Jimmy Anderson

[mr_mister]

ah yeah knew I'd forget someone. Regarding Croft his average and WPM are pretty sharp, was Daniel really better than him?

I have a feeling with Croft he was just as good as Holding/Garner(or close enough to) etc he's just not remembered as fondly due to only playing 27 tests

 

[honestbharani]

Walsh definitely better than Anderson for me but I dunno if I would go so far as to say he is basically a tier above. You can still have people who are clearly better than another but both in the same tier.

 

[Pothas]

1. Walsh played for 17 years and was ATG standard for that entire period. Anderson played for 17 years and came in to his own 'only' for the last 10-11 years imo. That's at least 50% longer. Walsh started off great off the bat and ended his career 17 years later bowling his best ever with no real trough.

2. I'd also argue that the last decade, and especially the conditions Anderson bowled in does not fit into the 'conditions are batting friendly paradigm' that the 00s fit more easily into.

3. Walsh was an awesome performer across the world, home or away and regardless of bowling surface or bowling position. He was dominant in the sub-continent, at a time when conditions were not very good for seamers, for example.

I'd say if anything Walsh is a bit underappreciated considering how so many other ATG fast bowlers were 'only' really good for a decade or so.

Anderson is not quite in his league imo.

Agree on Walsh and yeah the last few years have obviously been much better for bowling. Anderson measures up with all of the new generation though.

Since Rabada made his debut Anderson has 174 wickets at 21.50
Since Cummings played his second Test match Anderson has 133 wickets at 20.81.

 

[harsh.ag]

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Geoff Boycott once said that Croft was the one he liked to face least. He wasn’t skilful, but had real pace and often bowled from wide of the crease (when he didn’t want to barge the umpire) and got nasty lift from a length at an awkward angle. He played mainly in England, Australia and the Windies. I think he might have done okay on his one SC tour to Pakistan, but that would require looking it up and I hate to do that.

 

[mr_mister]

wasn't skilful? damn a bit harsh. who's the modern day equivalent?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Jimmy Anderson.

 

[stephen]

Garner for me is a clear number 3 at a minimum. Probably closer to being equal to Ambrose than not. The guy bowled first change for most of his career behind two bone fide ATG bowlers who would clean up in friendly conditions and leave him with less wickets. He still managed to average 20 and was easily the best change bowler in history.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Walsh is a strange case in that he often looked underwhelming in action but his record suggests he was much more than that. His record in the SC, as visiting seamers go, is rivaled only by Marshall and Roberts (?) and that's some achievement considering Walsh didn't have as extensive a skillset as either.

 

[srbhkshk]

Garner does average a solid 3 points lesser than Holding, Holding's got double the fifers though although that's probably just a consequence of their roles.

 

[ImpatientLime]

walsh gets docked points for that absolutely horrendous, occasionally chucky looking action.

was 100% bending the rules at time imo

 

[vcs]

walsh gets docked points for that absolutely horrendous, occasionally chucky looking action.

was 100% bending the rules at time imo

Gotta say I agree with that. It looks ugly in hindsight. Nothing against Walsh though, lovely bloke and always liked him when I was growing up.

 

[Uppercut]

yeah was unsure about that one. I thought some Cwers really rated Roberts though

Not just CWers, most people who are old enough to remember him rate him really highly, including those who played with or against him.

 

[Arachnodouche]

walsh gets docked points for that absolutely horrendous, occasionally chucky looking action.

was 100% bending the rules at time imo

Wasn't particularly graceful but that's the first I've heard his action called suspect.

 

[Tom Flint]

If Harris would have played intl cricket for 17 years he would have an average of 30+.

 

[srbhkshk]

If Harris would have played intl cricket for 17 years he would have broken into 8 pieces and would need three wheelchairs.

Fixed.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If Harris would have played intl cricket for 17 years he would have an average of 30+.

Do you think his batting would've improved that much? He would've been up with Shaun Pollock. What a gun!

 

[Line and Length]

Walsh > Roberts imo. Roberts gets more credit than anyone else for being the first but he wasn't quite as good as the rest.

As one who watched Roberts I have to disagree. Had Walsh been around at the same time as Roberts then Holding and Roberts would still be 1 and 2 selected with Walsh vying with Garner as first change. Garner would get the nod.
Roberts had pace, accuracy and movement.
As this is a thread about Anderson (who I regard as a very good bowler) I would rank him alongside Walsh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If Harris would have played intl cricket for 17 years he would have an average of 30+.

Meaningless comment. If Harris could have played for 17 years he wouldn't have been Harris, and what this fantasy bowler would have averaged is pure speculation.

 

[Burgey]

ah yeah knew I'd forget someone. Regarding Croft his average and WPM are pretty sharp, was Daniel really better than him?

I have a feeling with Croft he was just as good as Holding/Garner(or close enough to) etc he's just not remembered as fondly due to only playing 27 tests

He's not remembered as fondly because, one, he was a very ornery bloke - would deadset have beamed his grandmother, and more importantly because he went to SA.