Ray Lindwall vs James Anderson

[PlayerComparisons]

.

 

[Johan]

bruh

 

[kyear2]

Is this serous?

 

[BazBall21]

Is this serous?

Probably not

 

[sayon basak]

Lindwall played with plumbers.

 

[Coronis]

Lindwall played with plumbers.

Anderson should have been a plumber.

 

[kyear2]

I hear former cricketers calling Anderson the greatest ever, and I can't grasp on what basis that would be.

They would have seen some of Steyn, and have access to averages and footage of players from the past. At least heard of McGrath

On what grounds are these claims made?

At least with Ponting and Kallis there's an argument to be made. He mastered two arts and was hella good at a 3rd.

 

[Thala_0710]

I hear former cricketers calling Anderson the greatest ever, and I can't grasp on what basis that would be.

They would have seen some of Steyn, and have access to averages and footage of players from the past. At least heard of McGrath

On what grounds are these claims made?

At least with Ponting and Kallis there's an argument to be made. He mastered two arts and was hella good at a 3rd.

For some people, volume is everything. They just feel that if you could keep your place in the side and performance to a decent enough level for a long time over much higher quality in a shorter time period, you are greater.

 

[kyear2]

For some people, volume is everything. They just feel that if you could keep your place in the side and performance to a decent enough level for a long time over much higher quality in a shorter time period, you are greater.

And that explains the Sachin hype, but you should at least be up there in quality to qualify for such lofty rankings.

Even in other sports that would make Curtis Martin better than Barry Sanders or even Jim Brown.

Or for basketball that means that LeBron and Kareem are easily better than Jordan, hell even Karl Malone.

By that same logic Alonso is greater than Michael and Sena.

Longevity has been greatly overplayed in most sports and apparently primarily ours. Especially at the expense of what really matters, dominance or to more to the point, winning.

 

[DrWolverine]

For some people, volume is everything. They just feel that if you could keep your place in the side and performance to a decent enough level for a long time over much higher quality in a shorter time period, you are greater.

Longevity vs Peak is always an argument.

If you have a very small peak or you have longevity but mediocre throughout your career, it means nothing

 

[DrWolverine]

In Sachin’s case, it was not just longevity alone. He has the 10th best peak(80 innings) by any batsman(outside of Don).

Among 9 batsmen ahead of him, 6 of them had their peak in 2000s which is generally considered an easy era for batsmen.

 

[shortpitched713]

Anderson should get some credit here for sheer career longevity and Tests played as a pacer. He has more than 3 times as many matches played and wickets taken as Lindwall. If I had to choose one for their entire career, it would definitely be Anderson.

Lindwall quality of course somewhat better, but the average difference I think a bit inflated by Anderson early career struggles which also happenede to be in a tough batting era. On balance have to favor Anderson slightly.

 

[Coronis]

Anderson should get some credit here for sheer career longevity and Tests played as a pacer. He has more than 3 times as many matches played and wickets taken as Lindwall. If I had to choose one for their entire career, it would definitely be Anderson.

Lindwall quality of course somewhat better, but the average difference I think a bit inflated by Anderson early career struggles which also happenede to be in a tough batting era. On balance have to favor Anderson slightly.

Thats the whole point of a career average iirc, taking into account both a players struggles and triumphs.

 

[BazBall21]

Thats the whole point of a career average iirc, taking into account both a players struggles and triumphs.

That type of comment appears regularly because Anderson was very good from 2010 onwards which is still a very long career for a seamer. It isn't guaranteed that bowlers who are compared to him that played 14 or less years would have done better than him if they also played the extra 6.

Lindwall is still the winner here though.

 

[shortpitched713]

If you take Lindwall, Miller, and Davidson and add all their Tests and wickets together it's not as much as Anderson on his own. That's the whole institution of Australian post war pace bowling vs one swingy boi.

Point isn't to say he's the absolute greatest, but he's the Tendulkar of pace bowling (and his longevity as a pace bowler is arguably more impressive than Tendulkar's feat). His quality might not be at quite the very top, but I can't justify him being any lower than the lower rungs of genuine ATG (top 20 bowlers all time), slightly above the likes of Lindwall.

 

[BazBall21]

Lindwall makes my top 50 cricketers of all time

 

[shortpitched713]

If you take Lindwall, Miller, and Davidson and add all their Tests and wickets together it's not as much as Anderson on his own. That's the whole institution of Australian post war pace bowling vs one swingy boi.

Point isn't to say he's the absolute greatest, but he's the Tendulkar of pace bowling (and his longevity as a pace bowler is arguably more impressive than Tendulkar's feat). His quality might not be at quite the very top, but I can't justify him being any lower than the lower rungs of genuine ATG (top 20 bowlers all time), slightly above the likes of Lindwall.

After making the argument, I think there is a case that it just comes down to which of peak and longevity you argue for. For mine I'd say I have the immense peak guys of Waqar and Lindwall occupying the same tier as as the immense longevity of performance of Anderson.

 

[sayon basak]

Lindwall makes my top 50 cricketers of all time

Can I see your top 50?

 

[Coronis]

That type of comment appears regularly because Anderson was very good from 2010 onwards which is still a very long career for a seamer. It isn't guaranteed that bowlers who are compared to him that played 14 or less years would have done better than him if they also played the extra 6.

Lindwall is still the winner here though.

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.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

The period in which he is only "rather ****ing good" lasts about two of Lindwall's careers in terms of Tests played. At some point, we have to value the sheer magnitude of that accomplishment, like we do with Tendulkar (don't get me wrong, he's not as absolutely good in his field as Tendulkar, let alone Hayden).