Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[Arachnodouche]

If your skills don't translate into tangible results, are you really that skillful to begin with?

 

[Red]

Which is why the length of the peak is one of the main things that separate great bowlers from merely good ones. There are lots of bowlers who are great for a couple of years, it is the ones who are still great 10 years later who are special.

I see your point, but I guess the point I was trying to make is there are a heap of variables involved. Someone might be brilliant for a few years, because their pace combines with other elements, but as they get older, they drop pace, and are still effective, but not as brilliant. Whereas someone like McGrath is consistently the same through his whole career, not being as reliant on pace. Who do we say is better, McGrath, who has a lower average and sustained brilliance over a long period, or Wasim, who for a few years was almost unplayable, and for the rest of his career was very very good? Probably doesn't really matter, but it's a good discussion!

I think the case for Anderson is he has worked his technique out fully now, and he knows how to be the best he can, where 5 or 6 years ago he hadn't done that.

 

[Jager]

There's something charming about those players who have graced the game as gods for a few years then vanished/slowly receded from the limelight.

 

[Valer]

Mitchel Johnson can swing it both ways and has atleast a yard of pace on Anderson. This is exactly why potential shouldn't be confused with results.

Actually this is an interesting one why do inconsistent players get less leeway here (or in general) than players who were just crap for long periods (then good).

Eg. If Anderson had retired after the Brisbane test in 2010 who would actually call him a worse Bowler than MJ.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't think anyone is rating Anderson where they are at the moment because of what he does with the ball. They do because he's probably been arguably the most consistent bowler over the past couple of years (think most would still take Steyn, even on that measure) in a team that has risen to first on the rankings. It's pretty similar to Brett Lee in the tail end of his career, people weren't rating him on his career, but what he'd done in more recent history.

In saying that, if Anderson fell out of love with cricket tomorrow and stopped, I'd probably have him on that Brett Lee level at the moment, maybe just ahead; but obviously Anderson has cricket left in him.

Be interesting to see if, as he gets into his 30s and the pace winds down a bit, whether England will stick with him, or if they'll go the Hoggard route especially with their depth in bowling.

 

[Ruckus]

If your skills don't translate into tangible results, are you really that skillful to begin with?

Na. Anderson might be a master of swinging the ball both ways at will, but the bottom line is there must be other areas which are letting him down. Otherwise he would be getting even better returns. You can't have mastered all of the facets intrinsic to quality bowling and still be falling short of where you should be. It would just be a complete contradiction...there is no such thing as being 'unlucky' over a long period of time in cricket.

 

[kyear2]

If your skills don't translate into tangible results, are you really that skillful to begin with?

+1

Fully agree. As a bowler you are much more than a batsman jusdged by your stats as your only job is to get wickets for as little runs as possible from as little balls as possible. Wasim also got a disproportionately high number of tail end wickets. Wasim was very skillful, but that didn't always translate to his primary job, taking top order wickets. There fore he wasn't as good at his job as Mcgrath, regardless of who batsmen would have prefered to face.

 

[FBU]

Na. Anderson might be a master of swinging the ball both ways at will, but the bottom line is there must be other areas which are letting him down. Otherwise he would be getting even better returns. You can't have mastered all of the facets intrinsic to quality bowling and still be falling short of where you should be. It would just be a complete contradiction...there is no such thing as being 'unlucky' over a long period of time in cricket.

I would say lbws are his weakness. Bowls too short and a lot of the time the ball going over the stumps and/or down leg.


Jason Gillespie says England attack are like Australia's all-conquering bowlers - Mirror Online

 

[uvelocity]

I would say lbws are his weakness. Bowls too short and a lot of the time the ball going over the stumps and/or down leg.

yep. In the past he has often tried too hard, bowling a mixed bag of innies, outies short and full. When he bowls 95% in the same area, say outswing consistently, then bowls a wicked in dipper as his wicket ball - bowling to a plan, he is very dangerous.

Sadly for his English fans, he hasn't done this enough for some reason. I think its mental more than anything.

