Plunkett, Anderson - or both? | The Corridor (a cricket blog)

Plunkett, Anderson - or both?

By Will 2 years ago, mid-January Leave a comment on this post

Just put this up on the Surfer, and it got me pondering. So I’m pondering over here, like the blogging whore that I am. Liam Plunkett or Jimmy A - who to pick? My doubts about Jimmy A continue, and my optimism surrounding Plunkett’s potential continue to increase - so I’ll opt for Plunkett, especially given his batting prowess.

Thoughts? England are due to announce their squad on Friday (this is for their tour to India, in case you were wondering).

Tags: bowlers, england, england-in-india, james-anderson, liam-plunkett, whore |

Comments to “Plunkett, Anderson - or both?” worma wrote:
January 8th, 2006 at 4.34 pm

Plunkett’s advantage is bounce, and that would most probably not come to his aid on Indian pitches.

Anderson does have the tendency to blow cold on days, but atleast his skiddy style with some swing and seam movement can be used in certain conditions.

Btw, aren’t there other options…what about Tremlett (is he still injured?) and Lewis (?)

sophie wrote:
January 8th, 2006 at 5.40 pm

Well, I haven’t been following cricket for too long so my knowledge of the pitches is fairly limited. I have to say though, I was impressed with Plunkett’s bowling during the Pakistan tour, and his batting beats that of Jimmy Anderson’s. Also, Plunkett is young. He has plenty of time to improve, and if England plays him regularly then they’ll have a good player in store for the future.

NB: If what i just said was complete and utter rubbish, then please just ignore my comments.

Will wrote:
January 8th, 2006 at 6.03 pm

You shouldn’t invite us to ignore you, Sophie - let us be the judge(s)

sophie wrote:
January 8th, 2006 at 6.12 pm

Well, i wouldn’t want to be making a fool of myself on very, very serious cricket blog now would I?

Nagraj wrote:
January 8th, 2006 at 6.21 pm

I think i will plunkett’s deserves one more chance to play in sub continent pitches and he has done that bad in the only oppor. he got in Pak.He is still young and will learn a lot on difficult tours like this to India.But it wont be easy for him as the pitches in India wont suit his style of bowling and adding to that he has to content with strong indian batting line up.If England are looking at future then should go for plunkett as suggested by sophie also.
I hope he gets selected and do well.

Nagraj wrote:
January 8th, 2006 at 6.22 pm

correction he hasnot done that bad in pak series

Jess wrote:
January 8th, 2006 at 7.43 pm

I’d go for Plunkett, as long as Simon Jones is fully fit.

sophie wrote:
January 8th, 2006 at 7.53 pm

Looks like evryone would go for Plunkett. I really hope Simon Jones is fit and in the squad, we really missed him in Pak in my opinion.

shariq wrote:
January 9th, 2006 at 3.36 am

It depends if you want to be attacking (Anderson) or defensive but youthful (Plunkett).

I’ll plump for Anderson. Its highly unlikely that the spinners will take many wickets so the fast bowling is key. Plunkett may bowl tight lines, but on slowish pitches he won’t get many wickets. Anderson may get smashed but if Jones or Hoggard get injured you need another swing bowler in team.

Finally what is the English obsession with choosing bowlers based on their batting ability? For one day matches it is necessary but considering you are picking your reserve seam bowler does it really matter?

stephen wrote:
January 9th, 2006 at 12.46 pm

OK, Plunkett looks good, but lets not forget that Anderson looked great when he burst onto the scene.

Also, Anderson does seem to often have luck going his way, taking wickets from poor balls and at vital times.

You might as well have a lucky bowler as a great one - it is only statistics that matter (he says, without bothering to check whether the stats back up his argument, just in case…

jamie wrote:
January 9th, 2006 at 1.18 pm

Plunkett for sure.

Jess wrote:
January 9th, 2006 at 5.43 pm

“what is the English obsession with choosing bowlers based on their batting ability?”

Well, when your top order has developed a nasty habit of folding like a cheap suit under pressure, you need hardy souls down the line-up to salvage a half-decent total…

Zainub wrote:
January 9th, 2006 at 9.13 pm

It’s not just an English obsession you know, all coachs in the world tend to want to have long batting line ups. Big Duncan is a bit extreme in this respect, he probably has a look at a bowler’s batting crudentials first and then his bowling. Harmison, Hoggard, Jones can all bat. And Anderson, even though is a mug, at one stage, (thanks to several not outs) averaged in the 40s, and is one of those tail enders that masters the art of playing and missing.

I think they’ll take Plunket and that spin guy Monty Pensar. BCC’s pet love I should add.

Comments

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

« Tour diary blog at Cricinfo | Main | Name of the week »

The Corridor (a cricket blog)

"Peering down the corridor of uncertainty. It’s about cricket, sport and journalism"

Quotehanger

Recent Posts

The headlines

The news

TWC

Related pieces

Search

Eat your feeds

Tags

Tag Cloud

Polls

Sponsors ?

Cricinfo blogs

Cricinfo articles

Scorecards

Plunkett, Anderson - or both?