James Anderson vs Glenn McGrath - Similarities and differences

[Borges]

Less motivation to improve. Less motivation to carry on. Less motivation to train hard.

To be succinct, ATVG.

 

[trundler]

Actually playing alongside players of that calibre should motivate you to do better lest you remain overshadowed for eternity.

 

[Starfighter]

24.44 which isn't a massive difference to Anderson's after his recall in NZ once he got away from the idiot Aussie who tried to remodel his action.

Walsh did that over 15 years though. What was the point I was making earlier?

As an aside, I see someone has edited Walsh's Wikipedia profile to read 'medium fast' (rather than 'fast').

 

[flibbertyjibber]

As an aside, I see someone has edited Walsh's Wikipedia profile to read 'medium fast' (rather than 'fast').

That is ridiculous, he was fast.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Dizzy is one of the most under rated bowlers of the last 20-30 years. If it wasn't for him being a crock he'd have got 350+ wickets and been rated a lot higher. Guy was quality in his pomp.

Sad how underrated he is, even by some posters here that you expect to know better

 

[trundler]

Sad how underrated he is, even by some posters here that you expect to know better

He just isn't as good as Anderson. I'd rate him more if he stepped up when he had to. Still awesome.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He just isn't as good as Anderson. I'd rate him more if he stepped up when he had to. Still awesome.

Nah he was better than Anderson in most conditions. Anderson comfortably better in swinging conditions. You don't average 25 on "Australian roads" without being a bit special

 

[Top_Cat]

Not buying that Gillespie was better. Bloke had talent to burn and yeah he was competing with two of the best ever for wickets but worth pointing out that there were times when both of those guys were out for extended periods and he didn't really step up to lead. That he took under half the 5-fors that someone like McGrath did in the same number of FC matches tells you a bit about his MO, had the mindset and length of a support bowler.

Flintoff was similar. Bugger-all 5-fers in his career despite vicious movement and bowling like a ****ing demon in '05. Had all the makings of a real-deal great bowler when he actually threw the ball up so why so few bags? Because he so rarely did it, preferred instead to avoid being driven. That should count against guys like him and Gillespie no matter how talented they looked.

 

[sledger]

Flintoff got a lot of the really crucial wickets whilst the other bowlers saw off the dross though tbf. Not the designated leader of the attack by any means, but basically since around 2003/04 the tactic whenever England needed to get a star player out was "give the ball to Fred". And it worked far more often than it didn't iirc. Can't really accuse him of not stepping up to the plate when called imo.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Flintoff got a lot of the really crucial wickets whilst the other bowlers saw off the dross though tbf. Not the designated leader of the attack by any means, but basically since around 2003/04 the tactic whenever England needed to get a star player out was "give the ball to Fred". And it worked far more often than it didn't iirc. Can't really accuse him of not stepping up to the plate when called imo.

That attack worked so well. Hoggard could knock over some top order players with swing, Harmison ruffled them with pace (back then he was genuinely quick) and then Flintoff with his line not giving the middle order an inch and his and Jones ability to reverse the ball meant that there was no let up. Even if Jimmy and Broad count as better than those bowlers we haven't had such a good pace attack since though Swann was a huge upgrade as a spinner to Giles from back then so our 3rd seamer only had to do a holding role in the latter team.

 

[Slifer]

24.44 which isn't a massive difference to Anderson's after his recall in NZ once he got away from the idiot Aussie who tried to remodel his action.

Right and how about we look at Walsh's record after becoming the leader of the pack (alongside Amby). Before that, Walsh was the bowler doing the donkey work: bowling into the wind, bowling uphill, bowling with the old ball etc.

 

[Brian Lara]

Yeah, he's been the best fast bowler the past few years, I don't think anybody's denying that. Doesn't mean he gets a pass for the rest of his career.

Actually they do, Ponting very much so. The difference between them and Anderson is that their overall records are still ATG numbers, because they're better in their discipline. Anderson not being as liked as others may have something to do with his rating, but objectively, there are 15+ pace bowlers that are better than him.

Im not giving him a pass. Just I see a lot of people put him below past greats when he has the same period of tests completed with a greater record.

