the quickest in the country (along with Tymal Mills). I wouldn't expect him to frighten an international batting line-up though. Our best bet is to work Warner, Hughes, Wade and Khawaja over technically (I assume Khawaja will play - if he doesn't they'll probably have Johnson at 7 which I think England would be happy with). If Jimmy, Finn and (hopefully) Broad find form they will challenge those four a lot more than SL have, and in our conditions, more than SA did in Australia.

Meaker has been excellent over the last couple of county seasons. Would take him and if fit, Tremlett over Broad, personally.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Apparently when a young Harold Larwood made his test debut V Australia at the Oval in 1926 his pace frightened the life out of the Aussie batsmen. Have we got a a modern day version of Harold Larwood somewhere in county cricket, and if so who is that bowler?

I'm not sure we've got a 'modern day Harold Larwood'.

But if we're looking for pace then Meaker is the quickest in the country (along with Tymal Mills). I wouldn't expect him to frighten an international batting line-up though. Our best bet is to work Warner, Hughes, Wade and Khawaja over technically (I assume Khawaja will play - if he doesn't they'll probably have Johnson at 7 which I think England would be happy with). If Jimmy, Finn and (hopefully) Broad find form they will challenge those four a lot more than SL have, and in our conditions, more than SA did in Australia.

Meaker has been excellent over the last couple of county seasons. Would take him and if fit, Tremlett over Broad, personally.

Apparently there is a young tall left=arm pace bowler at Essex by name of Reece Topley. How close is he to playing for England as we could do with a left-arm pace bowler in our squad setup which at the moment is dependant solely on right-arm pace bowlers.

Left / right is nonsense.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Looking at the two "wolfpacks" (now and 2005 ashes):

Out and out pace bowler : Harmisson > Finn
Skiddy fastish bowler : Jones > Onions
Sultan of swing : Hoggard < Anderson
Other fast bowler : Flintoff > Broad

However over their careers harmisson was a massive flake, Jones injury prone, Hoggard lazy, Flintoff injury prone and unable to function properly in a 4 man attack. Finn and Onions still it in the "still to be proven" category, Anderson spent half his career being injured/mediocre but has been consistently good for over 3 years now, Broad keeps threatening to be the new old flintoff but loses form again.

Its rare that you get 4 seamers hitting their best form together like England did in 2005.

Whilst I'd sadly agree with most of that brutal assessment of the 05 attack in that Harmison was very inconsistent and Flintoff/Jones injury prone, I'd definitely argue with Hoggard being lazy. Over a sustained period of time he was England's most consistent bowler often doing a huge amount of the 'hard yards' bowling long spells into the wind etc. In my opinion he was a great servant of the English game and it really rankled me the way he was dropped after one very poor test match in a pretty poor side.

Talking of the 05 attack, Jones' injuries still really pains me as he could've kicked on from that Ashes series to be a hell of a bowler. People always talk of Freddie from that series (understandably so) but with the ball I always thought Jones looked the most likely to take wickets. He also kept taking them when most needed - start of a session or spell, breaking partnerships, couple of wickets in quick time etc. So sad he never player for England again!

seanmichaels wrote:

On the contrary. I believe with the likes likes of Dernbach, Bresnan, Onions, Meaker and even Woakes, England have a slightly more internationally experienced back up.

I would be seriously worried if we needed to include Dernbach in our Test side!

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

On the contrary. I believe with the likes likes of Dernbach, Bresnan, Onions, Meaker and even Woakes, England have a slightly more internationally experienced back up.

I would be seriously worried if we needed to include Dernbach in our Test side!

In any format, tbf

king_carlos wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Looking at the two "wolfpacks" (now and 2005 ashes):

Out and out pace bowler : Harmisson > Finn
Skiddy fastish bowler : Jones > Onions
Sultan of swing : Hoggard < Anderson
Other fast bowler : Flintoff > Broad

However over their careers harmisson was a massive flake, Jones injury prone, Hoggard lazy, Flintoff injury prone and unable to function properly in a 4 man attack. Finn and Onions still it in the "still to be proven" category, Anderson spent half his career being injured/mediocre but has been consistently good for over 3 years now, Broad keeps threatening to be the new old flintoff but loses form again.

