Jimmy Anderson

[Chewie]

:woakes:

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The problem is that the performances away from home are still pretty mediocre in favourable conditions. I remember after Boult and Southee rolled England for 58 (from 27/9), Anderson could hardly even swing the pink Kookaburra under lights in humid Auckland (admittedly still getting 3 wickets) as NZ declared on 400+.

 

[harsh.ag]

I'm a big Chris Woakes fan. Good as he is, he's nowhere near an Anderson-class attack leader in England.

Well that's also a chicken and egg thing. If Anderson didn't exist, he would be better, as did Anderson with time and responsibility.

 

[Line and Length]

FP hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the pink Kookaburra. Kookaburras simply don't swing like a Duke ... regardless of the atmospheric conditions.
It's ironic that so many are critical of Anderson but never mention Australian swing bowlers who performed brilliantly in England yet struggled at home and in other countries.
Consider Terry Alderman. In England he averaged 19.34 while his average in all other countries was 34.61 (including averaging 29+ on his home turf).
Consider Bob Massie. His only Tests were in England and Australia. In England he averaged 17.78. In Australia 29.75
The point is that different countries (and balls) offer different advatages to different style bowlers.

 

[honestbharani]

The problem is that the performances away from home are still pretty mediocre in favourable conditions. I remember after Boult and Southee rolled England for 58 (from 27/9), Anderson could hardly even swing the pink Kookaburra under lights in humid Auckland (admittedly still getting 3 wickets) as NZ declared on 400+.

That would be like blaming the Aussie seamers for not getting wickets after they got rolled for 60 by Broad. Usually when you are bowled that cheap, its not always the pitch and even if it is, the morale is so low on your side and so high on the other side that you can never punch back. It very very rarely happens that a 58 all out is followed by a 60 all out. I agree he could have and perhaps should have done better in NZ but that does not really stop me from caling him a great bowler. To me greats are match winners who also had very recognizable flaws in their records. The ATGs are the ones who do not.

 

[honestbharani]

Well that's also a chicken and egg thing. If Anderson didn't exist, he would be better, as did Anderson with time and responsibility.

No, that is some weird projection. It would be like saying any 16 year old kid would have been as good as Tendulkar given the same time, opportunities and responsibility. Woakes has, even today, not proven himself as a capable leader of the attack in home conditions when Anderson is not around.

 

[a massive zebra]

FP hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the pink Kookaburra. Kookaburras simply don't swing like a Duke ... regardless of the atmospheric conditions.
It's ironic that so many are critical of Anderson but never mention Australian swing bowlers who performed brilliantly in England yet struggled at home and in other countries.
Consider Terry Alderman. In England he averaged 19.34 while his average in all other countries was 34.61 (including averaging 29+ on his home turf).
Consider Bob Massie. His only Tests were in England and Australia. In England he averaged 17.78. In Australia 29.75
The point is that different countries (and balls) offer different advatages to different style bowlers.

None of these guys ever get rated as the best ever from their nation or even as ATGs, as the hyperbolic critics sometimes do with Anderson. These guys don't get criticised for their self evident shortcomings because they are already rated accurately.

 

[srbhkshk]

None of these guys ever get rated as the best ever from their nation or even as ATGs, as the hyperbolic critics sometimes do with Anderson. These guys don't get criticised for their self evident shortcomings because they are already rated accurately.

IMO, the issue with rating Anderson is that he has had lot longer career then bowlers of comparable quality and thus should be rated higher than them, but once you start doing that he starts knocking at bowlers who are definitively better in your mind and it's just a mess overall.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, there is also the elephant in the room with Lillee and his SC record.

 

[Burgey]

Well, there is also the elephant in the room with Lillee and his SC record.

All four tests. As opposed to 15 years of (mostly) away mediocrity.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not gonna compare Lillee here as I find it difficult to judge players I did not see. But my earlier point on why people like Anderson can be rated as "great" still stands.

