Ranking the candidates for best fast bowler ever - ~20 contenders

[garylyon]

Tbf that was against an aging lineup or a team in transition, respectively. There's a reason he avg that high in Aus or India, while someone like Steyn doesn't.

Tbf Anderson overall hasn't been bad in India when one keeps in mind the conditions. Even best Indian quicks who had plenty of experience bowling in Indian conditions did not perform any better than Jimmy; his average in India is comparable to those of Dev and Zaheer. Steyn is definitely in a wholly different tier though.

 

[trundler]

Perhaps Jimmy is the fast bowling equivalent of Kumble. In the presence of such a special and supreme bowler, his decent record looks subpar.

 

[cnerd123]

People really need to stop acting as tho statistics actually reveal the quality of a players performance

In most overseas tours Anderson goes from strike bowler to support bowler - bowling dry, building pressure, putting in long hard spells, and thus making the others in the attack more potent. He's naturally going to finish with a poorer average as a result, but that doesn't mean he bowled badly.

 

[Bolo]

The Ashwin comparison sounds about right. Ashwin hasn't got the longevity yet, so it's early days though.

 

[trundler]

The Ashwin comparison sounds about right. Ashwin hasn't got the longevity yet, so it's early days though.

Nah, the Kumble one is better. A beast at home, learned to be decent away later in his career, has taken a **** load of wickets no one saw coming but not quite an elite bowler.

 

[Bolo]

Nah, the Kumble one is better. A beast at home, learned to be decent away later in his career, has taken a **** load of wickets no one saw coming but not quite an elite bowler.

Fair play. Sounds like a write-up for Ashwin as well though.

 

[Starfighter]

People really need to stop acting as tho statistics actually reveal the quality of a players performance

They're a pretty good indicator.

In most overseas tours Anderson goes from strike bowler to support bowler - bowling dry, building pressure, putting in long hard spells, and thus making the others in the attack more potent. He's naturally going to finish with a poorer average as a result, but that doesn't mean he bowled badly.

I don't buy him acting in a support bowler role, at least not on his last two Australian tours. He was certainly still one of the strike bowlers on both, simply less effective than at home. Sounds like you made up something to try to make a performance seem better than it was.

 

[harsh.ag]

You know how you can make the others in the attack more potent - by taking wickets

 

[OverratedSanity]

People really need to stop acting as tho statistics actually reveal the quality of a players performance

In most overseas tours Anderson goes from strike bowler to support bowler - bowling dry, building pressure, putting in long hard spells, and thus making the others in the attack more potent. He's naturally going to finish with a poorer average as a result, but that doesn't mean he bowled badly.

Anderson isnt bad overseas. But it's fair enough to say he's not as good as the truly elite bowlers. The fact that he's not the same strike bowler away from home as you said points to exactly this. He's very good. Just not truly elite.

 

[Borges]

You know how you can make the others in the attack more potent - by taking wickets

Yes; the oft-parroted CricketWeb theory of more competition implying less wickets for a particular bowler is bogus theory.

 

[Bolo]

The idea of support and leading bowlers is heavily overstated unless you are looking at ARs etc, who are in the team to do more than bowl. Being considered a support bowler is just code for less effective bowler.

 

[Starfighter]

I saw two wonderful definitions somewhere once, referring to the tendency of people to say that a mediocre bowler is 'there as support' or that someone like Starc should be excused their fair share of overs because 'they're a strike bowler'. A stock bowler is someone who's not good enough, and a strike bowler is someone who's not fit (or accurate) enough.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes; the oft-parroted CricketWeb theory of more competition implying less wickets for a particular bowler is bogus theory.

Hmm, I believe there was a lengthy and painful thread where this tangentially came up recently. And I think despite your assertion it actually does have some merit.

 

[TheJediBrah]

People really need to stop acting as tho statistics actually reveal the quality of a players performance

In most overseas tours Anderson goes from strike bowler to support bowler - bowling dry, building pressure, putting in long hard spells, and thus making the others in the attack more potent. He's naturally going to finish with a poorer average as a result, but that doesn't mean he bowled badly.

This sounds great but I don't know if there is actually any truth to it whatsoever

 

[Hicheal Michael]

Will be interesting to see how Philander is regarded in 10+ years time. Away average of 27, yet only took 76 wickets in 26 tests @ 2.9 Wpm. Adelaide 2012 might be forgotten by then.

Seemed to be a bit more fortunate than Anderson in many ways.

Both fine bowlers.

 

[Flem274*]

>opens end of atg bowling thread out of boredom to read people bickering about mcgrath, marshall and hadlee for the 100000th time
>posts are all about james anderson and anil kumble

 

[TheJediBrah]

Will be interesting to see how Philander is regarded in 10+ years time. Away average of 27, yet only took 76 wickets in 26 tests @ 2.9 Wpm. Adelaide 2012 might be forgotten by then.

Seemed to be a bit more fortunate than Anderson in many ways.

Both fine bowlers.

Kids 50 years from now wondering why a bowler faking an injury to avoid a road is called "Philandering", will be surprised to find out that it was actually named after a player from the 2010s

 

[cnerd123]

Anderson isnt bad overseas. But it's fair enough to say he's not as good as the truly elite bowlers. The fact that he's not the same strike bowler away from home as you said points to exactly this. He's very good. Just not truly elite.

Yea that's fair. Sometimes a bowler is just limited in terms of their skillset, and even if they bowl really really well they're not going to end up with an average below 30 in some conditions. I think you still give them credit for doing a good job relative to what they bring to the table.

Anderson is very very good. He isn't elite. Gillespie wasn't elite either. I can't think of any time or set of circumstances where Gillespie could or did rip apart a side on his own - Anderson does it on a regular basis in England.

 

[Slifer]

Lol at people implying stats dont count. Since when? Fact of matter is, no matter what excuses one comes up with, Anderson was a lion at home and a lamb away. I've read his name mentioned in the same sentence as a Walsh and even Amby/McGrath ( by Alec Stewart). Just no!!! I like the comparison with Kumble. He took loads of wickets at a very good average but he was no where close to his atg contemporaries.

 

[Slifer]

>opens end of atg bowling thread out of boredom to read people bickering about mcgrath, marshall and hadlee for the 100000th time
>posts are all about james anderson and anil kumble

Lol . Nature of this forum I suppose.