Its rare that you get 4 seamers hitting their best form together like England did in 2005.

Whilst I'd sadly agree with most of that brutal assessment of the 05 attack in that Harmison was very inconsistent and Flintoff/Jones injury prone, I'd definitely argue with Hoggard being lazy. Over a sustained period of time he was England's most consistent bowler often doing a huge amount of the 'hard yards' bowling long spells into the wind etc. In my opinion he was a great servant of the English game and it really rankled me the way he was dropped after one very poor test match in a pretty poor side.

Talking of the 05 attack, Jones' injuries still really pains me as he could've kicked on from that Ashes series to be a hell of a bowler. People always talk of Freddie from that series (understandably so) but with the ball I always thought Jones looked the most likely to take wickets. He also kept taking them when most needed - start of a session or spell, breaking partnerships, couple of wickets in quick time etc. So sad he never player for England again!

Indeed, Simon Jones will always be remembered for that one delivery at Old Trafford in 2005 in which he made a delivery reverse swing back into Michael Clarke resulting in the ball taking out the off-stump, with Clarke looking confused and bewildered by that delivery.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

On the contrary. I believe with the likes likes of Dernbach, Bresnan, Onions, Meaker and even Woakes, England have a slightly more internationally experienced back up.

I would be seriously worried if we needed to include Dernbach in our Test side!

With that hairstyle that Dernbach has, doesn't he look like a spitting image of Darren Gough?

gboycottnut wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Looking at the two "wolfpacks" (now and 2005 ashes):

Out and out pace bowler : Harmisson > Finn
Skiddy fastish bowler : Jones > Onions
Sultan of swing : Hoggard < Anderson
Other fast bowler : Flintoff > Broad

However over their careers harmisson was a massive flake, Jones injury prone, Hoggard lazy, Flintoff injury prone and unable to function properly in a 4 man attack. Finn and Onions still it in the "still to be proven" category, Anderson spent half his career being injured/mediocre but has been consistently good for over 3 years now, Broad keeps threatening to be the new old flintoff but loses form again.

Its rare that you get 4 seamers hitting their best form together like England did in 2005.

Whilst I'd sadly agree with most of that brutal assessment of the 05 attack in that Harmison was very inconsistent and Flintoff/Jones injury prone, I'd definitely argue with Hoggard being lazy. Over a sustained period of time he was England's most consistent bowler often doing a huge amount of the 'hard yards' bowling long spells into the wind etc. In my opinion he was a great servant of the English game and it really rankled me the way he was dropped after one very poor test match in a pretty poor side.

Talking of the 05 attack, Jones' injuries still really pains me as he could've kicked on from that Ashes series to be a hell of a bowler. People always talk of Freddie from that series (understandably so) but with the ball I always thought Jones looked the most likely to take wickets. He also kept taking them when most needed - start of a session or spell, breaking partnerships, couple of wickets in quick time etc. So sad he never player for England again!

Indeed, Simon Jones will always be remembered for that one delivery at Old Trafford in 2005 in which he made a delivery reverse swing back into Michael Clarke resulting in the ball taking out the off-stump, with Clarke looking confused and bewildered by that delivery.

Agreed that was a phenomenal delivery! He also picked up a very important 5 for in the 4th test I think it was to force the follow on also Shane Warnes face in the second test when he tossed the ball up to SJ expecting him to sky a an attempted slog like most no 11 would only for the ball to disappear back over his head was wonderful.

Anyway back to the original topic of this thread, this guy Jackson Bird looks like he is going to do the Glenn McGrath duties against England. He has very good consistent control of both line and length, and can move the ball just enough to draw an edge of the bat. England's batsmen had better prepare for him otherwise he could cause serious dents to our batting during the upcoming test series in England where the ball seams a lot.

Will Bird get a game, you have to think both sides will go with their usual four main bowlers plus part timers. Eng: JA, SB Finn and Swann and Aus: Lyon, Siddle, Pattinson then one from Cummins, Hilf, Starc, Johnson, Bird and a few others.

Time will tell.