Well if they do, that’s pretty stupid considering the vast length of their careers. To be knocked down significantly for a weak beginning / end when they have sustained greatness over a far greater sample is ridiculous. It’s like rating tendulkar higher if he finished with a test average at 58 half way through his career. Imo, it doesn’t make sense.

The bottom part...no. Anderson averages 23 and something in England and strikes at around 49 (not any nitpicking period of time). Walsh averaged around 20 and struck at sub 50 in Asia. Nice try though

“Not nitpicking period of time” - Again, time periods are good comparisons because Anderson hasn’t always been great. In fact, he was pretty mediocre for the first half of his career. I’m not disregarding that, I’m just not completely ignorant of how good Anderson has been over a significant period of time now.

 

[Top_Cat]

Flintoff got a lot of the really crucial wickets whilst the other bowlers saw off the dross though tbf. Not the designated leader of the attack by any means, but basically since around 2003/04 the tactic whenever England needed to get a star player out was "give the ball to Fred". And it worked far more often than it didn't iirc. Can't really accuse him of not stepping up to the plate when called imo.

Yeah that's a part I didn't mean to compare with respect to Gillespie, more the bowling style.

 

[Top_Cat]

That attack worked so well. Hoggard could knock over some top order players with swing, Harmison ruffled them with pace (back then he was genuinely quick) and then Flintoff with his line not giving the middle order an inch and his and Jones ability to reverse the ball meant that there was no let up. Even if Jimmy and Broad count as better than those bowlers we haven't had such a good pace attack since though Swann was a huge upgrade as a spinner to Giles from back then so our 3rd seamer only had to do a holding role in the latter team.

Yeah and that shows just how much more important the combination is than the raw ability of the individuals, personally. All of them were in a good spot at the same time but seemed to have a team-first policy so dunno how well a Swann would have fit into that.

Jones only playing about 20 Tests is ****ing sad too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That attack worked so well. Hoggard could knock over some top order players with swing, Harmison ruffled them with pace (back then he was genuinely quick) and then Flintoff with his line not giving the middle order an inch and his and Jones ability to reverse the ball meant that there was no let up. Even if Jimmy and Broad count as better than those bowlers we haven't had such a good pace attack since though Swann was a huge upgrade as a spinner to Giles from back then so our 3rd seamer only had to do a holding role in the latter team.

Tough separating it from the 2010-11 attack of Broad-Anderson-Tremlett-Bresnan-Swann.

 

[Coronis]

24.44 which isn't a massive difference to Anderson's after his recall in NZ once he got away from the idiot Aussie who tried to remodel his action.

How many caveats does one player need to be compared with others?

 

[Groundking]

Anderson makes people so salty it's great.

 

[andmark]

Anderson makes people so salty it's great.

I'd like to think whilst we're intensely debating him, he couldn't care less about what acronyms people give him.

 

[ImpatientLime]

And I'm saying that when you dissect it you need to look beyond the raw number and see what it actually says. Him playing a lot of tests doesn't make him better than a bowler of equal skill who had fewer opportunities in the equivalent time period.

he hasn't played all those tests by accident.

again another part of his career so grossly overlooked. he deserves a **** ton of respect for the year after year after year consistency. say you give someone like john snow 140+ tests, there is absolutely no guarantee he keeps up that performance level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That he took under half the 5-fors that someone like McGrath did in the same number of FC matches tells you a bit about his MO, had the mindset and length of a support bowler.

Flintoff was similar. Bugger-all 5-fers in his career despite vicious movement and bowling like a ****ing demon in '05. Had all the makings of a real-deal great bowler when he actually threw the ball up so why so few bags? Because he so rarely did it, preferred instead to avoid being driven. That should count against guys like him and Gillespie no matter how talented they looked.

That's a meaningless metric IMO. McGrath was just a clearly better bowler in basically every way.

Number of 5-fors, or 10-fors shouldn't have much influence on how you judge a bowler, same with wpm. Too many other factors influencing it. In Gillespie's case probably does show a lack of stamina perhaps, and it's no secret that he wasn't the most durable of players.

Anderson makes people so salty it's great.

Yes it's annoying. Can't post an article about Anderson without a plethora of Aussies on social media coming in to comment that he isn't as good as McGrath, even though no one ever said he was.