Jimmy Anderson

[honestbharani]

It is basically because of tailender wickets really. Specialist batsmen are expected to average 40 to be considered very good to great but since teams also have tailenders, the bowlers have to be judged within a shorter range.

 

[stephen]

think also the fact that it was going down all the time meant he was mentally bracketed as a near 30-average bowler for a long time. While your Rabada's and Cummins' are creeping up because that kind of lightning in a bottle isn't something you do series to series.

Cummins average peaked a couple of years ago at 27. It hasn't been above 25 now for a couple of years and it's stabilised around 22 for the last ten or so tests of his career.

 

[cricketsavant]

Cummins average peaked a couple of years ago at 27. It hasn't been above 25 now for a couple of years and it's stabilised around 22 for the last ten or so tests of his career.

It goes to show you how special sub 25 averaging test fast bowlers are, especially those who have played a long career (Wasim, Holding, Marshall, McGrath etc). It makes them even more impressive that most of those guys averaged just as good in ODI bowling too.

I really hope that Cummins, Rabada, Shaheen and Bumrah end long careers averaging 25 or less in all formats.

 

[srbhkshk]

Cummins average peaked a couple of years ago at 27. It hasn't been above 25 now for a couple of years and it's stabilised around 22 for the last ten or so tests of his career.

We still have to see if he can recover from the shock of having his name censored on cricketweb for a week. I expect his average to go down to at least 35 if truth be told.

 

[stephen]

We still have to see if he can recover from the shock of having his name censored on cricketweb for a week. I expect his average to go down to at least 35 if truth be told.

Maybe it'll fire him up and he'll go all Ambrose on India this summer and reduce it to 15.

 

[GIMH]

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.

It may have been said as there have been a few pages since you made this post but I presume it's because Anderson is generally more consistent. Broad is a bit more rocks and diamonds, and has built his career on being a bowler of great spells rather than a great bowler.

When he's on, there's hardly anybody else you'd rather pick but Anderson is a safer bet to bring the goods.

That's my take, anyway

 

[stephen]

On second thought I don't think Cummins has ever been angry in his life. He's the bloke most likely to be driving at 55 in a 60 zone while late for work and still stop to get out and help the old lady cross the road.

 

[srbhkshk]

On second thought I don't think Cummins has ever been angry in his life. He's the bloke most likely to be driving at 55 in a 60 zone while late for work and still stop to get out and help the old lady cross the road.

Are you trying to say he is actually a NZer?

 

[stephen]

It may have been said as there have been a few pages since you made this post but I presume it's because Anderson is generally more consistent. Broad is a bit more rocks and diamonds, and has built his career on being a bowler of great spells rather than a great bowler.

When he's on, there's hardly anybody else you'd rather pick but Anderson is a safer bet to bring the goods.

That's my take, anyway

Broad had always been more inconsistent than Jimmy, but Broad has also been more present in ashes contests than Jimmy. Broad has an X factor but his average doesn't flatter him and because of this people seem to be happy enough to call him very good and leave it at that. I think Jimmy is more annoying because with numbers like his it tempts casuals into rating him as being top shelf when really he's a home track bully.

 

[stephen]

Are you trying to say he is actually a NZer?

He's too good looking and so obviously doesn't have any sheep in his ancestry so no.

 

[GIMH]

Broad had always been more inconsistent than Jimmy, but Broad has also been more present in ashes contests than Jimmy. Broad has an X factor but his average doesn't flatter him and because of this people seem to be happy enough to call him very good and leave it at that. I think Jimmy is more annoying because with numbers like his it tempts casuals into rating him as being top shelf when really he's a home track bully.

Broad has never won a Test in Australia, if Ashes are what you're going on and obviously it's all you'll rate an England player on.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It may have been said as there have been a few pages since you made this post but I presume it's because Anderson is generally more consistent. Broad is a bit more rocks and diamonds, and has built his career on being a bowler of great spells rather than a great bowler.

When he's on, there's hardly anybody else you'd rather pick but Anderson is a safer bet to bring the goods.

That's my take, anyway

That's all true. But overall when there's such a minuscule difference in their numbers, I'm a bit baffled one is rated significantly higher.

 

[stephen]

Broad has never won a Test in Australia, if Ashes are what you're going on and obviously it's all you'll rate an England player on.

