Anderson questions Kohli technique

[falcons360]

if virat kohli has major issues then english batsman are incompetent, very disappointing from Anderson.

lets compare so Jo Root has scored 1383 runs in 30 innings played this year, where as virat kohli has played 17 innings and scored 1200 runs at an average of 80, so who is the greater batsman. 

[mancalledsting]

6 hours ago, Stumped said:

Wow, who writes this dross. The twisted headlines from some of these papers are unbelievable on the basis of that interview.

The Times, the Sun and Daily Mail are all right wing, racist and hatred inspired newspapers in the U.K.- not suprising coming from them 

[Lannister]

No need to take them seriously or even respond to it. Seeing the immaturity of some of our players (PP_the midget) I will not be surprised if he comes out shooting from his hips again. Winners should act like one, no need to stoop to the level of basement dwellers. 

[MCcricket]

Anderson insinuating that Kohlis success is based on tracks and conditions not favouring seaming conditions shows two things , he is not good enough all round bowler n like BK needs spice in the wkt to perform also it brings himself to being ridiculed as a sore looser.

For anyone who knows cricket a bit is obvious that Kohli has tweaked his technique n is not the same player he was, his weakness was not tempering his off side expansive drive in seaming conditions n not a glaring weakness, so it is a matter of eschewing that expansive away from the body drive, also Virat has evolved his test game and now bats with patience also he is a good enough player to score runs anywhere .

[Sajid_Rana]

It was Junaid who first exposed Kohli's weakness of playing swing bowling. Anderson statement is just a stamp on of authority on it.

[adi B]

9 minutes ago, Sajid_Rana said:

It was Junaid who first exposed Kohli's weakness of playing swing bowling. Anderson statement is just a stamp on of authority on it.

Who's junaid?where's he now?

[Sandeep99]

Well, this statement has officially confirmed England's defeat, hasn't it. They have finally unravelled. Chennai will just be a formality.Touring teams, when beaten, will have a breaking point, generally. So this was England's moment. Point to note is how South Africa and New Zealand were very gracious in defeat. 

 

Jimmy - Thanks for visiting. Hopefully you play only in England for the rest of your career where weather is the 12th man and helps you with swing.

[Sandeep99]

11 minutes ago, Sajid_Rana said:

It was Junaid who first exposed Kohli's weakness of playing swing bowling. Anderson statement is just a stamp on of authority on it.

Look, even if Kohli doesn't do well in England, which we know isn't going to happen, he will still end up as a great. Just like how Younis Khan, with his technical flaws and zero technique against pace has raked up 10,000 runs in the dead pitches of UAE and Pakistan.

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, Sajid_Rana said:

It was Junaid who first exposed Kohli's weakness of playing swing bowling. Anderson statement is just a stamp on of authority on it.

Who is this non-entity Junaid... yawn... please do stop spouting this boring stuff.

[rkt.india]

He may have scored more than 600 runs in the series, but Virat Kohli's excellence with the bat appears to have left James Anderson cold.

Kohli, whose 235 in Mumbai has left him averaging 128.00 in the four matches so far, came into the series with a point to prove against England. In nine previous Tests against them, he averaged just 20.12 with a single score over 50.

He struggled particularly badly on the 2014 tour of England. With England frustrating him with a line outside off stump, he was drawn into dangerous, impatient strokes against the moving ball and ended the series with an average of just 13.40. Anderson dismissed him four times.

Speaking before the start of this series, Kohli said: "I can put it very simply as that was a phase I didn't perform very well, and it happened to be England. Could have been any other country in the world. I just take it as a setback in my career, and not motivate myself in a way that I have to prove people wrong or have to do something special against a particular opposition. For me, I'm playing a cricket ball, be it any game, any opposition, anywhere in the world. Those things do not change for me so I don't put those things in my head."

Kohli has made his point even more eloquently with the bat. On the same surfaces on which England have, since Rajkot, struggled, he has two centuries and four others scores of 40 and above. He has consistently proved a significant obstacle for England and, having ensured his team would leave with a draw in the first Test, made centuries in Visakhapatnam and Mumbai.

