James Anderson vs Glenn McGrath - Similarities and differences

[stephen]

Get away!! You'd have been screaming for a Jimmy when you were bowling plodders like Michael Beer, Hilfenhaus and Doug Bollinger?

Hilfenhaus and Bollinger both cracked 140. Not consistently but they were both there.

In fact I could see Anderson's career looking a lot like Hilfenhaus' career if he lived here. Slow start, finally get good and then immediately get overshadowed by faster bowlers the second an injury rules you out for a couple of games.

 

[stephen]

In fact after 27 tests Hilfenhaus and Anderson both had similar numbers of wickets (99 vs 95), but Hilfenhaus had a much lower average (28.5 vs 35.1).

I'm not saying than Hilfenhaus is better than Anderson, only that Anderson would never have gotten ther opportunities in Australia that he got in England.

Then again, Jadeja wouldn't have gotten the opportunities in England that he got in India, so it doesn't mean anything really.

 

[stephen]

And at the time Hilfenhaus had his cards marked, he had a lower bowling average than Jimmy! Though Jimmy had taken 189 more wickets than him at that point. Both men are virtually the same age.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And at the time Hilfenhaus had his cards marked, he had a lower bowling average than Jimmy! Though Jimmy had taken 189 more wickets than him at that point. Both men are virtually the same age.

OS will love this

Hilfenhaus > Jimmy confirmed

 

[TheJediBrah]

Point originally relates to Anderson, who has led the England attack for longer than Gillespie's career. Gillespie has better averages in certain places but this often happens with support bowlers. And, when given the opportunity to lead, Gillespie's figures blew out because leading really is a tougher gig. Skipper can't take you out of the attack and go back to the bankers because you are the banker. So I give a bloke like Anderson a bit of leeway and a * next to a lot of Gillespie's record, both in Tests and at FC level, even outside of England. Gillespie just had it easier, plain and simple.

Yet that's already accounted for in his career averages, you see the issue with using that as a point of difference right?

You say Gillespie had it easier, maybe he had it easier in that regard, but there are plenty of ways Anderson had it easier. Playing half his games in England easily the biggest of them.

Also you claim that wpm/number of 5-fors as a point of difference between them yet that is heavily dependant on the very roles you mentioned. If Anderson played in Gillespie's position he'd have a similar wpm/5-fors, probably less. tbf conversely if Gillespie was in Andersons position he'd probably be perennially broken down and just couldn't do the job.

I'm not trying to claim that Gillespie was better than Anderson in every way, just pointing out that all the points of difference you bring up don't really have any meaningful value in distinguishing them. The only clear advantage Anderson had over Gillespie is fitness and longevity, which clearly is very important, but wasn't really on my radar when comparing the 2 purely as bowlers.

 

[jimmy101]

Hilfenhaus > Jimmy confirmed

No arguments here. Hilf-dogga always seemed to have an extra yard (or 100) of pace than me.

 

[stephen]

OS will love this

Hilfenhaus > Jimmy confirmed

Haha that's not at all true.

I was only bringing up the point that Anderson wouldn't have had the chances he had, were he an Australian. Jimmy is way better than Hilfenhaus, though Hilfenhaus was fractionally better suited to Australian conditions.

 

[ankitj]

I like how Stephen floats the idea that Andersen wouldn't have had a test career if he was Australian. How does Stephen think Warne's career would have panned out if he was Indian? Did we have a discussion on this in recent past?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I like how Stephen floats the idea that Andersen wouldn't have had a test career if he was Australian. How does Stephen think Warne's career would have panned out if he was Indian? Did we have a discussion on this in recent past?

What's wrong with that? It's a perfectly valid suggestion. Bringing Warne up is completely irrelevant and just comes across as some childish form of petty retaliation, regardless of whether it's right or not.

 

[jimmy101]

Had Jimmeh been an Aussie we can say without a shadow of a doubt that he wouldn't have debuted as early as he did, what with McGrath, Gillespie & Lee at the forefront. Moving on a few years down the line it's conceivable that Jimmy would have been selected alongside players suck as Clark, Bracken & Johnson. Doubt he would have lasted as long as he has had he been Australian, as the Aussie selectors tend to bin their aging quickies with more frequency than other countries.

That being said, who else is hyped for Sidds' return?

 

[ankitj]

What's wrong with that? It's a perfectly valid suggestion. Bringing Warne up is completely irrelevant and just comes across as some childish form of petty retaliation, regardless of whether it's right or not.

Why are we talking about Hilfenhaus, Starc and Harris in this thread anyway. Looked like a free for all to me.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why are we talking about Hilfenhaus, Starc and Harris in this thread anyway. Looked like a free for all to me.

haha true. Afaic the Anderson as an Australian and Warne as an Indian are similar things. Both probably would have struggled in their current iterations if they were from those countries, but of course who knows how they would have developed differently.

Personally I think that if Anderson was Australian it's likely he would have developed differently, and been a faster bowler and much less reliant on swing to suit Aus conditions, maybe not so dissimilar to Gillespie. He probably wouldn't have had the longevity that being a medium-fast swing bowler in England has allowed him though.

 

[morgieb]

haha true. Afaic the Anderson as an Australian and Warne as an Indian are similar things. Both probably would have struggled in their current iterations if they were from those countries, but of course who knows how they would have developed differently.

And that is 100% why I have no time for the "how they go if they were a different nationality" argument. Good players adapt to the style of play they think suits their country best.

 

[stephen]

It all started with Flibbertyjabber's comment imagining how Anderson would go against the current English lineup...

 

[stephen]

haha true. Afaic the Anderson as an Australian and Warne as an Indian are similar things. Both probably would have struggled in their current iterations if they were from those countries, but of course who knows how they would have developed differently.

Personally I think that if Anderson was Australian it's likely he would have developed differently, and been a faster bowler and much less reliant on swing to suit Aus conditions, maybe not so dissimilar to Gillespie. He probably wouldn't have had the longevity that being a medium-fast swing bowler in England has allowed him though.

I think Warne would have done exceptionally well if he was Indian. IF he made the side and IF he didn't get booted out for being a drunken lecherous scallywag. He never would have had to face Tendulkar and David and Laxman in their primes.

 

[Adders]

OMFG, how right was GIMH

This rule needs to be implemented immediately ffs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

OMFG, how right was GIMH

This rule needs to be implemented immediately ffs.

Pretty big display of weakness there. Surely you poms are tough enough not to go crying like this every time someone points out some "uneducated drivel" (ie. uncomfortable truths) about your best players

 

[Adders]

No. It's because you are idiots and incapable of having a rationale discussion surrounding the English bowler that has just knocked off OooAah's record for a fast bowler. I mean how the **** did Ben ****ing Hifenhorse get in this conversation.

 

[Starfighter]

No. It's because you are idiots and incapable of having a rationale discussion surrounding the English bowler that has just knocked off OooAah's record for a fast bowler. I mean how the **** did Ben ****ing Hifenhorse get in this conversation.

We're the ones having the rational conversation by pointing out that said record isn't a be-all-and-end-all and that many aspects of Anderson's record have more holes than a crumpet. It's you being the snivelers.

 

[Adders]

ok