• 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.

Jimmy Anderson

_00_deathscar

U19 Captain
As this is a thread about Anderson (who I regard as a very good bowler) I would rank him alongside Walsh.
And THAT is where the problem is.

To allude to a point made earlier, one person in the same tier can be comfortably better than another in the same tier (i.e. top of the tier vs bottom of the tier), but Walsh is not and should not be the same tier as Jimmy Anderson. It's not like Walsh didn't have the longevity either - he had a far, far more complete career.
 

Line and Length

International Debutant
And THAT is where the problem is.

To allude to a point made earlier, one person in the same tier can be comfortably better than another in the same tier (i.e. top of the tier vs bottom of the tier), but Walsh is not and should not be the same tier as Jimmy Anderson. It's not like Walsh didn't have the longevity either - he had a far, far more complete career.
What's the problem? I am making comments based on my opinions formed over time. Since when does expressing an opinion constitute a problem? As for YOUR opinion, how can you compare "complete career(s)" when one career hasn't been completed?
 

SteveNZ

International Vice-Captain
There's something that's not appreciated or considered about Jimmy Anderson.

He's an out and out swing bowler, the greatest of all time. That is a very different skill than being an into the deck bowler like a Walsh, a McGrath etc. The basis of his craft means Anderson has to bowl half a foot fuller than those guys. His natural length is one that allows him to drag batsmen in and either nick them off or hit pads/stumps more often than not. You can't ask him to be someone who bowls a full length when it swings and make the most of conditions, then expect him to be a high 20s averaging guy who bowls back of a length. That's not a natural occurrence. No one's done that.

That's why he averages 30+ overseas. Ask him to bowl into the deck more and he wins you less Tests at home (and probably doesn't win you many more overseas, given he's not that tall or quick - plus you have other guys like Broad, Tremlett, now Archer etc who do that). He mastered his art, made the most of the conditions that suited him and to be fair also thrived at times in conditions that didn't. Guys like McGrath didn't have that discrepancy between conditions that suited him and didn't, because just above top of off hard works everywhere to a degree. And the old Duke debate...no reason to hold it against a guy who plays 50% (or more) of his Tests with one that he's dynamite with it and not so much the Kooka.
 

SteveNZ

International Vice-Captain
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.
It's probably better to break them into sub sets. Walsh in the pace bowlers category, Anderson in the swing bowling category. Then you're comparing apples and apples more so.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's something that's not appreciated or considered about Jimmy Anderson.

He's an out and out swing bowler, the greatest of all time. That is a very different skill than being an into the deck bowler like a Walsh, a McGrath etc. The basis of his craft means Anderson has to bowl half a foot fuller than those guys. His natural length is one that allows him to drag batsmen in and either nick them off or hit pads/stumps more often than not. You can't ask him to be someone who bowls a full length when it swings and make the most of conditions, then expect him to be a high 20s averaging guy who bowls back of a length. That's not a natural occurrence. No one's done that.

That's why he averages 30+ overseas. Ask him to bowl into the deck more and he wins you less Tests at home (and probably doesn't win you many more overseas, given he's not that tall or quick - plus you have other guys like Broad, Tremlett, now Archer etc who do that). He mastered his art, made the most of the conditions that suited him and to be fair also thrived at times in conditions that didn't. Guys like McGrath didn't have that discrepancy between conditions that suited him and didn't, because just above top of off hard works everywhere to a degree. And the old Duke debate...no reason to hold it against a guy who plays 50% (or more) of his Tests with one that he's dynamite with it and not so much the Kooka.
Sorry but isn’t this exactly what everyone is saying - That he’s condition reliant because of his style of bowling and just isn’t suited to bowling in certain places?
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
There's something that's not appreciated or considered about Jimmy Anderson.

He's an out and out swing bowler, the greatest of all time. That is a very different skill than being an into the deck bowler like a Walsh, a McGrath etc. The basis of his craft means Anderson has to bowl half a foot fuller than those guys. His natural length is one that allows him to drag batsmen in and either nick them off or hit pads/stumps more often than not. You can't ask him to be someone who bowls a full length when it swings and make the most of conditions, then expect him to be a high 20s averaging guy who bowls back of a length. That's not a natural occurrence. No one's done that.