 

[Line and Length]

None of these guys ever get rated as the best ever from their nation or even as ATGs, as the hyperbolic critics sometimes do with Anderson. These guys don't get criticised for their self evident shortcomings because they are already rated accurately.

Rubbish! Where were you when they were playing? Alderman was regarded as Australia's best exponent of swing bowling and Massie was touted as the next big thing after his remarkable ATG performance.

 

[Shady Slim]

FP hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the pink Kookaburra. Kookaburras simply don't swing like a Duke ... regardless of the atmospheric conditions.
It's ironic that so many are critical of Anderson but never mention Australian swing bowlers who performed brilliantly in England yet struggled at home and in other countries.
Consider Terry Alderman. In England he averaged 19.34 while his average in all other countries was 34.61 (including averaging 29+ on his home turf).
Consider Bob Massie. His only Tests were in England and Australia. In England he averaged 17.78. In Australia 29.75
The point is that different countries (and balls) offer different advatages to different style bowlers.

i’d argue that alderman proves the point against jimmy though (can’t speak on massie because i flat don’t know who he is, i’ve heard the name though)

alderman’s legacy is that of “the guy who spayed england in england regularly but was average at best mostly on home soil” - which is the (inversed) crux of the anderson criticism as well tbh - comparing anderson to terry alderman (but obviously with more longevity) is exactly the point me, TJB, et al are making

 

[trundler]

IMO, the issue with rating Anderson is that he has had lot longer career then bowlers of comparable quality and thus should be rated higher than them, but once you start doing that he starts knocking at bowlers who are definitively better in your mind and it's just a mess overall.

Yeah, the most comparable guy is Philander but he was made of glass and played about 2.5x fewer tests. Anderson has obvious limitations which means he's clearly below say, Pollock but he's done well enough long enough to be ahead of any other bowler oh his kind.

Where does Anderson stand relative to Statham, Willis, and Gillespie? Would imagine they're fairly representative of what ATVG can mean.

 

[GIMH]

That would be like blaming the Aussie seamers for not getting wickets after they got rolled for 60 by Broad. Usually when you are bowled that cheap, its not always the pitch and even if it is, the morale is so low on your side and so high on the other side that you can never punch back. It very very rarely happens that a 58 all out is followed by a 60 all out. I agree he could have and perhaps should have done better in NZ but that does not really stop me from caling him a great bowler. To me greats are match winners who also had very recognizable flaws in their records. The ATGs are the ones who do not.

Aye, this. Bowlers are on a hiding to nothing most of the time when their team has been skittled.

 

[trundler]

Scoreboard pressure is very real. Really makes you appreciate how often Ambrose would win matches with **** all to defend.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The thing I actually dont understand at all is why Anderson is seemingly rated so much higher than Broad. Broad's acknowledged as a really good but not quite truly great bowler but Anderson despite having only marginally better numbers is considered as good as Courtney Walsh by some people? Its really odd.

 

[honestbharani]

And Lara making runs with **** all support at the other end facing those large scores.

 

[a massive zebra]

Rubbish! Where were you when they were playing? Alderman was regarded as Australia's best exponent of swing bowling and Massie was touted as the next big thing after his remarkable ATG performance.

It's not rubbish at all. When you hear critics talk about the greats of the game, none of these guys are ever mentioned, and if you check the ATGs discussion thread on this very forum, these guys are pretty much never selected. Yet you get guys like Vaughan calling Anderson England's best ever bowler.

Massie may well have been touted as the next big thing, but you could say the same about hundreds of guys from the history of the game. Only those who actually delivered on their promise are now considered greats. Alderman probably was Australia's best exponent of swing bowling of his era, so that would have been a fair enough viewpoint. If you read the books and magazines of his time, it is clear he was never rated ahead of the likes of Davidson as Australia's best ever swing bowler and pretty much never selected in Australian all time elevens from the 1980s.

 

[Line and Length]

I'm talking about critics comments about these players while they were playing . Time puts performances into true perspective. I have a feeling that. given time, Anderson well be held in high regard if not ATG.