Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[Jacknife]

I just don't see the hyperbole here, or any basis for your implication that it's the English getting carried away with themselves.

Quite apart from the fact that he's Australian, and the bowling coach so probably entitled to talk his lads up a bit, Saker wasn't seriously suggesting Anderson is McGrath's equal. I think this is pretty obvious if you read what he was saying in context rather than looking just at a headline or the odd quote in isolation. His basic point is a valid one: that the English bowling attack at the moment are highly skilled, have outstanding spells, and manage to achieve some of the strangulating consistency which was the hallmark of Warne/McGrath's bowling.

And nor have the Poms here been talking Anderson up unrealistically. We're all agreed, I think, that he's a damn good bowler - freakishly skilled, to use your expression - but I don't see anyone saying he's as good as McGrath was.

Anyway, the "McGrath is better than Anderson" debate can only run for so long (ie nil seconds) before it becomes sterile, so I'll just add that in my view there are three good things that need to be said about Anderson. First, away from the pitch, he seems like a great guy. Second, the way he has matured into a high class bowler after a difficult start to his career has been admirable. And third, his ability to get the ball to swing either way - both with orthodox and reverse swing - is pretty bloody remarkable.

Completely agree, especially the highlighted part.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Who is the better test match bowler, Akhtar or Anderson?

 

[Pup Clarke]

It was always obvious that he would come good

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Who is the better test match bowler, Akhtar or Anderson?

Well Anderson basically because he is fit and plays nearly all tests, Akhtar was a brilliant bowler when fit but you never knew how many games you would get out of him. Also had issues with his ticker at times.

 

[GIMH]

It was IMO anyway. Backed Broad from very early on. Clearly had the ability.

 

[Cricketismylife]

There is no real excuse for editing out parts of Anderson's career just to make him look better. It's his problem that he was inadequate in the first few years, and obviously it should tarnish his record as he was a liability to England in that period.

If we are start selecting parts of careers just because we like a player then the possibilities are endless. Waqar becomes GOAT because second half of his career he was injured, so we should assume he really averaged 19. Samaraweera becomes even more amazing, because like Anderson he changed his game completely, and since the change is averaging somewhere is the mid 60s, including decent scores away from home.

Anderson isn't as good as Gillespie as it stands. There is a massive 4 point difference in their averages, how can Anderson justifiably be better? My memory of Gillespie is of a guy who I hardly ever saw bowl badly or let Australia down until the period before and at the 2005 Ashes. There were period when he was more dangerous than Mcgrath, and he was an important and underrated part of Australia's dominance.

As for Akhtar v Anderson...Anderson is the much better team man, and will take many more wickets due to staying fit and playing more matches. So Anderson is the more reliable performer. Akhtar is clearly the better bowler once he's on the park.

 

[BackFootPunch]

There is no real excuse for editing out parts of Anderson's career just to make him look better. It's his problem that he was inadequate in the first few years, and obviously it should tarnish his record as he was a liability to England in that period.

If we are start selecting parts of careers just because we like a player then the possibilities are endless. Waqar becomes GOAT because second half of his career he was injured, so we should assume he really averaged 19. Samaraweera becomes even more amazing, because like Anderson he changed his game completely, and since the change is averaging somewhere is the mid 60s, including decent scores away from home.

Anderson isn't as good as Gillespie as it stands. There is a massive 4 point difference in their averages, how can Anderson justifiably be better? My memory of Gillespie is of a guy who I hardly ever saw bowl badly or let Australia down until the period before and at the 2005 Ashes. There were period when he was more dangerous than Mcgrath, and he was an important and underrated part of Australia's dominance.
.

Yeah totally agree with this. Part of what makes someone like McGrath one of the greatest fast bowlers or all time is that save for a few Tests at the start of his career he was exceptional for 120-odd matches.

McGrath shouldn't suffer the ignominy of being compared to a bowler like Anderson, as good as he now is, just because it took the latter half a decade to work out how to bowl at Test level.

They're not even in the same league. The 30 months since the start of 2010 have been by far the best continuous period of Anderson's career, yet in that time he's been closer to Courtney Walsh-like than to McGrath.

 

[kyear2]

I stay amused...Dale Steyn is still around, so is a certain Philander who may or may not consolidate on his early promise, and is far likelier to be an apt comparison with the great man if indeed he does. Anderson is good, no doubt, but good enough to even mention in the same breath as the guy regularly coupled with Marshall as the greatest to have held ball in hand? Mcgrath was indomitable, ridiculously self assured, and freakishly skilled at what he did. Anderson, so far, can only lay claim to the last of those attributes..and to be honest, a fit Zaheer is every bit his equal in terms of pure skill, and figures in terms of late career bloom, especially considering the conditions he has to bowl in. But hey, it's the best English bowler in a generation so let the hyperbole ensue!

+1

Anderson is a very good bowler, but lets not get carried away. He isn't even the best bowler in the World today as that title still lies with Mr. Steyn.

 

[kyear2]

Didn't realise we were comparing Anderson with mythical creatures.

 

[tooextracool]

Funnily enough, reckon Australia's bowling depth was almost better when they weren't, comparatively, as strong, in the late 1990s and then just pushing into the early 2000s. Reiffel, Fleming, Kasprowicz and Bichel struggled massively to get into the side around that stage.

And you had Miller and MacGill as spin cover.

Compare it with the vintage of 2004 (Bracken as a Test bowler, Williams) urgh.

This is very true, Australia's reserve strength definitely suffered in the 2000s and this was evident in the home series against India in 2003 when both Warne and McGrath were out. Same can be said about their batting stocks which declined over night. It is amazing to think that even 10 years ago, their 7 reserve batsmen would probably beat out the top 7 today.

 

[Valer]

I think a more apt comparable (at this point in time) is Stuart Clark.

 

[Dan]

Warne is the greatest bowler of all time because he could run though a whole team with a mango

 

[zaremba]

I wish all the NZ fans on here would stop going on about how Ross Taylor is as good as Don Bradman. I mean, sure, he's a good player, but let's not get carried away with ourselves, he's not even the best batsman in the world today and even to mention him in the same breath as Bradman is ridiculous.

 

[BackFootPunch]

I wish all the NZ fans on here would stop going on about how Ross Taylor is as good as Don Bradman. I mean, sure, he's a good player, but let's not get carried away with ourselves, he's not even the best batsman in the world today and even to mention him in the same breath as Bradman is ridiculous.

But if you only include the innings in which Taylor scored 50 or more he averages a Bradmanesque 96.05.

The other 46 innings of his career can surely be put down to 'finding his way' at Test level and shouldn't be held against him overall

 

[uvelocity]

hahaha funny cause its true

 

[benchmark00]

But if you only include the innings in which Taylor scored 50 or more he averages a Bradmanesque 96.05.

The other 46 innings of his career can surely be put down to 'finding his way' at Test level and shouldn't be held against him overall

Victory.

 

[GIMH]

But if you only include the innings in which Taylor scored 50 or more he averages a Bradmanesque 96.05.

The other 46 innings of his career can surely be put down to 'finding his way' at Test level and shouldn't be held against him overall

Yeah taking scores out under 50 is EXACTLY the same as saying 'look how good he's been since year x'

Straw men out in force in this thread

 

[benchmark00]

 

[Spikey]

in innings in which he scores 50 or more, Shane Watson averages about 53.

 

[Spikey]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

pakistan ruin it