Pat Cummins vs James Anderson

[PlayerComparisons]

Cummins being primarily a first change bowler is a good point. It’s potentially cost him a point or two in average.

 

[DrWolverine]

I've always said ability/quality wise Rabada is more of a wicket taker and strike bowler.

Donald. Steyn. Rabada
The legacy continues

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Donald. Steyn. Rabada
The legacy continues

And then Jansen hopefully

 

[Johan]

Donald. Steyn. Rabada
The legacy continues

Adcock
Pollock
Big Van Der Bijl
Donald
Steyn
Rabada

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Averaged 35 against Australia. Terrific longevity, but that's it compared with Cummins.

Who would you rather face? It's Anderson every day of the week. Which means the answer to the question in the poll is Cummins

what if Cummins average fades away from now, he gets bashed…stats can change. At the age of 32 Cummins was well ahead of a 32 year old Anderson.
Had Anderson stopped at 500 wickets, Cummins wins.
Also Anderson was just a duke - overcast bowler at that period. When his career ended he wasn’t that! He averaged better from 26 to 24 in England. Averaging 30 in India can’t be called failure. His stats weren’t that good when he was 32.

His Longevity deserves respect. So Cummins if he maintains around the same stats for 90 odd Tests with nearly 400 wickets, then as far as stats don’t go Bothamesque Cummins will be better.

 

[Burgey]

What if Cummins gets better?

 

[BazBall21]

Cummins. More destructive.

 

[kyear2]

Both of them are better than Anderson

This.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

what if Cummins average fades away from now, he gets bashed…stats can change. At the age of 32 Cummins was well ahead of a 32 year old Anderson.
Had Anderson stopped at 500 wickets, Cummins wins.
Also Anderson was just a duke - overcast bowler at that period. When his career ended he wasn’t that! He averaged better from 26 to 24 in England. Averaging 30 in India can’t be called failure. His stats weren’t that good when he was 32.

His Longevity deserves respect. So Cummins if he maintains around the same stats for 90 odd Tests with nearly 400 wickets, then as far as stats don’t go Bothamesque Cummins will be better.

Cummins is just too far ahead on quality for Anderson’s longevity to matter tbh

 

[kyear2]

what if Cummins average fades away from now, he gets bashed…stats can change. At the age of 32 Cummins was well ahead of a 32 year old Anderson.
Had Anderson stopped at 500 wickets, Cummins wins.
Also Anderson was just a duke - overcast bowler at that period. When his career ended he wasn’t that! He averaged better from 26 to 24 in England. Averaging 30 in India can’t be called failure. His stats weren’t that good when he was 32.

His Longevity deserves respect. So Cummins if he maintains around the same stats for 90 odd Tests with nearly 400 wickets, then as far as stats don’t go Bothamesque Cummins will be better.

While longevity has its pluses, it can't override quality, and Cummins is better than Anderson.