How G is an ATG?

[Line and Length]

Ben Hilfenhaus would be a better comparison

Jackson Bird is a class above them both

I'm not even going to bother quoting the inferior stats of both Bird and Hilfenhaus. Neither come close to Anderson or Gillespie on all counts.

Perhaps you and GAS need to stop stirring and start making some informed comments.

 

[vcs]

Gillespie > Anderson is like saying MacGill > Kumble (though some of the Aussie posters here probably hold both opinions unironically so what do I know)

 

[morgieb]

Both of those opinions (held by GAS/TJB) are clearly bait and I'm pretty embarrassed the rest of the forum would take it seriously.

Well probably more TJB than GAS, the latter just hates Anderson lol.

 

[trundler]

I'm pretty sure TJB expressed a similar inclination in the spinner countdown and had MacGill in his top 5.

 

[Red]

Not even baiting or trolling but Stu MacGill is a top ten of all time spinner and perhaps top five.

 

[ataraxia]

Not even baiting or trolling but Stu MacGill is a top ten of all time spinner and perhaps top five.

Warne
Murali
O'Reilly
Grimmett
Verity
Laker
Kumble
Underwood
Benaud
maybe MacGill at 10?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Warne
Murali
O'Reilly
Grimmett
Verity
Laker
Kumble
Underwood
Benaud
maybe MacGill at 10?

Nah. I'd put Gibbs, the Indian quartet of the 70s, Tayfield, and 2 Ravis ahead as well.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

And Herath

 

[ataraxia]

Nah. I'd put Gibbs, the Indian quartet of the 70s, Tayfield, and 2 Ravis ahead as well.

I always forget Tayfield...

 

[TheJediBrah]

Gillespie > Anderson is like saying MacGill > Kumble

Nah, the gap between the former is bigger. MacGill is only slightly better than Kumble.

A totally ridiculous opinion. Based on what?

Their Test bowling averages are similar (Anderson 26.8 v Gillespie 26.1). In terms of wickets per Test played it is similar again (Anderson 3.9 v Gillespie 3.6).

However in terms of longevity (Anderson 151 Tests v Gillespie 71), number of 5 wickets in an innings (Anderson 28 v Gillespie 8 equating to Anderson 1 every 5.4 games v Gillespie 1 every 8.9 games) and 10 wickets in a match (Anderson 3 v Gillespie 0) there is no comparison.

An additional factor is that 75% of Anderson's 'fivefers' came in the first innings (when the game is often won and lost) while only 50% of Gillespie's 'fivefers' came in the first innings.

If you are going to express an opinion, substantiate it with some facts otherwise your opinion counts for little.

In all seriousness I don't really have a strong opinion re. Anderson v Gillespie, but even just from your own "substantiated facts" the only advantage Anderson has is longevity. Gillespie averaging the same as him despite Anderson playing so much in favourable home conditions and Gillespie supposedly based in one of the toughest places for a fast bowler is a big tick in favour of Gillespie.

Guess it all depends on how much weight you give longevity, which is very subjective and it's perfectly understandable why many would weight it sufficiently to consider Anderson > Gillespie. However it's certainly not a "ridiculous opinion" at all to have the opposing view, given that Gillespie is the superior bowler in the majority of conditions.

 

[Daemon]

Gillespie didn’t exactly flourish in the same bowler friendly conditions Anderson’s being marked down for.

 

[trundler]

It's like saying Dravid was better than Ponting in the majority of conditions. Completely misses the point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Gillespie didn’t exactly flourish in the same bowler friendly conditions Anderson’s being marked down for.

cool, but not really relevant

It's like saying Dravid was better than Ponting in the majority of conditions. Completely misses the point.

this is just absolute drivel. What point is it missing?

 

[Daemon]

Anderson’s dominance at home and longevity puts him a reasonable distance ahead of Gillespie for me. Anderson also didn’t have McGrath and Warne to bowl in tandem with, and had the luxury of scoreboard pressure rarely being an issue thanks to a fantastic batting lineup which he didn’t bowl to. A fine bowler but not as good.

 

[Shady Slim]

wasim akram and jason gillespie are the two best fast bowlers in the world going off my preferred metric, "double centuries"

 

[TheJediBrah]

Anderson’s dominance at home and longevity puts him a reasonable distance ahead of Gillespie for me. Anderson also didn’t have McGrath and Warne to bowl in tandem with, and had the luxury of scoreboard pressure rarely being an issue thanks to a fantastic batting lineup which he didn’t bowl to. A fine bowler but not as good.

Absolutely a reasonable opinion, and well thought-out.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I'd call Anderson an ATVG. He's basically Kapil Dev without the batting and with favourable bowling conditions.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

wasim akram and jason gillespie are the two best fast bowlers in the world going off my preferred metric, "double centuries"

Followed by Jason Holder

 

[vcs]

Gillespie's complete horror show of a performance in Ashes 2005 (close series which could easily have swung Australia's way if only he had been slightly less woeful) does a lot of damage to his legacy. And that's before we get to the small matter of ~350 more Test wickets that Anderson has.

 

[trundler]

cool, but not really relevant



this is just absolute drivel. What point is it missing?

It's a pretty good analogy. Gillespie cracked as soon as he had to lead the attack. I thought we were over this sort of bullshit average in X tiny slice analysis. Gillespie simply doesn't come close to Anderson's best. Anderson has played twice as much in a much harder era for batting. *Twice* is pretty insane for a fast bowler. Not even going to touch the favourable home conditions drivel since you just use that to mark down non-Australian players as you please. Heck I'd take McDermott over Gillespie any day. Anderson's dominance at home is ATG level. You can't just dismiss that as lol favourable conditions. The away record brings him down but he's a much better match winner than Gillespie. Gillespie's average is sheltered by Mc-Warne and he often went missing.