How G is an ATG?

[TheJediBrah]

It was a pretty big blunder to pick Gillespie in 2005. I remember vividly as a kid being annoyed by it because he was clearly completely off his game even in the ODIs he played before the Ashes. He would have been an average Grade bowler the way he was on that tour.

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.

I think your emotion is clouding your judgement here, and your interpretation of my comments. I'm not claiming that Gillespie is objectively better than Anderson by any means, just pointing out that it's hardly a ridiculous opinion to hold if someone values different attributes differently than you do.

For me I can't make a definitive choice between them without set paramaters.

and ftr you dismissing any analysis involving favourable conditions is dumb. It's a very influential factor in cricket.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

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

This but unironically

 

[Fuller Pilch]

and ftr you dismissing any analysis involving favourable conditions is dumb. It's a very influential factor in cricket.

Neil Wagner is probably better than both of them. Has by far the worst conditions for bowling but has the best strike rate of the three.

 

[honestbharani]

Peak Gillespie was an absolute delight as a fast bowling fan. He had a bit of everything: pace, bounce, swing, seam, reverse swing, could make the ball do stuff that most bowlers can only dream of. But that peak was very very short lived, unfortunately due to a number of injuries. Anderson's greatest quality is he hardly ever gets injured and is always available. That is under rated for a fast bowler. Plus he has played key roles in series wins in Australia and India, which I really do not think any bowler other than Steyn can lay claim to. Gillespie was good in India without being great and as has been pointed out, seems to fall apart without Warne or McGrath or both. I mean, career wise Anderson >> Gillespie.. But I can see why someone who has seen peak Gillespie will think the world of him. Not surprised he has become an ace coach too, esp. for fast bowlers. He was very much behind the second coming of Ishant, and I watched peak Gilespie, so I may well be biased in some of these opinions.

 

[Line and Length]

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.

Thanks for a rational and sensible response. The opinion that 'Gillespie is ahead of Anderson' isn't "ridiculous". What makes it ridiculous is to say 'Gillespie is ahead of Anderson by the width of the Pacific Ocean.'

 

[TheJediBrah]

Thanks for a rational and sensible response

First time for everything

 

[trundler]

I'll admit I went fishing earlier while we're at it

 

[Victor Ian]

Can anyone easily provide Anderson's best 10 year streak? I'm not weighing into the debate but i imagine he has a seriously good streak in there which is ATG without his bookends.

 

[Victor Ian]

Gillespie is a could've been for me. It seemed in his early days, just when he developed a rhythm to put down ATG numbers he got injured. And playing alongside McWarne would have severely impacted his 5fers.

 

[stephen]

The fast bowl survival contest placed Anderson at 34 and Gillespie at 39. These were the four bowlers between them:

Ian Bishop
Frank Tyson
Peter Pollock
Bob Willis

I think it's very fair to say there's not much between them and they sit well and truly in the ATVG category being outside the top 30.

 

[stephen]

I think Alderman can consider himself unlucky to have not been born English. He would have had a much better career if he was. 80 tests, 380 wickets at 24 if he was English.

 

[trundler]

I'd take Willis and Pollock ahead of either in a heartbeat. Tyson and Bishop too if you could guarantee fitness.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Can anyone easily provide Anderson's best 10 year streak? I'm not weighing into the debate but i imagine he has a seriously good streak in there which is ATG without his bookends.

For the 2010s he took 429 wickets in 106 tests at 24.35

Probably 4th most impressive bowler over the 2010s behind Steyn, Philander, and Herath.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think Alderman can consider himself unlucky to have not been born English. He would have had a much better career if he was. 80 tests, 380 wickets at 24 if he was English.

I'd say Southee and Boult would have better records if they were English too. Colin De Grandhomme would be the new Botham.

 

[Flem274*]

i haven't dug into gillespie enough to compare, but i was genuinely surprised when i went stats digging during my botm wind up phase that anderson was overall so mediocre with a kookaburra. the duke ball and english home test spam do cover his shortcomings if you're doing a cursory career record scan to see how he's improved since 2006.

anderson had some excellent series with the kookaburra at his peak, but he is reliant upon the duke to consistently be a world class bowler. this is not a truly awful thing - some very good bowlers have struggled to control the duke - but it is the friendliest ball for bowlers.

anderson also rarely goes completely missing. he has many quiet days, but some of his team mates love going at 5 an over bowling 20kph slower than normal for kicks. a bowler who can stay in the corridor when things aren't going to plan is very useful.

overall, i am genuine when i say im not selecting anderson for any kookaburra test matches any time soon and i think he benefits greatly from being english. they have the duke, the opportunities to perform and the weight to push his case. however this does not suddenly make him worse than every random australian you can think of.

he's a very good bowler who would have a more impressive record if his team mates turned up more overseas. it's nice broad can broad spell, but broad, archer and co. do love an extended smoko leaving a very good bowler to do everything.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Flem agree 100

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Only a few years ago the G would have been the two GG in Hoggard. England's greatest ever bowler.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/32105879

 

[a massive zebra]

Only a few years ago the G would have been the two GG in Hoggard. England's greatest ever bowler.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/32105879

Haha, Hoggard wasnt even the best bowler in his own team at the time he played. He played in possibly the highest scoring era ever with a real paucity of quality fast bowlers and he wasnt great at running through tail enders, so obviously the batting average of the batsmen he dismissed is going to be high.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Matthew Hoggard was a very underrated bowler. To have as much success as he did with such limited gifts shows how skilfull he was.

Seemed to do alright in Australia too which is unusual for someone of his pace who relied so much on gentle outswing

 

[stephen]

Yeah I always liked Hoggard the most of the 2005 quartet. Sijo was too injury prone, Harmison too hit and miss, Flintoff too overrated but Hoggard was a toiler who earned every wicket he took. I remember him being the pick of the English bowlers in the Amazing Adelaide test when Australia piled on 550.