Thoughts on Jimmy Anderson

I have had a few emails and comments in recent days, asking what I thought of the Jimmy Anderson situation at Lancashire, and whether I thought Derbyshire would/should make a move for him.

I can see both sides of the argument. In an ideal world, Anderson would have been able to leave on his own terms, after 25 years with Lancashire. He has become a national bowling legend, a Knight of the Realm and has had an end named after him at Old Trafford. He took 50 wickets at just seventeen runs apiece last year and still looked a class act.

But..

He will be 45 next summer and although some players are able to hold back the tide of time, Canute-style, such as Darren Stevens and our own Wayne Madsen, there comes a time for everyone when the body starts to tell you that enough is enough.  

You never know when that next season, that one year too many, is when it happens. And regardless of talent, reputation and fitness, time really does wait for no man. 

I totally understand why Paul Farbrace wants to start afresh, with a new team and players who he wants to grow together as a team. Last year, when I watched them it was Jimmy Anderson plus ten, not Lancashire. There was nothing in the way of fight shown at Chesterfield, when the great bowler himself looked pretty disinterested once the wickets stopped falling and conditions eased. Nor was he capable of lifting his team.

Farbrace is a very good coach and for what it is worth I would have done the same thing. There is no room for sentiment in sport and although it will be difficult, I hope that Wayne Madsen walks away at the end of next summer, ideally after one last fine red ball season and with his reputation untarnished.

Various news outlets suggest other counties are interested in Anderson's services and, based on his reputation and 2026 form I do understand that.

Would I want Derbyshire to be one of them/do I think they will be one of them? 

No and no. It is important that we build for the future and I would be disappointed if Anderson were to arrive at Derby. I accept there's a certain romance in having Anderson, Abbas and Aitchison opening the bowling (unless you are an opposition opening bat). But where does that leave Chappell, Moore, Haydon, Brown and Potts? Let alone Reece and Andersson? If we had spare money for a bowler, I would sooner take the much cheaper route of a deal for Matt Stewart and the long-term benefits that offers.

It is important that our recruitment doesn't reduce opportunity for players of potential and I hope the short termism that we saw in the early 1970s never returns to the club. It is much the same with a potential move for Ben Cox, admittedly a very good cricketer. We already have a very good wicket-keeper/bat in Brooke Guest, who struggled this year but has the talent to return after a good winter in the nets. We also have terrific potential in Theo Brown, who may be first team ready in another couple of years and we cannot afford to block his path.

What we COULD do is look out for a batter who has wicket-keeping as his 'other' skill, one good enough to play as the former but able to fill in, at least, if required by injury or loss of form. That would also allow Aneurin Donald to skipper and lead the batting in the Blast, but not have to keep wicket too. 

There's no one obvious in that category who is out of contract this year, but one thing I have learned in sixty summers of watching Derbyshire is that players sometimes come onto the market, unhappy in their role at another club and wanting to move for personal reasons. 

I think Derbyshire's major needs for next year are around the top order weakness that was evident in 2026. If there is a little scope for a signing outwith the overseas recruitment this winter, a discontented, ideally young and hungry top order bat would be my focus. 

That may be the stuff of fantasy. But while Jimmy Anderson will not lack offers IF he decides to play on, I wouldn't want Derbyshire to be making one of them.

Not least because I don't think we could afford him, but mainly because we have areas of greater need and a finite budget.