Perhaps his best performance came in the second innings in Visakhapatnam, where he made 81 out of a total of 204 despite a pitch of uneven bounce and against an England attack gaining lateral movement with the ball. It was masterful batting and further evidence that Kohli is a vastly improved player since the last time he faced England.

Anderson, however, remains unconvinced. In an oddly ungracious assessment, he suggested that Kohli is not so much an improved batsman, as a batsman playing in conditions that do not exploit his "technical deficiencies".

"I'm not sure he's changed," Anderson said. "I just think any technical deficiencies he's got aren't in play out here. The wickets just take that out of the equation.

"We had success against him in England, but the pace of the pitches over here just take any flaws he has out of the equation. There's not that pace in the wicket to get the nicks, like we did against him in England with a bit more movement. Pitches like this suit him down to the ground.

"When that's not there, he's very much suited to playing in these conditions. He's a very good player of spin and if you're not bang on the money and don't take your chances, he'll punish you. We tried to stay patient against him, but he just waits and waits and waits. He just played really well."

Anderson took a similarly unflattering view of India's spinners. While R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja have 39 wickets between them in the series, Anderson said: "I'm not sure they're too difficult to handle."

He did admit, however, that England had endured their "worst morning of the tour from a bowling point of view" on the fourth day in Mumbai.

"It is immensely frustrating," he said. "Coming to the ground this morning, we needed to get three wickets. If we could get them we're still well in the game. Unfortunately we didn't bowl as well as we could have first thing. The ball started flying around and then they got settled and managed to put on a big partnership."

Despite going into the final day 49 runs behind and with only four wickets in hand, Anderson insisted that England still had a chance of the win they need to stay in the series.

"We're going to come and try to fight our way back into this game if we can," he said. "We're 50 runs behind. If we can bat with the positive intent we showed today, there's no reason why we can't get a hundred ahead of them and then try to put some pressure on them with the ball."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-england-2016-17/content/story/1072098.html

[rkt.india]

12 hours ago, Cricketics said:

Mithchell Johnson and Anderson comparison? Check the wickets and Anderson is miles ahead. Ahead of everyone.

 

The longevity matters a lot just like Tendulkar's longevity matter and of the great Warne and Mcgrath's longevity. Anderson has done the same. Over the years, he has gone on and gotten better all over the world where he wasn't at his best earlier in his career. 

 

Mitchell Johnson really just was good for few series against England and South Africa. Rest of the time he was good but not great. That reputation from Ashes series and then perfornacen in South Africa is just carrying his reputation as a test bowler. He did not trouble oppositions other than that as much as it is made out to be. Brilliant bowler but Australia has produced too many better bowlers who have been more consistent than him.

 

Steyn and Anderson to me are both world class and at same stage right now. Currently Anderson a litle ahead but few years ago it was opposite where Young Steyn was miles ahead of Anderson. This is where Anderson, who is been playing since 2001, earns my respect as he has been very consistent for over two decades now. He is another once in a lifetime bowler. Not many pace bowlers play for 15+ years. Steyn won't either. Anderson has and hence for me he is an all time great. Up there with Steyn.

 

 

Anderson is an ordinary bowler outside England. Anderson made his debut for England in 2003, not 2001 and he has 467 wickets in 122 tests, less than 4 tests per match, despite playing half the time in England. It is like an Indian harping about Ishant Sharma saying he has played for 15 years if he plays 6 more years and picked 300 wickets in 100 odd tests.

Edited December 12, 2016 by rkt.india

[Vijy]

6 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Anderson is an ordinary bowler outside England. Anderson made his debut for England in 2003, not 2001 and he has 467 wickets in 122 tests, less than 4 tests per match, despite playing half the time in England. It is like an Indian harping about Ishant Sharma saying he has played for 15 years if he plays 6 more years and picked 300 wickets in 100 odd tests.

Andi fans will persist in comparing their hero to Walsh, McG, etc. The SRT comparison is utterly spurious - from 1993-2011 (with some breaks i between) SRT was easily amongst the top 2 (or 3) batsmen in the world. Andi is arguably not even the best in his own team - Brroad has delivered more match winning performances and spells.

 

Moreover, Andi has a poor avg in most countries, except UAE and one other (and Eng of course).

