James Anderson vs Glenn McGrath - Similarities and differences

[jimmy101]

And the three W's.

 

[TheJediBrah]

A bit harsh on Kallis, slifer. Surely he's an ATG by anyone's standards.

 

[Coronis]

How good would Wasim have been if he didn't have a systematically tampered-with ball half the time he was bowling though?

Didn't Waqar and Imran have that too?

 

[Slifer]

A bit harsh on Kallis, slifer. Surely he's an ATG by anyone's standards.

Tbh I consider him an atg but I get the impression that most here on cw dont share that sentiment. Btw the Pollock for rsa atg is graeme pollock.

 

[vcs]

Kallis is unquestionably an ATG.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Kalis is an ATG purely on his batting let alone overall as a cricketer. Legitimate top 5 cricketer of all time candidate.

 

[subshakerz]

Nice list Slifer. Davidson, Kallis, Holding, Waqar & Sanga all belong in the ATG category tho.

A few more ATGs to be considered... B Richards, G Pollock, Grace, Ranji, Botham, Rhodes, Trumper, Kapil.

Would Sanga, Waqar and Davidson really be considered for an all-time XI? They are all national greats for me.

ATG to me has to be a more select group.

Kallis definitely belongs there, as an all-rounder, based on his record alone.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Would Sanga, Waqar and Davidson really be considered for an all-time XI? They are all national greats for me.

ATG to me has to be a more select group.

Kallis definitely belongs there, as an all-rounder, based on his record alone.

If Davo was playing his cricket today he would be considered an ATG without a shadow of a doubt. Personally I'm far too young to have seen him play live, but from the footage I have seen of him and from talking to people who were around back then there is do doubt he was truly brilliant.

 

[subshakerz]

If Davo was playing his cricket today he would be considered an ATG without a shadow of a doubt. Personally I'm far too young to have seen him play live, but from the footage I have seen of him and from talking to people who were around back then there is do doubt he was truly brilliant.

Having a great record, with a few exceptions, is not enough to qualify as an all-time great. I could be wrong, but I dont think Davidson was ever put on the same level as Lillee or even Ray Lindwall.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Alan Davidson is absolutely an ATG. If he's not then very few bowlers are.

 

[Bolo]

Two factors: Wasim was almost universally considered better than those two by his peers, and against the best team of his era, Australia, did fairly better.

Performances against a single team are always going to be contentious, but here it seems particularly problematic. AUS weren't the top batting outfit for most of Akrams career. He started in 85, and they were behind probably WI, Pak, and India? until the mid 90s. Wasim only played 2 series against AUS in the late 90s when they were clearly the best and did terribly, with none in the 2000s when the batting peaked.

Peer opinion isn't a performance measure. Its a subjective call based to a large degree on the optics of the bowler. Akram looked amazing, so it's understandable

 

[subshakerz]

Alan Davidson is absolutely an ATG. If he's not then very few bowlers are.

That is the point, very few bowlers actually qualify for ATG status. You need a combination of great record plus universal peer recognition as being comparable with the best of any time.

The ones I would definitely consider ATG pacers are:

Barnes, Lillee, McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose, Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Steyn.

Can also consider Donald, Lindwall, Trueman and maybe Holding or Roberts.

 

[subshakerz]

Performances against a single team are always going to be contentious, but here it seems particularly problematic. AUS weren't the top batting outfit for most of Akrams career. He started in 85, and they were behind probably WI, Pak, and India? until the mid 90s. Wasim only played 2 series against AUS in the late 90s when they were clearly the best and did terribly, with none in the 2000s when the batting peaked.

Peer opinion isn't a performance measure. Its a subjective call based to a large degree on the optics of the bowler. Akram looked amazing, so it's understandable

I think Akram's peer rating is more to do with his skill. Almost all the major pace bowlers of the 90s era (McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald) put Akram at the top. Waqar or Pollock's name never even gets mentioned. Saying Waqar is better than Akram seems strange when virtually none of the players who played against them agrees with that.

I will say though that Akram's record does have gaps, which is why I wouldnt put him ahead of other ATGs like Marshall or McGrath, or even Imran. But then, Waqar's record has its fair share of gaps too.

 

[Starfighter]

Peer rating is rubbish though. People are more impressed by flash (Wasim) than results (Mcrath).

 

[TheJediBrah]

That is the point, very few bowlers actually qualify for ATG status. You need a combination of great record plus universal peer recognition as being comparable with the best of any time.

The ones I would definitely consider ATG pacers are:

Barnes, Lillee, McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose, Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Steyn.

Can also consider Donald, Lindwall, Trueman and maybe Holding or Roberts.

Davidson's got more than a few of those covered though

 

[Bolo]

I think Akram's peer rating is more to do with his skill. Almost all the major pace bowlers of the 90s era (McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald) put Akram at the top. Waqar or Pollock's name never even gets mentioned. Saying Waqar is better than Akram seems strange when virtually none of the players who played against them agrees with that.