That's why he averages 30+ overseas. Ask him to bowl into the deck more and he wins you less Tests at home (and probably doesn't win you many more overseas, given he's not that tall or quick - plus you have other guys like Broad, Tremlett, now Archer etc who do that). He mastered his art, made the most of the conditions that suited him and to be fair also thrived at times in conditions that didn't. Guys like McGrath didn't have that discrepancy between conditions that suited him and didn't, because just above top of off hard works everywhere to a degree. And the old Duke debate...no reason to hold it against a guy who plays 50% (or more) of his Tests with one that he's dynamite with it and not so much the Kooka.
Anderson isn't even the best swing bowler of his generation, let alone of all time.

Steyn was a swing bowler but was sharper and had more tools in his kit than Anderson.

Waqar was another swing bowler who was superior to Anderson as well.

None of this is to say Anderson isn't a good bowler for his era. He is and his bowling has been important in a few overseas series but he's just not as talented as the best of the best.

But hey, very few guys are.
 
Last edited:

SteveNZ

International Vice-Captain
Sorry but isn’t this exactly what everyone is saying - That he’s condition reliant because of his style of bowling and just isn’t suited to bowling in certain places?
Not some of what I'm reading. I'm reading that he's inferior to Player X, Y, Z because he is condition reliant. My take is these guys are different bowlers to him therefore perform differently, therefore my idea to explain why the comparison doesn't work. His major effectiveness is his condition reliant bowling, which if he changed would make him a much less effective bowler overall given he plays 50% of his tests in England, is not express pace nor is he overly tall.
 

SteveNZ

International Vice-Captain
Anderson isn't even the best swing bowler of his generation, let alone of all time.

Steyn was a swing bowler but was sharper and had more tools in his kit than Anderson.

Waqar was another swing bowler who was superior to Anderson as well.

None of this is to say Anderson isn't a good bowler for his era. He is and his bowling has been important in a few overseas series but he's just not as talented as the best of the best.

But hey, very few guys are.
Yep, fair - Steyn is probably a better all round bowler. As was Younis. I'm not sure they 'won' more Tests or made major contributions to Test wins than Anderson did. Plus longevity is absolutely a consideration, albeit smaller, than the rest of the attributes.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Yep, fair - Steyn is probably a better all round bowler. As was Younis. I'm not sure they 'won' more Tests or made major contributions to Test wins than Anderson did. Plus longevity is absolutely a consideration, albeit smaller, than the rest of the attributes.
Probably not given that SA and Pakistan play a fraction of the number of Tests that England do
 

SteveNZ

International Vice-Captain
Probably not given that SA and Pakistan play a fraction of the number of Tests that England do
Percentage wise then. Looking at MoM awards, Steyn certainly has a higher percentage than Anderson or Waqar. So I'm wrong in that regard.

I'm an Anderson nuffie so I acknowledge my views are tainted. Seems like a pretty average bloke but I just love the way he bowls.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Comparing Anderson and Waqar, I'd say Anderson has been clearly more consistent over a longer period, but Waqar was better (and more versatile in different conditions) during his peak.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not some of what I'm reading. I'm reading that he's inferior to Player X, Y, Z because he is condition reliant. My take is these guys are different bowlers to him therefore perform differently, therefore my idea to explain why the comparison doesn't work. His major effectiveness is his condition reliant bowling, which if he changed would make him a much less effective bowler overall given he plays 50% of his tests in England, is not express pace nor is he overly tall.
And these are valid limitations to his bowling that are taken into consideration, while simultaneously acknowledging that he's a god in favourable conditions. That's been the whole thread I think (apart from Flem/Burgey's occasional trolling).

Unless you mean that you can't even compare some of these other bowlers to him because they have different styles?
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Comparing Anderson and Waqar, I'd say Anderson has been clearly more consistent over a longer period, but Waqar was better (and more versatile in different conditions) during his peak.
Anderson at his best is closer to Waqar at non-peak than Waqar at his peak and Waqar's peak lasted for five years.

Even if you consider Waqar's best decade which is usually what Anderson's 'good' period is considered to be, Waqar averaged around 21 with 5pm over the 90s. The idea that they are comparable is nonsense imo.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Waqar at his best has had very few peers though. But that argument is neither here nor there as you have to rate players on their careers, not just their peaks.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Waqar sure was entertaining as well. Not many more exciting bowlers out there. Even if bottle caps may have been involved :ph34r:
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Waqar's entire career is 373 wickets in 87 games @ 23.5 over 14 whole years.
Yeah and I don't think I argued anywhere Jimmy is in that class. Waqar is an ATG, Jimmy is a great to me, the tier below that. I just pointed out that comparing peak Waqar to anyone will most likely end with Waqar being the winner, so its unfair to most bowlers, not just Jimmy.
 

Top