James Anderson vs Glenn McGrath - Similarities and differences

[TheJediBrah]

Harris comes under the same rating as Bond and Bruce Reid. Did we know how good he actually was due to being a crock.

No we know how good he was. Deadly on any surface and in any conditions too.

 

[Daemon]

There are some frankly ridiculous opinions knocking around on this forum when it comes to Anderson.

First of all, in the last 3 years he’s been consistently one of the best bowlers on the planet. To suggest anything otherwise is ludicrous.

Anderson over the last 3 years has been averaging roughly 18 at home, 28 away and 21 overall. It’s no small sample either because England play a lot of tests. Literally, Anderson over this period has been far more impressive than many ‘ATGs’ he’s compared against who have played less tests in their CAREER and have worse records.

It’s easy to look at his away record and pick holes. Anderson is simply not even close to as dangerous away from home in less favourable conditions as he is at home. However, he is still an extremely economical bowler away from home, just not the wicket taking machine he is in England. If you want to try and compare him to McGrath, Marshall, Steyn, Hadlee, Ambrose or Barnes, then clearly he doesn’t stack up because his away record pulls him down.

However, something that’s lost in the shuffle with most of you as you slander jimmy’s away record is that in favourable conditions, he is the arguably most dangerous bowler in recent history. In England with the duke ball, he averages less than 19 since 2016...Go and try and find a similar home record of any bowler in the last 50 years that is as good factoring in average, economy and strike rate (minimum 30 tests). I imagine Imran Khan might match him, maybe one or two others. Literally, it’s crazy how insane his home record is.

Honestly, I can’t believe how this forum can close their eyes to things like this. Many bowlers with almost no tests under their belt are given the benefit of being ATGs when they don’t have even close to the body of work Anderson has at test level. If you want to place 5-10 supposed ATG england bowlers ahead of jimmy based on their 10-30 tests, why not compare them against jimmy’s last 3 years or even 5 years and see how they stack up. At this stage, jimmy has more going for him being an ATG than not, and personally he’d be in my all time England XI too with Freddie trueman and Barnes

Does Jimmy have the worst 30 test stretch as well?

 

[stephen]

Rating bowlers of the 2010s based on pure raw ability:

Steyn
Rabada
Johnson
Harris
Starc
Cummins
Anderson
Philander

Based on their record:

Steyn
Rabada
Philander
Harris
Anderson
Cummins
Starc
Johnson

Based on their overall contribution:

Steyn
Anderson
Rabada
Johnson
Philander
Starc
Harris
Cummins

Based on the players ous love to watch when on song:

Steyn
Johnson
Harris
Starc
Rabada
Anderson
Cummins
Philander

Based on who are the best in favourable conditions:

Anderson
Philander
Johnson
Steyn
Rabada
Harris
Cummins
Starc

The best in unfavorable conditions:

Steyn
Starc
Rabada
Cummins
Harris
Johnson
Anderson
Philander

There are many ways to rate players. And not all of them are objective.

There is no doubt that when Anderson finally hangs up the boots, touring England will be a lot easier for most teams. He alone is largely responsible for England's amazing home record over the last decade.

 

[Daemon]

Rhino never toured the SC unfortunately. Was a great bowler but 27 Tests is not good enough to say his record was better than Anderson's.

Rabada and Philander don't have a better record than Anderson either unless you don't rate longevity at all.

Strictly speaking about records here not talent or any other arbitrary measures.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Harris is getting pretty overrated if we're saying he has a better record (by an metric that makes sense) than Anderson tbh. He was amazing but more importantly than him having a fragile body, he only got good after he was 30. I don't have much time for the argument that he would have been an ATG if not for injuries. He wasn't a case like Bond or Reid or Asif who clearly would have had long successful careers if some things had gone differently.

Harris was just a late bloomer. If he'd played test cricket for 5 more years before his debut and averaged 35-40 in that span instead of not even being good enough to play test cricket, he'd have ended up with 200 wickets at 29 or something for his career. Being so crap before he turned 30 protected his average. He's not some what-if case probable ATG, he was a good bowler who had an amazing few years at the very end.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Rhino never toured the SC unfortunately. Was a great bowler but 27 Tests is not good enough to say his record was better than Anderson's.