[Cricketics]

2 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Anderson is an ordinary bowler outside England. 

Ordinary?? Are you serious? If you would have said "not good" etc I could have understand, but he is not an "Ordinary" bowler by any means. He is better than most bowlers to have toured India in recent history. His performance has improved in other parts of the world too. You can not expect every bowler to have an away average of 25-30 or can not expect him to be like Steyn, who has been brilliant.

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Ordinary?? Are you serious? If you would have said "not good" etc I could have understand, but he is not an "Ordinary" bowler by any means. He is better than most bowlers to have toured India in recent history. His performance has improved in other parts of the world too. You can not expect every bowler to have an away average of 25-30 or can not expect him to be like Steyn, who has been brilliant.

An away average of 25-30 is a reasonable expectation. I'd certainly not call him "ordinary", but I'd say "above average" (but not more). Both Oz, NZ and SA are places, esp the latter duo, where fast bowlers can do well. Look up Sledgerson's records there, and compare them against Broad (a better bowler). He does, however, do fairly well in SC-like conditions (UAE, Ind barring this tour,).

 

It's not just about Steyn by the way... There was this lion-hearted bowler from Oz who you may (or may not) have see - the Rhino.

[rkt.india]

11 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Ordinary?? Are you serious? If you would have said "not good" etc I could have understand, but he is not an "Ordinary" bowler by any means. He is better than most bowlers to have toured India in recent history. His performance has improved in other parts of the world too. You can not expect every bowler to have an away average of 25-30 or can not expect him to be like Steyn, who has been brilliant.

Anderson's record away from home 149 wickets in 47 tests at 35.36 is ordinary. Like we say about our bowlers that they are ordinary averaging 35 plus. Same should be said to Anderson. One thing is clear if he was not good with swing in England, he would not have played so many matches.

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Anderson's record away from home 149 wickets in 47 tests at 35.36 is ordinary. Like we say about our bowlers that they are ordinary averaging 35 plus. Same should be said to Anderson. One thing is clear if he was not good with swing in England, he would not have played so many matches.

I thought some of our bowlers average more than 35 in such pitches.

[Cricketics]

 

42 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Anderson's record away from home 149 wickets in 47 tests at 35.36 is ordinary. Like we say about our bowlers that they are ordinary averaging 35 plus. Same should be said to Anderson. One thing is clear if he was not good with swing in England, he would not have played so many matches.

I am the last person to comment on the away averages actually. It is mostly other people including many here on ICF, who worry about averages.

 

If I worried about averages, I would have never supported someone like Bhuvneshwar, who clearly doesn't have a great home average at this time, but surely will.

[Cricketics]

49 minutes ago, Vijy said:

An away average of 25-30 is a reasonable expectation. I'd certainly not call him "ordinary", but I'd say "above average" (but not more). Both Oz, NZ and SA are places, esp the latter duo, where fast bowlers can do well. Look up Sledgerson's records there, and compare them against Broad (a better bowler). He does, however, do fairly well in SC-like conditions (UAE, Ind barring this tour,).

 

It's not just about Steyn by the way... There was this lion-hearted bowler from Oz who you may (or may not) have see - the Rhino.

Watched them all, and Harrison was one of the better bowlers out there. If not for injuries, he was one of the best in recent times for Australia.

 

Even Stuart Clark was brilliant for the little time he spent with Australia.

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Watched them all, and Harrison was one of the better bowlers out there. If not for injuries, he was one of the best in recent times for Australia.

 

Even Stuart Clark was brilliant for the little time he spent with Australia.

Ah, good old Stuey - played an integral role in that Ashes whitewash.

[Soorma_Bhopali]

16 hours ago, sandeep said:

What a tool Clouderson is.  Who was conducting this interview?  This kind of shameless statement begged the follow-up question - "What does that say about your skills and technique then?  That you are ineffective and unable to figure out a method to bowl on wickets that are different than what you are used to?"  

 

This guy needs to be raked over the coals for what he said.  Shameless whiner.

 

 

McGrath and Steyn got bagful of wickets on the same kind of tracks in India.Anderson is too much dependent on lateral swing. Also, Bhuvi was swinging the ball way more than him .