James Anderson vs Glenn McGrath - Similarities and differences

[andmark]

Not true. Kumble has 619.

As it happens, Kumble had a higher away average than Anderson. Clearly, he was a home track bully and not an ATG...

 

[sledger]

Not really, if he started his career in 2010 he wouldn't have learnt how to bowl well so fast. The early part of his career made him who he is now.

Yes, but the fact that he came through that early period (which let's face it, was very iffy) and emerged as a fantastic bowler actually strengthens his claim to ATG status. Let's not forget that at one point he was basically written off as a test bowler (around 2005/06 I think). The fact that he came back from that at all, let alone got more wickets than anyone, is actually pretty incredible.

 

[Daemon]

Didn't you learn anything from Mary Poppins? FFS.

And yes, typical for the only list for Kohli to be top of is "being a dick".

The only bit of Mary Poppin's I've watched is this

 

[sledger]

Well, when you bootleg films you get what you deserve I guess.

 

[Daemon]

Yes, but the fact that he came through that early period (which let's face it, was very iffy) and emerged as a fantastic bowler actually strengthens his claim to ATG status. Let's not forget that at one point he was basically written off as a test bowler (around 2005/06 I think). The fact that he came back from that at all, let alone got more wickets than anyone, is actually pretty incredible.

I put it down to climate change.

 

[Starfighter]

Worth considering that if Anderson had started his career on Jan 1 2010 he would have 416 @ 23.99 which means he would sit favourably just behind the greats like Steyn, Donald, Hadlee, McGrath, Waqar, Wasim and numerous Windies legends. That is some decade he is having and he like Broad was picked too early and played when he perhaps shouldn't have so has a poorer record than many because of it.

If I exclude Alan Davidson's 'period when he shouldn't have been picked' (so to speak) he averages 19.25. So what? Of course you can chop a player's career to make them look better. I know you will say 'but look how many tests' but you can only play what's put in front of you, and Anderson is extremely lucky to have had the opportunity to play a lot of tests (Same with Cook, compared to G. Smith. Both twelve year careers, one played 50-odd more tests). Trueman, say, bowled 1000 balls more than Anderson per year. Is it a point against the former that fewer of them happened to be in tests due to circumstances other than ability?

 

[Bolo]

It's close. Anderson has kept it much tighter. Econ is a whole run lower. Makes it easier for the bowler at the other end even when Anderson isn't taking wickets. Rabada has a lower SR. Ideally you want them both in tandem. They are the best two seamers.

Its them pretty close together and then daylight to the others, but rabada is clearly ahead for me.

You can't have a great SR and economy in tandem without a ridiculous average. Economy helps the other bowlers through pressure. SR helps the other bowlers by allowing them to bowl at bats who don't have their eye in. Im not sure which of these is better. But SR actually takes wickets while doing so, and means less overs bowled by lesser bowlers, so it's a lot more valuable.

They are both bullies at home in very easy conditions. Very comparable records. Anderson takes wickets cheaply, but rabada is better at taking wickets.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Rabada has good (not great) away stats though, and Anderson has genuinely poor ones.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

 

[Burner]

He’s not miserable, southerners just don’t understand him

I doubt that. He was upset when Smith laughed in a press conference. On something not even having anything to do with him. He somehow found slighted when Smith laughed at something that his teammate said. I would argue that he's very weird in addition to being miserable.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If I exclude Alan Davidson's 'period when he shouldn't have been picked' (so to speak) he averages 19.25. So what? Of course you can chop a player's career to make them look better. I know you will say 'but look how many tests' but you can only play what's put in front of you, and Anderson is extremely lucky to have had the opportunity to play a lot of tests (Same with Cook, compared to G. Smith. Both twelve year careers, one played 50-odd more tests). Trueman, say, bowled 1000 balls more than Anderson per year. Is it a point against the former that fewer of them happened to be in tests due to circumstances other than ability?

Thing is I'd never say Anderson was better than Trueman anyway so i have no idea what your point is.

 

[Starfighter]

Thing is I'd never say Anderson was better than Trueman anyway so i have no idea what your point is.

Picking part of a career then saying 'look' is a rather spurious argument, even if said slice happens to contains as many matches as another player's whole career.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Picking part of a career then saying 'look' is a rather spurious argument, even if said slice happens to contains as many matches as another player's whole career.

I'd be fine with it if the time period in question was also longer.

 

[trundler]

Exceptions can be made to ignore the first or last couple of years for an Anderson or Viv IMO.

An 8 year purple patch compared with a 1.5 decade career is unfair though.

 

[Coronis]

Exceptions can be made to ignore the first or last couple of years for an Anderson or Viv IMO.

Why?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Exceptions can be made to ignore the first or last couple of years for an Anderson or Viv IMO.

An 8 year purple patch compared with a 1.5 decade career is unfair though.

Ok we can take it back to when he got recalled to replace Hoggard on the NZ trip which was when he finally cemented his place in the side if you like.

502 wickets @ 25.31 which is only leaving out 20 games when he was in and out of the side and being messed around by the bowling coaches.

 

[trundler]

Why?

I just feel it doesn't do justice to their talent. You still get a large enough sample size still.

 

[ImpatientLime]

i think the point is, when people dissect that part of anderson's career (2010 onwards) we're talking about a period of time where he has taken 400+ wickets. Thats more than most quicks have taken in their lifetime. it is an extraordinary show of consistency and brilliance.

 

[Coronis]

i think the point is, when people dissect that part of anderson's career (2010 onwards) we're talking about a period of time where he has taken 400+ wickets. Thats more than most quicks have taken in their lifetime. it is an extraordinary show of consistency and brilliance.

It is. It doesn't make him better than those other quicks. Personally I'm fine to call him an ATG, I just don't consider him on the level of others, and am not going to ignore mediocre parts of his career.

 

[Starfighter]

i think the point is, when people dissect that part of anderson's career (2010 onwards) we're talking about a period of time where he has taken 400+ wickets. Thats more than most quicks have taken in their lifetime. it is an extraordinary show of consistency and brilliance.

And I'm saying that when you dissect it you need to look beyond the raw number and see what it actually says. Him playing a lot of tests doesn't make him better than a bowler of equal skill who had fewer opportunities in the equivalent time period.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

It is. It doesn't make him better than those other quicks. Personally I'm fine to call him an ATG, I just don't consider him on the level of others, and am not going to ignore mediocre parts of his career.

Well 500 wickets @ 25 since his recall puts him at the Walsh/Gillespie kind of level, just below the greats but very very good. Not getting into ATG, ATVG etc...

I am comfortable with that as that still puts him as the best English bowler since Trueman and is a fair rating in my opinion.

 

[Starfighter]

Well 500 wickets @ 25 since his recall puts him at the Walsh/Gillespie kind of level, just below the greats but very very good. Not getting into ATG, ATVG etc...

I am comfortable with that as that still puts him as the best English bowler since Trueman and is a fair rating in my opinion.

I don't think he's better than Willis, and I'd be hard pressed to put him ahead of Snow as well.