Is James Anderson an ATG test bowler?

[Molehill]

Simple answer is that he's lower tier ATG. Is everyone happy now?

This level of sense is in danger of killing off what could be an ATG of ATG threads.

I must rectify.....

Anderson is probably somewhere between Lance Cairns and Chris Martin.

Batting wise - spot on!!

 

[Molehill]

In case this is not clear....

Malcolm Marshall is an ATG. Possibly the greatest.
He averages 32 in New Zealand at 3 wks/ test. It is only 3 three tests. And he averaged 26 per wicket before the last innings he bowled in and went wicketless. Despite these excuses it is a chink in his armour. He is an ATG despite this flaw. There is enough in his career to offset this.

Anderson played 17 tests in India and claimed 44 wickets at 30. It is not a good record. It does not help in this case-building for his ATG entry. His Ashes record is quite bad overall - for a lead bowler. No hiding from these obvious facts. Speak about any offsetting factors rather than claiming his Indian record is not bad.

India Schmindia - You're completely ignoring the fact Anderson has 320 more Test Wickets than Marshall. There are different ways to be ATG's, Anderson being the top wicket taking seamer of all time (and unlikely to ever be beaten frankly) gives him an automatic pass to this select group.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Batting wise - spot on!!

True

 

[TheJediBrah]

India Schmindia - You're completely ignoring the fact Anderson has 320 more Test Wickets than Marshall. There are different ways to be ATG's, Anderson being the top wicket taking seamer of all time (and unlikely to ever be beaten frankly) gives him an automatic pass to this select group.

Eh . . . play for England so 20 Tests per year . . . be pretty good but not that good . . . have no life so don't retire like a normal person just keep playing cricket . . . Automatic ATG status earned for #longevity

 

[bagapath]

India Schmindia - You're completely ignoring the fact Anderson has 320 more Test Wickets than Marshall. There are different ways to be ATG's, Anderson being the top wicket taking seamer of all time (and unlikely to ever be beaten frankly) gives him an automatic pass to this select group.

possible argument... use longevity... use whatever...
don't say his india record is good

 

[bagapath]

Why is marshall the cutoff for an ATG? He's like, top 5 pacers of all time, maybe top 10 absolute worst case. Using him here is like using smith as the cutoff for an ATG batting category. I've pointed this out already, but anderson at his peak has a span as good and as long as many other ATG (not marshall) in his era and across other era's. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have his ATG status on the margin depending on how you weigh the rest of his career, but just going "Lol, marshall has a much better than anderson" as a way to hold anderson outside that category is bone headed.

is that what you got from my post?
I said his NZ record is bad but he is an ATG for all other reasons
So build an ATG argument for Anderson accepting his bad India record, rather than pretending his india record is fine (which is as stupid as claiming Marshall's NZ record is not a weakness). Got it?

 

[Molehill]

Eh . . . play for England so 20 Tests per year . . . be pretty good but not that good . . . have no life so don't retire like a normal person just keep playing cricket . . . Automatic ATG status earned for #longevity

So easy to pick holes in this:

Name a seamer in the past who could even contemplate 20 Tests a year (it's not that many in general anyway). He's averaging about 10 a year since becoming a regular. Even that amount has proven way too many for most - let alone doing it for 16 years.

No life? He's a single figure golf handicap, is part of the most successful cricket podcast on these shores and regularly watches Burnley play football (not to mention the wife and kids). Think he's quite into his music too.

700 wickets - read 'em and weep.

 

[Nintendo]

is that what you got from my post?
I said his NZ record is bad but he is an ATG for all other reasons
So build an ATG argument for Anderson accepting his bad India record, rather than pretending his india record is fine (which is as stupid as claiming Marshall's NZ record is not a weakness). Got it?

You don't have to include the whole India perspective to draw a conclusion? In the peak period I mentioned he's averaging 27 in India.

Like I said in my previous posts. If you choose to weigh him down heavily for the performances outside his peak that's fair. I just think we need to acknowledge the fact that for half of his career he performed as well as Lillie, Cummins, and plenty of other guys who most consider ATG's while taking as many wickets as them.

