Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[Cricketismylife]

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.

Ye as long as everyone accepts that Anderson is nowhere close to being an all time great, will never be close to an all time great and is in the Zaheer Khan/Vaas territory at the moment.

 

[Furball]

Of course, it's hard to compare Anderson to the "great" Australian attack as we're comparing apples and oranges. I'm pretty sure Anderson would have career stats to match SF Barnes' if he resorted to bending his elbows like the Australians did.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Please keep the debate constructive, and stay away from baiting.

 

[Furball]

Please keep the debate constructive, and stay away from baiting.

I'm just collecting my evidence for now.

 

[zaremba]

Ye as long as everyone accepts that Anderson is nowhere close to being an all time great, will never be close to an all time great and is in the Zaheer Khan/Vaas territory at the moment.

Fine - and if someone dares to suggest that Anderson's better than Zaheer Khan, the debate can descend back into the depths of "Anderson's not as good as McGrath lolz"?

 

[Furball]

As promised, here is my evidence of my claims that Australia's greatest bowlers bent their elbows:

Evidence of Glenn McGrath's bent elbow

Evidence of Shane Warne's bent elbow

 

[Furball]

Whereas you'll notice in these photos just how much straighter Anderson's elbow is:

Conclusion: Anderson > Warne and McGrath.

 

[Ruckus]

On the other hand though

 

[zaremba]

Clearly both are bent in that picture.

 

[smash84]

 

[Cricketismylife]

Fine - and if someone dares to suggest that Anderson's better than Zaheer Khan, the debate can descend back into the depths of "Anderson's not as good as McGrath lolz"?

Except Anderson is probably better than Zaheer.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Except Anderson is probably better than Zaheer.

No probably about it. Clearly a better bowler.

 

[FBU]

On the other hand though

 

[SteveNZ]

Swinging the ball both ways has been done before and isn't anything magical. Yes he does out-swing it more than most and that is pretty special and mesmerising to watch.

Personally think a fast bowler is far more special when he is able to use the pitch to change the direction rather than swing. That is why I would rate someone like Broad more than Anderson. Broad in UAE was brilliant because he was the only one consistently using the pitch to get wickets. This is why McGrath was so special and also Asif (although he was a ****).

I'm not suggesting he's David Copperfield. But name me names who have the command of a new-ball and ability to swing it both ways at will like he does. It's actually a lot harder to swing a brand new ball both ways than it is one that's been worked on. Add that to the fact he swings it both ways a lot and there is no discernable switch in his action.

Anderson doesn't need to be someone who does his work off the pitch. Fair play to those who do, and I agree with you on that being a very commendable skill, but he has those sorts of bowlers around him and is able to do his damage through the air. A pitch won't always be condusive to seam/cut/whatever but there's always air to swing it through.

In all this, I'm biased. Swing bowling gives me a chub. His dismissal of Kieran Powell (?) where he bowled a couple away from him then swung one back to cannon off stump was incredible skill and execution.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

Nothing has really been letting him down recently at all. The numbers say that. Luck won't go his way all the time - the innings Broad took 7-for at Lord's, Anderson was almost every inch as impressive. Someone who swings it as much as him will have days where edges aren't found. Someone like McGrath had less so of those days due to his craft being different, and Warne was the same. If you missed a flipper, you were out. Gone. If you miss Anderson's outtie, you're most of the time okay.

 

[Migara]

Nothing has really been letting him down recently at all. The numbers say that. Luck won't go his way all the time - the innings Broad took 7-for at Lord's, Anderson was almost every inch as impressive. Someone who swings it as much as him will have days where edges aren't found. Someone like McGrath had less so of those days due to his craft being different, and Warne was the same. If you missed a flipper, you were out. Gone. If you miss Anderson's outtie, you're most of the time okay.

Wane predominantly bowled leg breaks, let me remind you.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I'm not suggesting he's David Copperfield. But name me names who have the command of a new-ball and ability to swing it both ways at will like he does. It's actually a lot harder to swing a brand new ball both ways than it is one that's been worked on. Add that to the fact he swings it both ways a lot and there is no discernable switch in his action.

Anderson doesn't need to be someone who does his work off the pitch. Fair play to those who do, and I agree with you on that being a very commendable skill, but he has those sorts of bowlers around him and is able to do his damage through the air. A pitch won't always be condusive to seam/cut/whatever but there's always air to swing it through.

In all this, I'm biased. Swing bowling gives me a chub. His dismissal of Kieran Powell (?) where he bowled a couple away from him then swung one back to cannon off stump was incredible skill and execution.

Isn't Broad able to swing it both ways? Asif was the last one who could do it, along with the ability to seam the ball as well.

 

[BackFootPunch]

I'm not suggesting he's David Copperfield. But name me names who have the command of a new-ball and ability to swing it both ways at will like he does. It's actually a lot harder to swing a brand new ball both ways than it is one that's been worked on. Add that to the fact he swings it both ways a lot and there is no discernable switch in his action.

Anderson doesn't need to be someone who does his work off the pitch. Fair play to those who do, and I agree with you on that being a very commendable skill, but he has those sorts of bowlers around him and is able to do his damage through the air. A pitch won't always be condusive to seam/cut/whatever but there's always air to swing it through.

In all this, I'm biased. Swing bowling gives me a chub. His dismissal of Kieran Powell (?) where he bowled a couple away from him then swung one back to cannon off stump was incredible skill and execution.

For the reasons you've mentioned, would it be fair to say Anderson is an esteemed member of the 'Pleasure to Watch' club?

He may not be up there with the ATGs that have been mentioned in this thread but in terms of the aesthetic value he brings to a game of cricket he's near the top right?

 

[SteveNZ]

Wane predominantly bowled leg breaks, let me remind you.

Thanks.

I would say Anderson is almost first picked in the Pleasure to Watch XI. Some may disagree and fair play to them, but I'm not moving every time he's in the midst of a spell.

 

[Ruckus]

Anderson doesn't need to be someone who does his work off the pitch. Fair play to those who do, and I agree with you on that being a very commendable skill, but he has those sorts of bowlers around him and is able to do his damage through the air. A pitch won't always be condusive to seam/cut/whatever but there's always air to swing it through.

I think it's more the opposite. Getting a decent amount of swing is dependent on weather conditions etc. and you often see bowlers who pretty much only have swing as their main weapon really struggle when the conditions don't suit or the ball gets older (Anderson isn't really in this category any more though, because he can rely on his consistent line and length). Good seam bowlers have always come off to me as being more useful and adaptable on the whole than swing bowlers. As you implied in your previous post as well, movement off the seam is usually a more dangerous thing because the time to react to the ball changing direction is as short as possible, and often the ball moves just that tiny amount, but enough to take the edge etc. Where as swing is often temperamental, sometimes moving too much, sometimes not enough. There is no doubt it looks more spectacular though when it comes off right.