I will say though that Akram's record does have gaps, which is why I wouldnt put him ahead of other ATGs like Marshall or McGrath, or even Imran. But then, Waqar's record has its fair share of gaps too.

The skill question mostly comes down to optics. Whatever Akrams range of abilities, when you had Waqar taking more wickets much faster in the same matches, you had a more effective bowler. A more effective bowler is, in effect, a more skilled one.

I don't have an issue with rating Pollock or Waqar behind Wasim. Both have holes in their records. But Waqar did outperform Wasim in the same conditions, while Pollock has a virtually identical record despite playing in a much tougher era for bowlers. So putting him a tier above them doesn't make much sense to me. You seem to be putting a lot of weight on the opinions of other bowlers. Is it valid to do so, and are they valid in holding those opinions considering they are not backed up by performances?

 

[Slifer]

root lol

It's not too late for root , he can get his act together. I remember at one point I believe early 2000s, Laras average got down to as low as 47 and this was after a fair few number of tests. His conversion was pretty bad too. But starting with the SL series, Lara started to turn it around. My point?? Root still has more than enough time to right his record and reputation.

 

[Brian Lara]

There are some frankly ridiculous opinions knocking around on this forum when it comes to Anderson.

First of all, in the last 3 years he’s been consistently one of the best bowlers on the planet. To suggest anything otherwise is ludicrous.

Anderson over the last 3 years has been averaging roughly 18 at home, 28 away and 21 overall. It’s no small sample either because England play a lot of tests. Literally, Anderson over this period has been far more impressive than many ‘ATGs’ he’s compared against who have played less tests in their CAREER and have worse records.

It’s easy to look at his away record and pick holes. Anderson is simply not even close to as dangerous away from home in less favourable conditions as he is at home. However, he is still an extremely economical bowler away from home, just not the wicket taking machine he is in England. If you want to try and compare him to McGrath, Marshall, Steyn, Hadlee, Ambrose or Barnes, then clearly he doesn’t stack up because his away record pulls him down.

However, something that’s lost in the shuffle with most of you as you slander jimmy’s away record is that in favourable conditions, he is the arguably most dangerous bowler in recent history. In England with the duke ball, he averages less than 19 since 2016...Go and try and find a similar home record of any bowler in the last 50 years that is as good factoring in average, economy and strike rate (minimum 30 tests). I imagine Imran Khan might match him, maybe one or two others. Literally, it’s crazy how insane his home record is.

Honestly, I can’t believe how this forum can close their eyes to things like this. Many bowlers with almost no tests under their belt are given the benefit of being ATGs when they don’t have even close to the body of work Anderson has at test level. If you want to place 5-10 supposed ATG england bowlers ahead of jimmy based on their 10-30 tests, why not compare them against jimmy’s last 3 years or even 5 years and see how they stack up. At this stage, jimmy has more going for him being an ATG than not, and personally he’d be in my all time England XI too with Freddie trueman and Barnes

 

[Bolo]

However, something that’s lost in the shuffle with most of you as you slander jimmy’s away record is that in favourable conditions, he is the arguably most dangerous bowler in recent history. In England with the duke ball, he averages less than 19 since 2016...Go and try and find a similar home record of any bowler in the last 50 years that is as good factoring in average, economy and strike rate (minimum 30 tests). I imagine Imran Khan might match him, maybe one or two others. Literally, it’s crazy how insane his home record is.

All of the ATGs would have had a similar run at home over a few years. Pretty much all of them average just over 20 at home, so their careers are pretty close to his peak, and they had peaks too. SRs have gone nuts in the last few years, so if he is striking faster than players from previous eras, there is a reason. Rabadas career strike rate (same period) is in the 30s, which Anderson couldn't match even by picking only his home matches in in his best patch.

Im not bad-mouthing Andersons home record. It's excellent, whether looking at career or peak. It's just not somehow above ATGs as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Brian Lara]

All of the ATGs would have had a similar run at home over a few years. Pretty much all of them average just over 20 at home, so their careers are pretty close to his peak, and they had peaks too. SRs have gone nuts in the last few years, so if he is striking faster than players from previous eras, there is a reason. Rabadas career strike rate (same period) is in the 30s, which Anderson couldn't match even by picking only his home matches in in his best patch.

Im not bad-mouthing Andersons home record. It's excellent, whether looking at career or peak. It's just not somehow above ATGs as you seem to be suggesting.

I was researching it last night and took McGrath and Marshall (imo the two greatest fast bowlers of all time) and neither had a home average as low as anderson’s over any period of their respective careers over a 30 game sample. So immediately, not all the ATGs have that, in fact the two greatest in history do not.

As for strike rate, I think it’s dependent on the kind of bowler you are. Waqar Younis has d an absolutely savage strike rate at his best, but his economy was over 3 an over even in his prime. Anderson balances economy and strike rate exceptionally on home soil, perhaps unmatched.

Edit: sorry meant 30 game home sample