Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[benchmark00]

Straw man.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, stupid post

 

[Fusion]

Can we please stop the argument here before it gets worse? Thanks.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't think he is yet, or at least I hope he isn't cause that is just so ridiculous. Even if you wanted to be bit more lax on how you determine an ATG, he'd still need to bowl as well as he has, but probably even better*, for the next 4 years or more. That is such a ludicrous requirement that it makes no sense even to consider at this stage.

*averaging 25 for the past two years is good, but it is by no means amazing or worthy of ATG status or anything. Will probably have to have a fair more 2010's to enter into that territory.

You are right that it is a ludicrous argument as we really have no idea how he is going to go for another 4 years or whatever and players do deteriorate so he could for all intents and purposes just end up having 2-3 year peak before regressing back to the mean so to speak.

That said though, not a fan of automatically dismissing someone as never able to be great because career average > 25. Not just because 25 is a rather arbitrary number, but also because it is just a number. Great players are judged not on numbers alone but ultimately also on their impact on games and how they were rated by their peers. With regards to Anderson it is definitely extremely unlikely that he will be considered a great by the time he retires, but if he somehow manages to maintain the level of skill and performance (i.e being one of the top 3 bowlers in the world) for the rest of his career, he may plausibly have a case.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yes but when he retires, he will be judged on his overall stats and not on the good run he has had in the last few years.

Perhaps by you, not necessarily me or anyone else.

Jist of what I'm saying isn't that Anderson is now an 'ATG' or whatever term you want to put on it, just that I believe he will be in my eyes, and many others, by the time his career is over and he's doing things now with the ball that are quite magical - that not a lot of people in history could do.

 

[Jacknife]

Personally don't believe Jimmy will ever be seen as a ATG by most people, even if it's a given that he continues his form for another 4 years or so. It's a shame he had his action messed with so much early on and he took a few years to become the bowler he is because he could have been right up there but I believe he will be seen as a level below the all time names like McGrath, Donald, Hadlee, Marshall etc.

 

[Flametree]

And anyway, I was just pointing out that most people look at overall figures. It will be the same for Anderson. He is only being rated highly because we have all followed his career. 20-30 years down the line, unless he gets his average below 25, he won't be considered ATG.

Like that other non-great who averaged 25.4... Shane Warne?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Like that other non-great who averaged 25.4... Shane Warne?

I always tend to differentiate spinners with fast bowlers.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Perhaps by you, not necessarily me or anyone else.

Jist of what I'm saying isn't that Anderson is now an 'ATG' or whatever term you want to put on it, just that I believe he will be in my eyes, and many others, by the time his career is over and he's doing things now with the ball that are quite magical - that not a lot of people in history could do.

Swinging the ball both ways has been done before and isn't anything magical. Yes he does out-swing it more than most and that is pretty special and mesmerising to watch.

Personally think a fast bowler is far more special when he is able to use the pitch to change the direction rather than swing. That is why I would rate someone like Broad more than Anderson. Broad in UAE was brilliant because he was the only one consistently using the pitch to get wickets. This is why McGrath was so special and also Asif (although he was a ****).

 

[Flametree]

Fair enough, though I think there are a few quicks with averages in the 25-26 territory who I'd happily rate as great - Willis, Hall, Snow, Gillespie, Shoaib... Thomson and Larwood too.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

To me it's just a round figure of 25, I guess it's all psychological.

I am not being unfair to Anderson, since I do consider him as a very good bowler, it's just that I have the view that under 25 is very good, just like an average of 40 plus in batting is good. And it's not like I want Anderson to not achieve that average. It would be brilliant if he does, even if he gets 26-27, would be excellent.

 

[hazsa19]

Swinging the ball both ways has been done before and isn't anything magical. Yes he does out-swing it more than most and that is pretty special and mesmerising to watch.

Personally think a fast bowler is far more special when he is able to use the pitch to change the direction rather than swing. That is why I would rate someone like Broad more than Anderson. Broad in UAE was brilliant because he was the only one consistently using the pitch to get wickets. This is why McGrath was so special and also Asif (although he was a ****).

Every man and his dog can outswing it. Jimmy ducks it in late to right handers, and away from left handers, as well as the conventional outswing.

That is special

 

[NasserFan207]

Well they both failed in 05 against a lesser attack at their peaks.

Englands attack in 05 performed at an amazingly high level. We haven't seen a side utilise reverse swing that well since.

Anderson has become a special bowler recently, due to the fact that he has mastered the late inswinger. His inswinger is the best in the world ATM.

