Ray Lindwall vs James Anderson

[BazBall21]

It doesn’t mean you can cut out the years of his career when he was poor just because he had a long run of good form.

Even this “very good” period of 2010 onwards is still easily inferior to many other pacers careers, including Lindwall.

I used to agree, but I was introduced on here to the point that if X player has a significantly longer career than Y player, it's got to be taken into account that we don't know how Y player would have performed in those extra years. That is a general thing rather than this comparison here. And tbh, it's made sense to me ever since. Hence we also had the Dravid v Barrington discussion, and I get the impression I rate Gordon Greenidge a touch higher than you do.

Of course, it should still be accounted that some players get external advantages/disadvantages when it comes to longevity. I never disputed that Anderson had his limitations, nor that Lindwall is ahead of him.

 

[Coronis]

I used to agree, but I was introduced on here to the point that if X player has a significantly longer career than Y player, it's got to be taken into account that we don't know how Y player would have performed in those extra years. That is a general thing rather than this comparison here. And tbh, it's made sense to me ever since. Hence we also had the Dravid v Barrington discussion, and I get the impression I rate Gordon Greenidge a touch higher than you do.

Of course, it should still be accounted that some players get external advantages/disadvantages when it comes to longevity. I never disputed that Anderson had his limitations, nor that Lindwall is ahead of him.

Of course longevity has always and will always be (rightfully) a factor in rating players and is for me.

But specifically when it comes to Anderson his “incredible” longevity is brought up over and over. And then also mentioned at the same time is oh he averaged x from 2010 onwards. i.e with Anderson people want to have their cake and eat it too. Even when his best stats from “when he became good” aren’t as good as other pacers whole career it suddenly becomes a valid comparison because he has “incredible longevity”.

I don’t know if this is actually just Anderson specific or if it is just significantly more pronounced in his comparisons.

Either way it bugs me.

 

[BazBall21]

Of course longevity has always and will always be (rightfully) a factor in rating players and is for me.

But specifically when it comes to Anderson his “incredible” longevity is brought up over and over. And then also mentioned at the same time is oh he averaged x from 2010 onwards. i.e with Anderson people want to have their cake and eat it too. Even when his best stats from “when he became good” aren’t as good as other pacers whole career it suddenly becomes a valid comparison because he has “incredible longevity”.

I don’t know if this is actually just Anderson specific or if it is just significantly more pronounced in his comparisons.

Either way it bugs me.

Yeah I understand that. He is probably a very distinctive example of what you're saying (and naturally discussed more) as he had a very underwhelming first 30% of his career for someone who is at least an ATVG and had an unusually long career by any standards.

I think regardless of what's right and wrong when it comes to conveying his case in comparisons, he was a skillful&efficient enough bowler for long enough to be at least an ATVG, but wasn't as destructive as most (or arguably all depending on ATG criteria) ATG pace bowlers incl Ray.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Anderson’s WPM even during his peak is very low by ATG standards

 

[BazBall21]

He wasn't a very destructive bowler. In his peak, England's slip fielding was woeful but his bowling load was lower in the second innings.

 

[Coronis]

tbf Anderson’s WPM isn’t something to bring up as a negative in a comparison with Lindwall. (though he played in a stronger attack in a more draw heavy era iirc)

 

[Johan]

@OverratedSanity did your fingers slip, friend?