Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[Jager]

If we wanna start playing these games then I think its fair to say Broad and Anderson's career averages have both taken a hit due to being pitched in at test level far too early.

Then again, maybe the only reason they're so good now is because of their prolonged exposure to test cricket.

 

[ImpatientLime]

In Anderson's case I doubt it.

Smashed by South Africa in 2003 after playing only a handful of FC games. Gets relegated to 12th man duties and spends the next couple of years barely playing any FC cricket and kicking his heels on the England bench with sporadic appearances thrown in where he constantly looked rusty.

The English management teams handling of Anderson in the first part of his career was a sham. Especially throwing him straight into the 2006/07 Ashes series after spending a whole season out with injury.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Obviously there is no comparison between the 2 attacks. Mcgrath and Gillespie beat the English quicks and Warne beats Swann. Lee I think is flattered by his stats, in that he seemed to perform against weaker batting lineups and my memory of him is either cashing in on the good work from Mcgrath, Gillespie and Warne or giving some momentum back to the opposition with loose 4 balls.

I would rate the bowlers

1) Mcgrath
2) Warne
3) Gillespie
4) Anderson
5) Swann
6) Broad
7) Lee

I could see the English bowlers possibly overtaking Gillespie if they continue to bowl brilliiantly, but Mcgrath and Warne won't be overtaken unless something miraculous happens.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Think Anderson is at least breaking even with Gillespie at the moment.

 

[BackFootPunch]

McGrath - All time great.
Warne - All time great.
Gillespie - Australian great.
Lee/Kasprowicz - Pretty damn good but not in the same league as the first three really.

Anderson - Will be an English great.
Broad - Will also be at least an English great but possibly more, could be anything tbh.
Swann - English great, their best spinner since Underwood.
Bresnan/Finn/Tremlett - having any one of them as your weakest bowler indicates your attack is bloody good. Finn could be something special.


That Australian bowling attack is one of the greatest of all time. The current English attack is one of the top 2 in the world right now but I'd argue none of the bowlers have peaked, with the possible exception of Swann. Broad is getting better, Bresnan is still making his way and Anderson continues to perform. There's no reason why they can't sustain their excellence for half a decade or more - which was one of the defining characteristics of the Aussie attack.

I sincerely doubt the English attack will be remembered in 50 years as being as good as McGrath, Gillespie, Warne et al but if they continue their present form they may well be pretty close.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Saker got himself a little attention, which was the whole point in the first place. Plus it was also to promote himself by suggesting that he is the one who has trained these bowlers therefore he must be a bloody great coach.

 

[kyear2]

Obviously there is no comparison between the 2 attacks. Mcgrath and Gillespie beat the English quicks and Warne beats Swann. Lee I think is flattered by his stats, in that he seemed to perform against weaker batting lineups and my memory of him is either cashing in on the good work from Mcgrath, Gillespie and Warne or giving some momentum back to the opposition with loose 4 balls.

I would rate the bowlers

1) Mcgrath
2) Warne
3) Gillespie
4) Anderson
5) Swann
6) Broad
7) Lee

I could see the English bowlers possibly overtaking Gillespie if they continue to bowl brilliiantly, but Mcgrath and Warne won't be overtaken unless something miraculous happens.

Pretty much agree with that order, but probably the only one who would still have Lee above Broad.

That Australian attack was proabaly the most balanced and over all the second best attack of All Time, and any comparison is extremely premature.

 

[Ruckus]

How many batsmen in the world would you say score consistently in those situations?

I would say the majority of batsmen who have similar overall records (averages etc.) would score runs in those conditions more consistently than those two.

 

[SteveNZ]

A coach giving his players a boost of confidence by talking them up. How dare he.

Obviously Swann gets nowhere near Warne, that's outrageous. Anderson isn't McGrath, but no one is. Anderson is going to be an all-time great. He's one hell of a bowler, I cannot remember a pace bowler who had the control of swing both ways that he does.

In the last three years, Anderson has averaged 22.96, 24.85 and 25.44. That is McGrath esque, even if he isn't the line and length freak McGrath. Different methods, similar results.

 

[uvelocity]

A coach giving his players a boost of confidence by talking them up. How dare he.

Obviously Swann gets nowhere near Warne, that's outrageous. Anderson isn't McGrath, but no one is. Anderson is going to be an all-time great. He's one hell of a bowler, I cannot remember a pace bowler who had the control of swing both ways that he does.

In the last three years, Anderson has averaged 22.96, 24.85 and 25.44. That is McGrath esque, even if he isn't the line and length freak McGrath. Different methods, similar results.

If you want to cherry pick pigeon, and pick 3 years in a row you can have your choice of
21
17
21
23
21
15
21
18

start and finish where you like. thats called different method different results.

or you could just say that theres two hundred and ninety six wickets seperating them. that should clear it up.

 

[kyear2]

lolll.