Rabada and Philander don't have a better record than Anderson either unless you don't rate longevity at all.

Strictly speaking about records here not talent or any other arbitrary measures.

Harris had a good tour of sl iirc

 

[jimmy101]

Harris is getting pretty overrated if we're saying he has a better record (by an metric that makes sense) than Anderson tbh. He was amazing but more importantly than him having a fragile body, he only got good after he was 30. I don't have much time for the argument that he would have been an ATG if not for injuries. He wasn't a case like Bond or Reid or Asif who clearly would have had long successful careers if some things had gone differently.

Harris was just a late bloomer. If he'd played test cricket for 5 more years before his debut and averaged 35-40 in that span instead of not even being good enough to play test cricket, he'd have ended up with 200 wickets at 29 or something for his career. Being so crap before he turned 30 protected his average. He's not some what-if case probable ATG, he was a good bowler who had an amazing few years at the very end.

Thank you. It's about time someone who isn't a complete nufti made a comment on this. Finally, reality has prevailed.

 

[stephen]

Rhino never toured the SC unfortunately. Was a great bowler but 27 Tests is not good enough to say his record was better than Anderson's.

Rabada and Philander don't have a better record than Anderson either unless you don't rate longevity at all.

Strictly speaking about records here not talent or any other arbitrary measures.

Well again that proves my point which is that most ratings are arbitrary.

By record I mostly meant about "how the bowler did overall not talking into account longevity but considering conditions and opponents".

But either way, all eight bowlers on that list are special.

 

[stephen]

Harris is getting pretty overrated if we're saying he has a better record (by an metric that makes sense) than Anderson tbh. He was amazing but more importantly than him having a fragile body, he only got good after he was 30. I don't have much time for the argument that he would have been an ATG if not for injuries. He wasn't a case like Bond or Reid or Asif who clearly would have had long successful careers if some things had gone differently.

Harris was just a late bloomer. If he'd played test cricket for 5 more years before his debut and averaged 35-40 in that span instead of not even being good enough to play test cricket, he'd have ended up with 200 wickets at 29 or something for his career. Being so crap before he turned 30 protected his average. He's not some what-if case probable ATG, he was a good bowler who had an amazing few years at the very end.

One could argue that his career is a lot like Anderson's except more extreme.

Both had a slow start but Harris' start was slower.

Both got seriously good as they got older, though Harris' improvement was greater and in all conditions.

The main difference between the two is how robust Anderson's body has proved to be.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

SACA letting Ryan Harris out the door just as he had found an extra yard of pace still has to be one of the most braindead decisions they have ever made, and there is stiff competition for that "honour"

Also, don't want to make concrete conclusions yet on Cummins and especially Rabada, considering they still should have the best years of their career ahead of them

 

[TheJediBrah]

but 27 Tests is not good enough to say his record was better than Anderson's.

Harris is getting pretty overrated if we're saying he has a better record

This is called a strawman I think. Not saying you guys are wrong just not sure you got the "better record" thing from.

I don't think anyone was claiming Harris has a "better record"

 

[TheJediBrah]

Cummins on the other hand is definitely overrated massively. He's been impressive over the last year or 2 on some dead tracks but he's got a lot to do to start comparing him to Broad, Starc etc. let alone Harris, Steyn, Anderson and co.

 

[Spark]

One could argue that his career is a lot like Anderson's except more extreme.

Both had a slow start but Harris' start was slower.

Both got seriously good as they got older, though Harris' improvement was greater and in all conditions.

The main difference between the two is how robust Anderson's body has proved to be.

Anderson improved much earlier than Harris. He was basically world class from 2010 onwards.

 

[vcs]

Anderson's body of work over the last decade is very impressive.

I love Steyn and he's comfortably better overall, but he's been injured so much over the last 4 years that it would be fair to say Anderson's been the best fast bowler of this decade.