But that's my point. Broad has won a few ashes tests, more than Jimmy. But he's also not deceiving anyone with his numbers. I think people get a little annoyed seeing Jimmy have such great numbers when he's really not that good of a bowler.

 

[GIMH]

But that's my point. Broad has won a few ashes tests, more than Jimmy.

Obviously Cook was the big thing. But if we rocked up with our 06-07 bowling in 2010 then Cook would have been batting his way to a load of draws. Anderson was the next biggest factor. If you're only interested in box office then only a matchwinning 5fer in an hour counts. If you have eyes and a brain then consistent bowling across a series also does.

But he's also not deceiving anyone with his numbers. I think people get a little annoyed seeing Jimmy have such great numbers when he's really not that good of a bowler.

stupid stupid stupid

 

[Flem274*]

i actually do rate broad over anderson because you can take him anywhere in any conditions and he can bowl you a great spell.

anderson, barring a few notable performances, has been chris martin statistical tier with the kookaburra and there's an easily diagnosed reason - length. the adjustments he made around 2009 allowed him to become a more consistent bowler since he was harder to drive but if you want to swing the kookaburra you need to huck it really full.

look at two of the notable kookaburra skiddy swing bowlers of different tiers - steyn and boult. both bowl very full with the new ball at a controlled pace before increasing their speeds and pulling their length back with the older ball.

anderson since 2010 has been showing up in kookaburra nations bowling good length corridor from the first over which makes him a reliable workhorse but he's not going to run through sides doing that because he's too skiddy to get the lift needed to threaten batsmen bowling channel.

this MO actually increases his usefulness in australia - one look at trent boult in australia tells you all you need to know about skiddy swing bowlers trying to pitch it up at 135 clicks there - but renders him useless in nz and south africa because he's missing out on that crucial new ball swing and in nz especially you're wasting your time.

broad though, can bowl anywhere. he can be just as innocuous but unlike anderson there's no real reason broad wakes up in the morning and decides to bowl gentle medium pace instead of broad spells.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

That's all true. But overall when there's such a minuscule difference in their numbers, I'm a bit baffled one is rated significantly higher.

When the case is for longevity it does help that you break a few records, not just follow a bit behind.

 

[GIMH]

i actually do rate broad over anderson because you can take him anywhere in any conditions and he can bowl you a great spell.

anderson, barring a few notable performances, has been chris martin statistical tier with the kookaburra and there's an easily diagnosed reason - length. the adjustments he made around 2009 allowed him to become a more consistent bowler since he was harder to drive but if you want to swing the kookaburra you need to huck it really full.

look at two of the notable kookaburra skiddy swing bowlers of different tiers - steyn and boult. both bowl very full with the new ball at a controlled pace before increasing their speeds and pulling their length back with the older ball.

anderson since 2010 has been showing up in kookaburra nations bowling good length corridor from the first over which makes him a reliable workhorse but he's not going to run through sides doing that because he's too skiddy to get the lift needed to threaten batsmen bowling channel.

this MO actually increases his usefulness in australia - one look at trent boult in australia tells you all you need to know about skiddy swing bowlers trying to pitch it up at 135 clicks there - but renders him useless in nz and south africa because he's missing out on that crucial new ball swing and in nz especially you're wasting your time.

broad though, can bowl anywhere. he can be just as innocuous but unlike anderson there's no real reason broad wakes up in the morning and decides to bowl gentle medium pace instead of broad spells.

I think this is a decent post. Also one of the big problems with young Anderson was he was so eratic. He was liable to get carted which is pretty rare for him over the last decade.

 

[Victor Ian]

Can Anderson get to 700?

 

[srbhkshk]

Can Anderson get to 700?

Give him a home series against India he'll get to 900.

 

[Uppercut]

It may have been said as there have been a few pages since you made this post but I presume it's because Anderson is generally more consistent. Broad is a bit more rocks and diamonds, and has built his career on being a bowler of great spells rather than a great bowler.

When he's on, there's hardly anybody else you'd rather pick but Anderson is a safer bet to bring the goods.

That's my take, anyway

Anderson also just sort of looks better imo. Swings it miles both ways. If I only saw an over of each I'd come away thinking Anderson was better.