 

[Valer]

If we cherry pick a bit you see why I'm skeptical of Anderson (or Broad for that matter) being as good as even Gillespie.
20.6
15.9
25.8
14.8
26.3
22.5
24.9

(NB: the only cherry picking done to get these numbers is losing the end and missing 1 year.)

 

[SteveNZ]

If you want to cherry pick pigeon, and pick 3 years in a row you can have your choice of
21
17
21
23
21
15
21
18

start and finish where you like. thats called different method different results.

or you could just say that theres two hundred and ninety six wickets seperating them. that should clear it up.

Yeah, I don't know why I'd pick the last three years with Anderson. That's so random in the scheme of things. I probably should have gone third, sixth and fourth years - in that order

Cmon man, it's not cherry picking. It's saying for three years now, he's been absolutely world class. Those three years are the best summary of who he is as a bowler now, not in 2003. There's 269 between them, sure. If Anderson passes him, does that automatically make him better? Is Simon Doull a better bowler than James Pattinson, on that basis?

 

[Valer]

Yeah, I don't know why I'd pick the last three years with Anderson. That's so random in the scheme of things. I probably should have gone third, sixth and fourth years - in that order

Cmon man, it's not cherry picking. It's saying for three years now, he's been absolutely world class. Those three years are the best summary of who he is as a bowler now, not in 2003. There's 269 between them, sure. If Anderson passes him, does that automatically make him better? Is Simon Doull a better bowler than James Pattinson, on that basis?

You know all those years were sequential right (96 -02) and hence taking 3 of them (in order) is indeed a valid comparison???

 

[Spark]

Yeah, I don't know why I'd pick the last three years with Anderson. That's so random in the scheme of things. I probably should have gone third, sixth and fourth years - in that order

Cmon man, it's not cherry picking. It's saying for three years now, he's been absolutely world class. Those three years are the best summary of who he is as a bowler now, not in 2003. There's 269 between them, sure. If Anderson passes him, does that automatically make him better? Is Simon Doull a better bowler than James Pattinson, on that basis?

He didn't just pick three years at random...

 

[Ruckus]

Take Anderson's best year to date in 2010. In 2010 he got 57 wickets for 1309 runs at an average of 22.97. Even if he could replicate those figures for the next 5 years (which frankly I don't think is likely at all) his bowling average would still end up as 'only' 26.4. He'd have a ****load of wickets, but can you really call a fast bowler an ATG if they have an average above 26? You can't just ignore the first 5 years of his career.

 

[Spark]

Yeah it's far too late for him to become an ATG IMO unless he has a truly nonsensical run for the rest of his career

 

[Valer]

Take Anderson's best year to date in 2010. In 2010 he got 57 wickets for 1309 runs at an average of 22.97. Even if he could replicate those figures for the next 5 years (which frankly I don't think is likely at all) his bowling average would still end up as 'only' 26.4. He'd have a ****load of wickets, but can you really call a fast bowler an ATG if they have an average above 26? You can't just ignore the first 5 years of his career.

Broad has a similar problem if he wants to be top tier.

Final Average	Additional Wickets	Additional Runs		Future Average
26		450			10987			24.41555556
25		450			10376			23.05777778
24		450			9765			21.7
23		450			9154			20.34222222
22		450			8543			18.98444444
			
26		400			9687			24.2175
25		400			9126			22.815
24		400			8565			21.4125
23		400			8004			20.01
22		400			7443			18.6075
			
26		300			7087			23.62333333
25		300			6626			22.08666667
24		300			6165			20.55
23		300			5704			19.01333333
22		300			5243			17.47666667
			
			
26		200			4487			22.435
25		200			4126			20.63
24		200			3765			18.825
23		200			3404			17.02
22		200			3043			15.215

 

[Inswing@95mph]

Anderson is having an advantage of the T20 era as well, where batsmen have horrid technique against the moving ball.

The Indian line up which capitulated in England and Australia were way past their due dates. Even the current West Indies batsmen in England are performing better than Indians did last year - that says a lot.

This English bowling line up is not even as good as the 90's SA line up (Klusener, Donald and Pollock). So they need long term excellence to be called an ATG line up.

 

[tooextracool]

Because there is an unwritten rule on CW that you need to average < 25 to be an all time great? I don't know how Anderson's career will finish, but that logic makes absolutely no sense. Basically the easiest way to become an all time great player is to get picked around 27 in your prime play for about 5-6 years and then break down with injury.

As far as what I think of Anderson, it is amazing to think that he is not even 30 yet. He got picked in his nappies and even then it was evident that he was a precocious talent but simply far too raw to be playing test match cricket. In the years to follow, he was in and out of the side, carrying drinks, his action was tampered with and eventually still turned out to be one of the greatest exponents of swing bowling in the last couple of decades. I don't think he has delivered the goods for long enough to be considered an all time great, my money is still on Stuart Broad with that, but if he continues to do what he is doing for the next 4-5 years there will be little reason to disagree with that. Not to mention that his method and skill with the ball is an absolute joy to watch.