• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

James Anderson vs Glenn McGrath - Similarities and differences

sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Starfighter said:
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?
Click to expand...
My point was that suggestions that Anderson doesn't get praise and accolades from anyone who isn't English are clearly false.
 
B

Bolo

State Captain
Brian Lara said:
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
Click to expand...
30 home tests for Marshall is all but one in his entire career. 30 for Anderson is not even close to half. This is always going to favour Anderson heavily, because you eliminate a lot more chaff. Look at almost the whole of Andersons career and Marshall comes out way ahead. Look at the best 40%ish of Marshalls career and Marshall probably comes out slightly ahead. This does a disservice to Andersons longevity, but also to Marshalls consistency. Matching best years would give the same result.

As long as you give some weight to durability or peak, Anderson at home will end up comparable to just about anyone. You are engineering a method that makes him look better than most, but it's not the best way. Career, % of matches, peak period by time are all better. Otherwise you can only really compare him to someone who has played a similar number of home matches, which nobody, and this ignores how favourable his home conditions are and how bad he was outside of his peak.

Anyway, he's an ATG at home. Just not in his own tier

SR is relevant, but we would need era adjusted SRs to make sense of it- they have changed too much to just look at raw numbers.

Daemon said:
Rabada and Philander don't have a better record than Anderson either unless you don't rate longevity at all.
Click to expand...
Longevity might not be the correct way to favourably compare Anderson to Philander. They have been somewhat comparable since Philander started playing, but Anderson probably added negative value to the team in the years before Philander started because he was so poor at the start. Durability (effectively more tests per year at his peak) would be a better argument.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Also Anderson doesn't pretend an injury when confronted with conditions that don't suit him, which is to his credit. Jimmy could just say he's twisted an ankle every time the sun comes out and finish with a career average of 12.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
no surprises to see stephen putting some 5 minute wonders like cummins or vastly overrated test bowlers like starc up there with steyn

if your bowling record away is the be all, end all like this thread seems to think then neil wagner is the best bowler in the world since he averages less away from home than he does at home (27 away vs 28 at home)

plus he's a third seamer, not one of these new ball weaklings people put up as the latest and greatest.

wagner isn't some cute little swing bowler or a diva 150kph fast bowler, so in my expert and humble opinion i've extensively researched by looking at andersons statsguru record to see what you nerds are moaning about, then trent boults to compare Anderson to a world class bowler who is still mid-career, neil wagner is the GOAT since 2010 excluding steyn because steyn is actually the answer to all these threads come on bois let's be sensible here.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
Brian Lara said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Brian Lara said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Agricultural

Agricultural

Banned
The figures for Anderson currently stand at 564 wickets 26.84 average. Jimmy is looking like taking more than 50 wickets in a year in tests for the second year running. If he can keep this up then three more years of playing will see him pass 700 wickets. Sky is the limit for Anderson right now. I hope he can get that average sub 25 and finish on 700 plus wickets. Anderson's average is dipping closer to Warne.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Brian Lara said:
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.



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

Bolo

State Captain
Coronis said:
Yeah, he's been the best fast bowler the past few years, I don't think anybody's denying that.
Click to expand...
Well... Rabada for the last few years. Steyn before that.

Anderson if you want to pick a number like 4-6 years that includes sufficient inactivity for both (plus Philander where things get a bit grey)
 
ImpatientLime

ImpatientLime

International Regular
has rabada been better than anderson since his debut? strikes quicker but does it more expensively.

look, the one thing we can all agree on is that anderson is a miserable northern ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top