• 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.

Courtney Walsh vs. Jimmy Anderson

Who is the better bowler?

  • Courtney Walsh

    Votes: 32 68.1%

  • Jimmy Anderson

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • Total voters
    47
S

subshakerz

International Coach
Both bowlers are known for their tremendous longevity, being superb in their latter years and are somewhat underrated in the ATG ratings as well.

Walsh has slightly better stats but was in a more sporting era for bowlers.

Anderson persevered in a tough era and is still continuing to do well.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
I wonder if the voting split will have changed much in the last 4 years. I’ll stick with Walsh.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Instinctively I have to go with big Courts.

Quicker and taller, and had the mindset of an enforcer. As scary as Curtly looked and undoubtedly was to face, most of the dirty work was done by Mr Walsh. He famously bowled something like a dozen consecutive bouncers to Devon Malcolm who was both a complete ferret (he went in after the rabbits) and blind as a bat to boot.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Walsh.

Behind Marshall, Ambrose and Garner, probably the next greatest WI pacer.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
Yeah, I was wondering the same if Anderson's reputation would be enhanced now that he is in the 600 club.
Click to expand...
More longevity isn’t going to change anyones opinion of his career though, is it? His reliability has never been the reason people have had issues with his bowling.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Anderson is closing the gap but unless he bowled England to a series win in Australia just now he’s not really closing it all that quickly. It’s a treacle. Just putting up a few more wickets - many at home - isn’t going to do it.
He has gone to at least becoming serviceable abroad but even now in Australia he bowled well but barely picked up any wickets.
“Barely picked up any wickets” isn’t what you want from your main strike bowler. For him it’s obviously going to be hard to really change this away given he’s old. That time has gone.

I do rate Anderson higher than 3-4 years ago given the extra longevity but if I have to pick one of these two it’s almost always Walsh - unless the march is maybe being held in the UK and the forecast is cloudy and they bring out the Dukes ball.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Walsh and it's not close. Respect to Anderson for playing as long as he has but outside of longevity, there's nothing particularly extra ordinary about his career. Walsh on the other hand was near peerless in Asia. Plus his record is good to great vs everyone except in Australia. Anderson just doesn't quite match that level of adaptability.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
walsh didn't manage anywhere near as many wickets, presumably he would have done if he hadn't been weaker than anderson
 
X

Xix2565

International Debutant
Bit strange to say Walsh is weaker when Anderson's main selling point is being English and getting more Tests to take wickets.
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
_00_deathscar said:
Anderson is closing the gap but unless he bowled England to a series win in Australia just now he’s not really closing it all that quickly. It’s a treacle. Just putting up a few more wickets - many at home - isn’t going to do it.
He has gone to at least becoming serviceable abroad but even now in Australia he bowled well but barely picked up any wickets.
“Barely picked up any wickets” isn’t what you want from your main strike bowler. For him it’s obviously going to be hard to really change this away given he’s old. That time has gone.

I do rate Anderson higher than 3-4 years ago given the extra longevity but if I have to pick one of these two it’s almost always Walsh - unless the march is maybe being held in the UK and the forecast is cloudy and they bring out the Dukes ball.
Click to expand...
Anderson already bowled England to a series win in Australia though.

One thing to remember about Walsh, until the mid 90s he wasnt considered that dangerous a bowler. His last few years really cementes his reputation.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I went with Anderson. It's very, very close now and Anderson is still playing at a level close to his peak, so I guess he'll end up marginally ahead. Both underrated.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Yeah so Anderson is mediocre to good in half the test nations, whereas for Walsh it's just one. No contest imo Walsh > Anderson.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
sledger said:
walsh didn't manage anywhere near as many wickets, presumably he would have done if he hadn't been weaker than anderson
Click to expand...
I don't get this weaker comment. Walsh started off as the WI 4th bowler in the mid 80s bowling into the wind and doing the 'donkey work.' It's only after Bishop fell off completely that he consistently got the new ball. Thereafter his career elevated. If Walsh is weaker because he took less wickets, then so too are any other fast bowler since Anderson has the most wickets among seamers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top