Anderson’s highlights outstyle South Africa

England win a match! England win a match giving them a lead in a series against the best team in the world!

Meanwhile, the economic order continues to collapse around us leaving millions jobless and hungry.

But, dammit, this is a small price to pay for the wonders of James Anderson’s swing bowling. It shaped and it swerved and it arched and it flew into the stumps of an ill-prepared South African line-up.

Anderson has normally been one of my “h’mmmm…” England crickets. He’s not quite in my “loathed Saffer” category, but he is still in the “don’t touch the do” grouping. Worryingly, both these groups have expanded as late, with little success to compensate.

It seemed as though all our hopes rested with China.

But now, Anderson’s smooth body-waxed frame speeds to the crease to release the ball with a hairless magic that would make Duncan Goodhew proud.

Previously, I have wondered whether I could legitimately celebrate an English victory inspired by South Africans. Now, I am wondering whether I can accept triumphs sponsored by over-preened Mongoose models that are more attractive than me to the power of ten.

Judging by today’s soup-throwing lunch-time festivities the answer must be yes. Let us celebrate England’s success with only minimal caveats.

(By the way, when I was listening to TMS, one of the commentators apologised for any “offensive comments” made by Geoffrey Boycott during the fall of Ryan McLaren’s wicket.

I was listening at the time, and all I could make out was strange, high-pitched whoops and barely muffled giggles. Even if produced by Boycott’s marauding maw, is this offensive? Or did I miss something?)

He’s back

Sorry about my long absence, work sent me far away. When you’re working to ten at night, the demands of your readers are low down on your list.

Sorry.

So! Cricket! All sorts of travails have been produced by this match. During the latest England/New Zealand test match, I have already experienced my full emotional gamut, from A-B.

You see, the only thing worse than the failings of one of your favourites, is the success of one your less favourite players.

The press this morning is going mad about James Anderson. For years and years, this bloke does bugger all. He goes for loads and he keeps Chris Tremlett out of the side for literally months.

Clearly, Anderson is a gimp.

And then, on hopefully his last ever test match, the bugger emerges from incompetence and blows away New Zealand’s finest with an excellent spell of pitched-up, fast and hooping swing bowling.

He took the first six Kiwian wickets. Obviously, Tremmers would have taken seven, but now it’ll be another year before Anderson’s inherent uselessness drives him from the side in favour of the Hampshire monster.

The worst aspect of media coverage this morning is the “ten wicket” stuff. Anderson has to take four more wickets before he takes ten. That’s mathematics. The press, however, have decided to ignore this, and talk up Anderson’s impending elevation in history.

The radio just interviewed Ottis the Aardvark. He said that if the ball behaves amphibiously then Anderson could take the full ten. If the ball does that, I’d be impressed if Anders managed one. In fact, I’m generally astounded is he takes any wicket.

Anyway, it’s back to reality soon. Misery will return one South Africa and their good players get at us.

Back to the misery of commuting for me too. The worst thing I had to worry about last week as remembering to put my trousers on as the room service lady brought my dinner. A surprisingly difficult ask.

Anderson: living example of why you shouldn’t look in medical dictionaries

Once again, I can herald the return of Chris Tremlett into the England fold.

Although he looks like a serial killer to me, he’s apparently a bit of a pin-up. Not sure why. But then again, so is Daniel Vettori. All proving that women make as much sense as a George Bush.

Now there’s a comparison you don’t make everyday.

In any case, Tremler’s rightful elevation to the national squad is partly due to Steve Harmison’s continued twattish behaviour, and partly due to James Anderson incomparably awful bowling.

In fact, you can make comparisons to Anderson's bowling. He’s like that weird picture you see in the paper. You stare and stare at it, but you can’t work out what it’s about. Is it a person? A body-part perhaps. Then, oh my god, before you can tear your eyes away, you suddenly see that it’s a spine-chilling, disturbing image of a horrific injury.

Because you’ve been staring at it for so long, every detail is permanently seared onto your consciousness. You have nightmares about joints going “that” way; objects piercing “that” place; flesh wounds going “that” colour.

My sleep is tormented by Anderson’s horrifying long-hops; his painful gropes for swing; his excruciating attempts at yorkers.

We all know that Tremlers is The Hope. The Great Hope. He’s going to be great.

To continue the comparison vein, although AYALAC is unique, the nearest thing you can compare us to is this video. It’s like a visual version of this site.

Now, if an Allison Goldfrapp wondering around in her pants whilst chucking around garden furniture isn't sexy, then I don’t know what is.

Hoggy betrayed

So England have not selected the Hogster for the first test against the Kiwis. Instead, they picked James Anderson, who is cricket’s answer to trouser burns.

Normally, watching England cricket is enough to land you in a self-harm clinic, but there is some hope that England might beat the Kiwis in their first crack at the New Zealand lads in ages.

Do you remember, if you can caste your mind back long enough, the press feelings before the last test? Do you remember? Well, in case you are not 80, like I am, I shall remind you: The media was convinced that we going to crush the Kiwis by an innings in every game. Including the one-dayers.

And what happened? We won some games here. They one some games there. It was like watching two lobotomised quadriplegics trying to play “flip the coin.” Of course, there could only be one winner in such a contest: the coin.

And so the ten pence piece was awarded a Man of the Series award and later attempted to bring down a government. The coin seems more successful in its meeting objectives than Anderson.

In any case, the series was not an over-whelming display of skill.

It is worth noting, however, that the rightful captain of England can exculpated from this comedy of errors, this farrago of farces, this fete of fakes, this festival of farts. He wasn’t there at all (if you completely ignore his presence).

And yet despite these cast-iron and only slightly wrong facts, the England selectors have picked some goon that can’t even decide which side of the wicket to bowl his long-hops.