 

[hazsa19]

ENG vs Sri Lanka 1st Test Day2 - YouTube

The first 2 balls Jimmeh bowls in this vid is just...brilliant. I was there behind the bowlers arm, it was incredible to see the lateness of the swing at speed.

 

[straw man]

lol love how the new thing is to label everything a 'straw man' (worst expression of all time) everytime it contradicts your opinion on something. Horrible.

can it, ****

 

[uvelocity]

^^ haha

also:

straw thread

 

[BackFootPunch]

Again, I don't care about Anderson's overall stats. It's what he is now. We can all be more analytical than dialing up Cricinfo's numbers

I agree entirely that Anderson is far more than the pure numbers he has accrued over 70 tests. He has far more ability with the ball than many bowlers who've done better than him. Watching Anderson bowl is one of the most enjoyable things in cricket. For what it's worth, he's actually my favourite player and I like him a whole lot more than I ever liked McGrath.

But then that entire first paragraph is completely subjective. The way I see it (again subjective), when someone really is a great bowler there is pretty much no argument. They transcend the boundaries of parochialism and personal preference and are just accepted as 'great'. When I call McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose etc great, I'm not thinking about how much they swung the ball or how much I enjoyed watching them bowl or what country they played for. I'm thinking about how ridiculously good they were (in terms of both success and raw ability), relative to every other bowler to have played the game of cricket.

Now, you can certainly argue Anderson is one of the most able bowlers to have played the game. But he sure ain't one of the most successful. Not even close. And why have ability if you're not going to use every last bit of it? With the skills he has, he should have done far better. Even his feats over the last couple of years are only just beginning to achieve what he's really capable of.

And he's only had a couple of years of proper, really good performance. Performance still not as good as the aforementioned greats had over their whole careers'. To be a great, surely, he needs to have something like a 5 year period where he performs better than he ever has up to this point.

So in summary: I love Jimmeh; Jimmeh got mad skillz bro; Mad skillz do not equal success or greatness; Jimmeh ain't gonna be a great (at least not in my eyes).

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It's the same with Akram. A lot of people play him down because did not convert his skills with the ball into great results that he was capable of. Although it doesn't help having crap fielders. In my eyes Akram was the most skilful of bowlers.

 

[Red]

It's the same with Akram. A lot of people play him down because did not convert his skills with the ball into great results that he was capable of. Although it doesn't help having crap fielders. In my eyes Akram was the most skilful of bowlers.

I would say that judging fast bowlers against each other is pretty hard. A fast bowler might have a career of 8-10 years, yet only be in their "peak" for 3-4 years. The rest of the time they will still be very good, but not quite as potent.

Akram is a case in point. Youtube him in his prime and he was absolutely amazing. Ball bending like a banana at incredible pace. High quality batsmen looking like complete nuffies.When he lost a bit of pace he was still a really good bowler, but not quite as potent. I'm sure if you isolated 2 or 3 years of his career, his stats would look ridiculously good.

Then you have a guy like McGrath. Highly skilled, but not reliant on pace. Action was economical. He could sustain his "peak" over a much longer period than Akram could sustain his. So his career stats are amazing. However, if you asked top batsmen whether they'd rather face Akram in his prime, or McGrath in his prime, I'd reckon most would rather face McGrath.

So the problem with judging really quick bowlers who have long careers on stats alone is that their "peak" is a relatively short period of time compared to their actual career length.

* Aware McGrath was a great bowler, just using him as comparison..

 

[Debris]

I would say that judging fast bowlers against each other is pretty hard. A fast bowler might have a career of 8-10 years, yet only be in their "peak" for 3-4 years. The rest of the time they will still be very good, but not quite as potent.

Akram is a case in point. Youtube him in his prime and he was absolutely amazing. Ball bending like a banana at incredible pace. High quality batsmen looking like complete nuffies.When he lost a bit of pace he was still a really good bowler, but not quite as potent. I'm sure if you isolated 2 or 3 years of his career, his stats would look ridiculously good.

Then you have a guy like McGrath. Highly skilled, but not reliant on pace. Action was economical. He could sustain his "peak" over a much longer period than Akram could sustain his. So his career stats are amazing. However, if you asked top batsmen whether they'd rather face Akram in his prime, or McGrath in his prime, I'd reckon most would rather face McGrath.

So the problem with judging really quick bowlers who have long careers on stats alone is that their "peak" is a relatively short period of time compared to their actual career length.

* Aware McGrath was a great bowler, just using him as comparison..

Which is why the length of the peak is one of the main things that separate great bowlers from merely good ones. There are lots of bowlers who are great for a couple of years, it is the ones who are still great 10 years later who are special.