Well it's an interesting point; who should be considered better, a bowler who is picked in their prime, plays for 5 years, and ends up having a final average of 22...or, a bowler who is picked earlier, plays for 8 years, has the exact same final 5 years as the first bowler but only ends up averaging 26 because of a poor first 3 years? The first bowler will have a superior average, but less wickets, and the second bowler vice versa.
It's not just stats, because by saying the second bowler has the exact same last 5 years as the first bowler, I really mean the skill level both bowlers possess during that period can be considered as equivalent. So the only difference between them, is that the first bowler was able to make the most of his skills, in some sense, by getting to play test cricket only when his game was completely honed. Whereas, the second bowler was picked perhaps prematurely and took up a few (poor) years in test cricket to develop their game. Maybe kind of like a Broad/Philander situation (or at least that's the direction things seem to be heading atm).
Disagree about his overall stats as an allrounder being "very good"
Fair enough if you're not just talking stats. But really, is it Broad's fault he was picked when he wasn't quite good enough? It was always obvious that he would come good and really I think it worked out for the best him being in the side from the start, but nobody knows what would have happened had he debuted later. He might have come in for the 09 Ashes and would therefore have (without checking) gun stats. But it wouldn't make him any better as a bowler, would it?
yes. It is part of his record.
He won't become an all time great but will probably stand at a lower level like Courtney Walsh does, bloody good but not quite great. One of England's best, yes, but not an all time great.
But thats not my point. broad played those games and they are part of his record. But had he been selected two years later nobody would be able to use tats against him. He's shown he has massive ability so what more can he do? Gillespie may have been better aged 21 than Broad but aged 30ish Gillespie was horrendous so in four years let's dig this and see.
Watson is a very good all-rounder. So all good. I would add however, that Watson has only taken 59 wickets, and Botham took 383. And Botham shouldered a HELL of a lot more of the bowling load for his team than Watson does for his. Botham was regularly a new ball bowler, or first change. Watson is generally the fifth bowler.Valer said:
Yes, because that's how all the players recognised as all time greats achieved it...
More than aware, I was responding to the fact that my emphasis on Anderson's last three seasons was 'cherry picking'.