I also think Boult and Philander would be considered right up there with Anderson if they played more, but they don't. Hopefully Rabada stays fit and gets 500+ Test wickets.

 

[vcs]

Yes, playing a lot of tests should be used as a stick to beat a player with. Not a sign of their perseverance and talent at all.

Glad you agree Sachin's the best of all time

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is called a strawman I think. Not saying you guys are wrong just not sure you got the "better record" thing from.

I don't think anyone was claiming Harris has a "better record"

Stephen made a post literally saying that. Lol you kid.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Stephen made a post literally saying that. Lol you kid.

See that's the thing I don't read stephen's posts

 

[Brian Lara]

To be fair, although his past few years and home record are pretty great, you look at his career numbers, and they just don't stack up to the praise he receives. He has poor away records everywhere except the West Indies and U.A.E, where, all credit to him, he's been great. He also has poor records against the two top teams of his time, which coincidentally are two of his three biggest sample sizes. So no, I don't think its crazy for someone to rate say, Snow above him (away record below 21, far better record against the best teams of his time).

If you take his career as a whole sure. But Anderson has only really been exceptional in the last few years, which incidentally is as long a career as many ‘greats’ from the early years. It’s a tough one because I agree with many points made by members here, but there is a complete disregard for just how good jimmy has been in the late part of his career.

Ok fine he's probably not out of place compared to say a Walsh but even then, once you dig deep enough you'll realize Walsh is a distinctly better bowler. Admittedly, I don't know much about the likes of bedser, snow adcock etc

I rate Walsh above Anderson, although Anderson in England is a far more devastating bowler than Walsh anywhere.

 

[Brian Lara]

Marshall averages 20.06 at home over his career. This is close to indistinguishable from 18.xx (I'm assuming judging from how you phrased it). You can't chop his record up into 30 home test patches because there weren't enough home matches (31 total) but he averaged sub 19 in every calendar year from 85-89. Cutting it into a 30 match home streak is always going to favour a bowler like Anderson who plays a million tests at home. It's a lot easier for him to maintain over 4? years than 13 for Marshall, and you have 50 different best options to choose from instead of 2, which also allows you to ignore a whole bunch more dross.

IDK about Mcgrath. Pretty sure he would have had something similar to Anderson over pretty much any number of tests. Similar records if you ignore Andersons poor start. No doubt he would have been better than Andeson in Andersons home conditions though.

Not sure it's relevant here, but a lower SR is always better when you are the best bowler in your team. Lower SR means less overs bowled by guys with higher averages

Marshall’s home record was taken iirc roughly over the course of about 8-10 years where jimmy’s sample was taken from 5. Also, when I took those numbers, I didn’t eliminate any tests. I took a rolling 30 test number, no dross was eliminated. The cold hard facts are that Anderson at least as good as Marshall and McGrath in favourable conditions based on the raw numbers. Once you factor in the fact that the shorter timespan that does favour him and a decline in test standard, it probably levels out to him being roughly around their level or maybe a hair level. Anderson in England deserves to be held in the same breath as the greatest of all time. How heavily you punish him based on his away performances is obviously down to you. He was absolutely shocking away early in his career. Later on, he’s simply been mediocre. Why not compare guys like Harris, Cummings and bond to anderson’s best period and crunch the numbers. It paints a fairer picture.

Strike rate is relevant, but economy is often traded for lower strike rates.

Does Jimmy have the worst 30 test stretch as well?

Possibly, but I don’t see Ponting, Tendulkar and v. Richards get marked down heavily for being poor late in their careers. Anderson’s is just a more extreme case and he is unliked here so he takes all that on the chin I guess.

 

[stephen]

SACA letting Ryan Harris out the door just as he had found an extra yard of pace still has to be one of the most braindead decisions they have ever made, and there is stiff competition for that "honour"

Also, don't want to make concrete conclusions yet on Cummins and especially Rabada, considering they still should have the best years of their career ahead of them

Queensland was where Harris going the extra pace. He intentionally bowled slower on the dead Adelaide oval pitches because he was over bowled because the pitches were too road like.