• 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

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
I never realized how great Waqar's stats were. Never would have really considered him an ATG but he definitely looks the part upon review
 

ankitj

International Coach
I never realized how great Waqar's stats were. Never would have really considered him an ATG but he definitely looks the part upon review
Glad that you realized that. But how did you ever think otherwise? Waqar is an undisputed ATG.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The competition for top 10 pacers in history is incredibly tight TBF, not sure whether Waqar makes it into that echelon. Still an ATG depending on where you place the cutoff.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I would consider Waqar and Michael Holding to be very comparable and pretty much impossible to separate. Amazing destructive bowlers who were thrilling to watch but a smidgen behind the absolute top tier quicks of all time.
 

trundler

Hall of Fame Member
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.
Yeah but McGrath was more effective in England too tho
 

Coronis

International Regular
Let’s not compensate for under rating by over rating. He was effective and benefitted from the kind of support Anderson never had.
He also has a far more well rounded record and was far more successful against the best teams of his time. Simple look at their home and away records really spells out the difference between them tbh.

Walsh
Home - 229 wickets @ 23.70
Away - 290 wickets @ 25.03

Anderson
Home - 384 wickets @ 23.83
Away - 216 wickets @ 32.05
 

_00_deathscar

U19 Captain
Again, how or why is anyone placing Anderson at the same level as Walsh? Walsh both benefits and suffers from being West Indian. His record is just a bit below an undisputed ATG’s and there are almost no holes in his record, not even at an old age. He has the longevity to go with it too, and only didn’t play more tests because he’s not English.
 

Groundking

International Debutant
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.
During Jimmy's peak (2014-18) Jimmy took 225 wickets at 21.49.... During this period he averaged sub 30 in Australia and New Zealand and sub 20 in England, UAE and Windies....
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
A peak of 4-5 years means all those averages are probably from just one tour to each of those places. Not sure you can glean much from that.
The filter also cuts off the first four tests of the 2013-14 series where he averaged 44 overall and includes the SCG match which was on a bowling friendly pitch IIRC
 

Top