Ah well, one last opportunity for Anderson to prove to us all that he’s really not right for test match cricket. Besides, there’s no way that he’s captaincy material.

Bring back Hoggy.

Anderson or Broad?

After the weekend’s embarrassing antics, I felt that some worthy and boring pieces about selection policy should redress the balance. So bear with me whilst I indulgence my ego.

Mercifully, the England management broke into Steve Harmison’s room at night, and attacked his spine with hammers. This injury should keep him well clear from temptation and ensure that we should have proper bowlers in the set-up. For a while, at least.

The remaining places should go to Matthew Hoggard (who’s great), Ryan Hairybottom (who has Done Enough) and Monty Panesar (who is like whelks to the gulls). There is one more spot, but two bowlers: James Anderson and Stuart Broad.

Who should take it?

This is an awkward one, because, unlike the Shah/Bopara debate it’s not a simple matter of old vs. young. They are both young players, and we should hope that they’ll both be in the side when the two old swing bowlers retire to the big swingers’ party in the sky.

So, as bowlers, what do they offer? So far this season, Anderson has taken 14 wickets in three matches (averaging just under five wickets a match), although in 2006/07 he was less impressive: averaging nearly ninety runs per wicket. Plus, he’s yet to take a wicket during this tour.

Broad, on the other hand, extracted wickets and some bounce from the slow Lankan pitches. Although, the difference isn’t great; both offer a similar package. At test level, it seems sensible to assume that Anderson is the incumbent and, as he has not performed terribly, should retain his place in the interests of stability and fair-treatment.

The issue may be decided, however, not by bowling, but by this “three dimensional cricketer” nonsense. As you can see from the picture, but Anderson is not a natural batsman.

If Anderson was picked, Hairybottom would have to come in at eight – leaving a very long and vulnerable tail. If you are picking Owais Shah at six, as a specialist batsman, and Matt Prior as batsman-wicket keeper at seven, you might consider this ample protection for a weak tail.

I’m not convinced by this line.

This may be negative, but in Sri Lanka you must look to extract the maximum from your squad. Furthermore, given that neither bowler offers an obvious edge over the other, then it is reasonable to bring in this additional factor, and consequently, we must side with Broad.

Pick Broad I say.

England like rampant rhinos

From the depths of the Sargasso Slow News Seas comes an unexpected England win. A victory of many noteworthy achievements. Let bloggers rejoice.

Firstly, it’s England’s first win over a proper side since February. That’s a long time for an England cricket fan. A very long time.

The win was made possible by two superb innings, both by young’uns, whose place is less than secure.

A partnership of 178 by Alistair Cook and Ian Bell really dominated the Indians. Both scoring a maiden century, and both looking like wonderful prospects for England’s ODI future.

Another good omen is the return of Andrew Flintoff. His bowling looked fast, fiery and accurate. He had a few niggling problems with no-balls, but anyone who passes Rahul Dravid’s outside edge gets the nod from me.

James Anderson proved his class, by taking 4-23 and becoming England’s fifth highest ODI wicket taker. The rest also looked good, except for Monty Panesar, who had an indifferent day. I suspect that he was upset by distracting news of international importance.

India, by comparison, looked rubbish. This makes me laugh. Look: Ha Ha Ha. That’s me laughing dementedly in the picture.

Their bowling lacked any real sort of threat. Their running between the wickets was hilarious. Worst still, they didn’t even seem to try. When Dravid and MS Dhoni were together, instead of chasing down their seven-an-over target, they just tapped it around for three-an-over. Why? What are you thinking? Possible twos were left unconverted, they seemed content with singles.

Rubbish. Derisory rubbish.

If India want to win these series, and one strongly suspects they do, then I suppose they’ll have to make a bit of an effort. But, there’s still six more matches. Perhaps they’re hoping that England will just get bored and start playing ping-pong?

England get a bit nasty

I criticised Australians heavily a while ago for being prats. I argued that their no-holds-barred approach to the game lay outside the spirit of the game. Whether it was effective was irrelevant, people had paid good money to see people play high quality cricket, and if a batsman’s concentration was disturbed by a verbal harassment then you are denying the public the full spectacle of test match cricket. It’s akin to cheating.

England’s behaviour on the field in this test match has been a disgrace. The conduct of Kevin Pietersen and James Anderson in particular was embarrassing and pathetic.

In the prats league, they are running neck-and-neck with the Aussies at the moment. However, unlike the Aussies, the strategy is proving ineffective.

Matt Prior attempted to defend England appalling display:

“It’s international cricket. It’s a hard game, we all want to win, so you’re going to have your banter.”

If you want to win, why don’t you just brain the opposition batsmen in the changing room? That would guarantee success. Oh no, there is some invisible threshold of acceptability defined not in the rules, but in England’s head.

Prior then reveals the truth of the matter:

“I do enjoy [sledging]. It’s part of the game and if you don’t enjoy it then you’re going to struggle. It’s never nice when it’s you batting and there’s 11 blokes around you giving you a barrage. It can be uncomfortable, obviously, but having known that as a batter as well it can definitely be used as an advantage.”

Matthew Prior is a prat.

Cricket is a sport, whereby winning and losing is determined by skill. These flaky arguments in favour of verbal abuse and mental attacks are affront to morality as much as the spirit of the game. And, as Christopher Martin-Jenkins pointed out, they are also illegal.

Indian have traditionally been seen as a “soft touch” on the field. Their batsmen are liable to be intimidated and riled easily. Probably because Indians, as people, are so polite, diplomatic, diffident and generally some of the best human beings in the world. Sadly, they’ve had to toughen up to combat this onslaught. And they did just that. Deflating the lary England bowlers with a solid batting performance.

India thoroughly deserve to win this match, just as much as England deserve to lose it.