A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too. Like ingoring the first part of Anderson's career because his stats aren't as good, and then also giving him all the credit for having such a long career in the same breath. You have to either accept both or neither.
If you get rid of the **** years he's still had a long career, 113 tests since the start of 2010 (458 @ 23.92) is still ridiculous for a fast bowler, only 5 have had longer careers (Kallis, Broad, McGrath, Kapil Dev and Walsh)
Well quite. The complaints that Anderson's stats are being "cherry picked" are ridiculous when you consider that these stats are covering a period and number of matches that would be in excess of the vast majority of bowlers in history.
I'm not ignoring the early part of his career generally tbf, I just don't think its relevant to a comparison of Anderson and Hazelwood currently - the subject of this discussion - when Anderson has been better over the seven years of Hazelwood's career. You could argue that a lot of people also do the reverse of that as well; give too much weight to his early career in arguing he isn't good away, and then do not give credit to him for blatantly improving overtime when he actually starts to perform consistently well in those same conditions.
Well no, people were using Anderson's 6/40 to counter the stupid argument that Anderson couldn't bowl away from home. I think it was just you that was obsessed with the atg thing iirc.
Shut up bitch
oh yes baby
Anderson has taken twice as many wickets as Southee at a much superior average. They're the goalposts.
When Jimmy was Southee's age his average was actually worse.
lol english spam against windies etc and an average difference of 2 runs
In this regard he's a victim of his own success. Of course he's a great bowler with an incredible career but him holding records like most wickets triggers people who then have to point out his shortcomings to make sure he isn't rated ahead of Hadlee, McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose etc. Which is somewhat understandable because they are clearly superior, but as a result it can come across as people saying that Anderson is no good
Not at CW, where the argument seems to be that he actually is no good without a particular ball or particular conditions which is stupid, tstl.
I like Southee but a comparison of their respective records does not favour him. If you were to adjust Southee's record so that he played the same relative mix of opponents as Anderson (both home and away), Southee would be averaging 33.18. Southee also averages 34 with the 'cheat ball' so you can't really point to that as a reason for the difference. Now I think there are several reasons why that probably exaggerates the gap between the two, but crapping on about how Anderson is rubbish, or even about how Anderson and Southee are on the same level just makes you look like a bit of a dickhead.
Yes but what I'm saying is that his success exacerbates those comments. If he had 300 wickets you wouldn't see them anywhere near as much.
so they jelly