 

[Migara]

I think if you wanted to be picky then what Saker said is technically correct as the Aussies had 2 of the top 5 pacemen and 1 of the best 2 spinners in the world in their attack and currently England have the same. Shows the lack of depth worldwide though that Swann is one of the best spinners around at present.

Only difference is that one of those pacers and the spinner in Aussie side were ATG bowlers, while it's not the same about English side.

 

[smash84]

i would say that judging fast bowlers against each other is pretty hard. A fast bowler might have a career of 8-10 years, yet only be in their "peak" for 3-4 years. The rest of the time they will still be very good, but not quite as potent.

Akram is a case in point. Youtube him in his prime and he was absolutely amazing. Ball bending like a banana at incredible pace. High quality batsmen looking like complete nuffies.when he lost a bit of pace he was still a really good bowler, but not quite as potent. I'm sure if you isolated 2 or 3 years of his career, his stats would look ridiculously good.

Then you have a guy like mcgrath. Highly skilled, but not reliant on pace. Action was economical. He could sustain his "peak" over a much longer period than akram could sustain his. So his career stats are amazing. However, if you asked top batsmen whether they'd rather face akram in his prime, or mcgrath in his prime, i'd reckon most would rather face mcgrath.

So the problem with judging really quick bowlers who have long careers on stats alone is that their "peak" is a relatively short period of time compared to their actual career length.

* aware mcgrath was a great bowler, just using him as comparison..

+2

 

[Furball]

Na. Anderson might be a master of swinging the ball both ways at will, but the bottom line is there must be other areas which are letting him down. Otherwise he would be getting even better returns. You can't have mastered all of the facets intrinsic to quality bowling and still be falling short of where you should be. It would just be a complete contradiction...there is no such thing as being 'unlucky' over a long period of time in cricket.

He hasn't exactly failed much in the last 2 years has he?

 

[Ruckus]

Na he hasn't, but in the context of discussing ATG status etc. it's not like averaging 25 for the past two years is mind-boggling or anything. As a comparison someone like Steyn has averaged 20 or less in 4 years of his career so far.

 

[Ikki]

It's actually quite funny as a comparison. How unwilling people were to let Steyn into the club and Anderson's already drawing comparisons to McGrath. Utterly silly.

 

[Jacknife]

I know Saker originally said that the some of the spells bowled by England were reminiscent of the great Aussie attack but who's actually compared Jimmy to McGarth and actually said he was as good as him, or has said he's a ATG bowler now, this thread gone well away from what was originally posted.

 

[zaremba]

Yep, this thread has a nice little undercurrent of people who are generally fond of having a pop at the English seeking to ridicule claims that no English person has actually made.

 

[smash84]

you mean its a straw thread

 

[Furball]

Na he hasn't, but in the context of discussing ATG status etc. it's not like averaging 25 for the past two years is mind-boggling or anything. As a comparison someone like Steyn has averaged 20 or less in 4 years of his career so far.

Ftr Anderson's average for the last 2 years is 22.94, not 25.

 

[Teja.]

To the bloke who mentioned Waqar, It must be remembered that;

He still averaged 23 over a 14 year career.

In the 1990s, over a full decade, he averaged 21 at an average of five wickets a match. An entire decade.

For a period of five years, 1990-1994, he averaged six wickets @ 18 striking at 31 a game in one of the more competitive attacks in world history.

Call me when whoever you're comparing him to has a peak good enough to average 21 over a decade etc.

Waqar's career is not one of part ATGness and part ****ness. It is part beyond ATG-ness and part good bowler making him a slightly, very slightly lesser bowler perhaps to Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee etc. and statistically up there with pretty much every bowler.

 

[Ruckus]

Ftr Anderson's average for the last 2 years is 22.94, not 25.

oh sorry yeah I meant for the past two years as in for 2011 and so far in 2012, so really in absolute terms about a year and a half (no intention of cherry picking). Whatever the cutoff you use anyway, the point is the same - for him to enter into the 'great' category he will surely have to have a lot of years where he is averaging low 20's or better.