 

[bagapath]

well... I did not pick and choose any period; I am just saying, overall, his record in india is mediocre.

 

[Adders]

What did Hoggard and Lillee average in India please?

 

[ankitj]

Oh **** off, you wankers focussing on peak. Everyone insists on including pontings worst and the worst of everyone else, so this **** needs to cop it too. If Anderson wants his concessions he can bloody well wait till he is 70, like the rest of us. For crying out loud, the whole ATVG was made for this drip.

Then give him credit for his longevity. Don't be this guy:

 

[TheJediBrah]

"Here's your ATG award sir"

"But . . . I didn't even average under 25 and was mediocre in conditions that didn't suit me. And I was worse than mediocre in the Ashes, the only cricket that really counts. And I barely even played white-ball so I could focus on Tests and still wasn't that good"

"Sir, it's ok. You play for England remember?"

"Oh yeah of course, hahaha"

"hahahahaha"

*Paul Collingwood enters the chat with his MBE hanging around his neck*

 

[Molehill]

"But . . . I didn't even average under 25 and was mediocre in conditions that didn't suit me. And I was worse than mediocre in the Ashes, the only cricket that really counts. And I barely even played white-ball so I could focus on Tests and still wasn't that good"

Whoops....

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

He's actually played the exact same number of ODI's as Warne, 24 fewer wickets but better SR.

 

[ankitj]

"Here's your ATG award sir"

"But . . . I didn't even average under 25 and was mediocre in conditions that didn't suit me.

Until this point I thought you were talking about Shane Warne

 

[Socerer 01]

"Here's your ATG award sir"

"But . . . I didn't even average under 25 and was mediocre in conditions that didn't suit me. And I was worse than mediocre in the Ashes, the only cricket that really counts. And I barely even played white-ball so I could focus on Tests and still wasn't that good"

"Sir, it's ok. You play for England remember?"

"Oh yeah of course, hahaha"

"hahahahaha"

*Paul Collingwood enters the chat with his MBE hanging around his neck*

this is literally all thats been done for the ancient players that get wanked off here constantly as atgs

 

[Socerer 01]

**** me some of the responses in this thread is turning me into an Anderson fan ffs

saying that a dude with close to 200 odis and 4 different world cup appearances barely played white ball cricket is disingenuous as ****

 

[Molehill]

**** me some of the responses in this thread is turning me into an Anderson fan ffs

saying that a dude with close to 200 odis and 4 different world cup appearances barely played white ball cricket is disingenuous as ****

Only 21 bowlers have taken more ODI wickets than Anderson, and of those 21, only 3 have played less matches (Donald, Saqlain and the surprise package of Agarkar). He had a SR better than Wasim (significantly better than Pollock and Vaas) and just below McGrath.

But yeah, barely played white ball and not much good at it either.

 

[TheJediBrah]

**** me some of the responses in this thread is turning me into an Anderson fan ffs

saying that a dude with close to 200 odis and 4 different world cup appearances barely played white ball cricket is disingenuous as ****

His last ODI was in 2015 ffs. Literally gone 9 years with nothing but Tests to focus on. Of course it's going to help with his lOnGeViTy. How you miss the point this badly

 

[Molehill]

His last ODI was in 2015 ffs. Literally gone 9 years with nothing but Tests to focus on. Of course it's going to help with his lOnGeViTy. How you miss the point this badly

But isn't the point that he's already had a decent ODI career - may not be saying that much, but he remains England's leading wicket taker in that form too. And only 21 in the world have taken more wickets. Plenty of others could have retired after 13 years of ODI's to concentrate on Tests - so why don't they have 700 Test wickets?

 

[TheJediBrah]

But isn't the point that he's already had a decent ODI career - may not be saying that much, but he remains England's leading wicket taker in that form too. And only 21 in the world have taken more wickets. Plenty of others could have retired after 13 years of ODI's to concentrate on Tests - so why don't they have 700 Test wickets?

You're inferring what you want to hear, I never said he wasn't good at ODIs. I thought the point, which you seem to concur with here, was obvious but turns out I can still be surprised.