James Anderson vs Glenn McGrath - Similarities and differences

[trundler]

West Indian and Australian pitches have largely been lifeless though (Perth and Jamaica excepted).

Plus, everyone's so much more **** at batting away now. Look at Ashwin and Jadeja. As Starfighter (?) dug up, this is the era where difference between home and away averages has been largest. Wouldn't call Philander an ATG either. Anderson is still probably the greatest condition reliant quick. Or put another way, he's one of the best at exploiting home conditions, yeah.

 

[Brian Lara]

Fair comments. Although jimmy can only heat what’s in front of him and he has a very good record against the greatest bat of my lifetime.

I agree that the general standard of test cricket has dropped, but I think a lot of players don’t get the credit they deserve in this era. Anderson is the most obvious example on this forum.

The world has gone a bit nuts with how highly they rate Anderson, but imo the general consensus of Anderson on this forum is too low. What rational argument do people have for rating a guy like John snow above him for example? I saw another member group Anderson on the same tier as broad...

 

[Slifer]

And Alec Stewart rated him as the best ever. So there are both extremes. Lets just compare him the the only current undisputed atg fast bowler currently playing Dale Steyn. Imo the two are not remotely close, except that Anderson has many more wickets mostly from bullying at home and playing a helluva lot more tests. Nothing to be ashamed of but Steyn does not look out of place in the company of other greats, Anderson does.

 

[sledger]

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.

 

[trundler]

We do underrate him though. I only do it to piss off Adders so it is for a noble pursuit. Worth it.

 

[Brian Lara]

And Alec Stewart rated him as the best ever. So there are both extremes. Lets just compare him the the only current undisputed atg fast bowler currently playing Dale Steyn. Imo the two are not remotely close, except that Anderson has many more wickets mostly from bullying at home and playing a helluva lot more tests. Nothing to be ashamed of but Steyn does not look out of place in the company of other greats, Anderson does.

The two are not remotely close, but seeing as I had Steyn as one of the 3 greatest fast bowlers of all time and Anderson borderline top 20 you won’t see me argue that.

Anderson looks out of place next to the greatest bowlers of all time, I agree. He does not look out of place with guys like Walsh, Alcock or Bedser as many people seem to believe.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Other ATGs have neutrals and even once-fierce rivals acknowledging their greatness. Anderson only ever seems to get over-the-top accolades from his countrymen. Says a bit, I think.

 

[sledger]

Other ATGs have neutrals and even once-fierce rivals acknowledging their greatness. Anderson only ever seems to get over-the-top accolades from his countrymen. Says a bit, I think.

Yeah, it's not like just a few days ago Glenn McGrath said Jimmy was the best swing bowler in the world or anything.

 

[andmark]

Fair comments. Although jimmy can only heat what’s in front of him and he has a very good record against the greatest bat of my lifetime.

I agree that the general standard of test cricket has dropped, but I think a lot of players don’t get the credit they deserve in this era. Anderson is the most obvious example on this forum.

The world has gone a bit nuts with how highly they rate Anderson, but imo the general consensus of Anderson on this forum is too low. What rational argument do people have for rating a guy like John snow above him for example? I saw another member group Anderson on the same tier as broad...

I can't remember who it was, but a month ago I saw someone compare Pat Cummins to him. I know he's had a good start, but you can't seriously compare Cummins at this stage in his career to someone who's taken 500 wickets surely. Whilst some English people overrate him, there's an equally big amount of underrating go on from non-English people.

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah, it's not like just a few days ago Glenn McGrath said Jimmy was the best swing bowler in the world or anything.

That's more specific though. How many out-and-out swing bowlers are there going around at the moment, especially with Steyn being constantly injured recently?

 

[Slifer]

The two are not remotely close, but seeing as I had Steyn as one of the 3 greatest fast bowlers of all time and Anderson borderline top 20 you won’t see me argue that.

Anderson looks out of place next to the greatest bowlers of all time, I agree. He does not look out of place with guys like Walsh, Alcock or Bedser as many people seem to believe.

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

 

[Coronis]

Fair comments. Although jimmy can only heat what’s in front of him and he has a very good record against the greatest bat of my lifetime.

I agree that the general standard of test cricket has dropped, but I think a lot of players don’t get the credit they deserve in this era. Anderson is the most obvious example on this forum.

The world has gone a bit nuts with how highly they rate Anderson, but imo the general consensus of Anderson on this forum is too low. What rational argument do people have for rating a guy like John snow above him for example? I saw another member group Anderson on the same tier as broad...

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).

 

[GIMH]

I can't remember who it was, but a month ago I saw someone compare Pat Cummins to him. I know he's had a good start, but you can't seriously compare Cummins at this stage in his career to someone who's taken 500 wickets surely. Whilst some English people overrate him, there's an equally big amount of underrating go on from non-English people.

There’s only one fast bowler from this decade who is better, that’s Steyn. Putting anyone else ahead of Anderson is just twaddle and yet as you say we see numpties put the likes Cummins and Starc ahead of him. Baffling, it truly is

 

[Red]

I had a theory going for a while that in order to be considered an ATG you should be able to force your way into a New Zealand all time test XI. I think it works as a theory. You'd have to displace one of the following:

Glenn Turner
Stewie Dempster
Bert Sutcliffe (or Williamson now)
Martin Crowe
Martin Donnelly
John R Reid (or Chris Cairns)
Dan Vettori
Richard Hadlee
Ian Smith (or BJ Watling)
Shane Bond
Jack Cowie

 

[Starfighter]

That's an interesting theory TSTL.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There’s only one fast bowler from this decade who is better, that’s Steyn. Putting anyone else ahead of Anderson is just twaddle and yet as you say we see numpties put the likes Cummins and Starc ahead of him. Baffling, it truly is

Philander is close, Harris was clearly better. Rabada probably is too, already.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Philander is close, Harris was clearly better. Rabada probably is too, already.

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

 

[Burgey]

The two are not remotely close, but seeing as I had Steyn as one of the 3 greatest fast bowlers of all time and Anderson borderline top 20 you won’t see me argue that.

Anderson looks out of place next to the greatest bowlers of all time, I agree. He does not look out of place with guys like Walsh, Alcock or Bedser as many people seem to believe.

Remember the halcyon days when Cribbeh rated Walsh above other bowlers with better averages, SRs and WPM because longevity?

Walsh chucked his quicker one anyway.

 

[Slifer]

There’s only one fast bowler from this decade who is better, that’s Steyn. Putting anyone else ahead of Anderson is just twaddle and yet as you say we see numpties put the likes Cummins and Starc ahead of him. Baffling, it truly is

Philander??

 

[Bolo]

I was researching it last night and took McGrath and Marshall (imo the two greatest fast bowlers of all time) and neither had a home average as low as anderson’s over any period of their respective careers over a 30 game sample. So immediately, not all the ATGs have that, in fact the two greatest in history do not.

As for strike rate, I think it’s dependent on the kind of bowler you are. Waqar Younis has d an absolutely savage strike rate at his best, but his economy was over 3 an over even in his prime. Anderson balances economy and strike rate exceptionally on home soil, perhaps unmatched.

Edit: sorry meant 30 game home sample

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