• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Better Test bowler: Anderson vs Willis.

James Anderson or Bob Willis in Tests?

  • Anderson

    Votes: 25 78.1%

  • Willis

    Votes: 7 21.9%
  • Total voters
    32
Johan

Johan

International Debutant
Anderson for his utterly insane Longetivity , you could pick certain timeframes in his career and get 2 completely seprate respectable careers. Jimmy's prime has been ridiculous in Last 8 Years , 314 Test Wickets in 81 matches ( 10 matches+ a year as a pacer ) at 21.8 average each and 111 away wickets at 24.3 is some OP stuff.
 
Last edited:
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Johan said:
Anderson for his utterly insane Longetivity , you could pick certain timeframes in his career and get 2 completely seprate respectable careers. Jimmy's prime has been ridiculous in Last 8 Years , 314 Test Wickets in 81 matches ( 10 matches+ a year as a pacer ) at 21.8 average each and 111 away wickets at 24.3 is some OP stuff.
Click to expand...
Beyond a certain point I personally only really find longevity useful for differentiating between players where they are very close or equal in all other factors. No doubt Anderson’s peak has been great, but it doesn’t mean I should ignore the period outside of that (his first 10 years) were he was average at best at home and exceedingly mediocre overseas.

Even considering his work over the last 8 years, he still averages well above 30 in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa (notoriously helpful bowling countries) and Sri Lanka, barely under 30 in India. Comparing to Willis, who averaged below 30 everywhere except the West Indies, and below 25 except Australia and Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Coronis said:
Beyond a certain point I personally only really find longevity useful for differentiating between players where they are very close or equal in all other factors. No doubt Anderson’s peak has been great, but it doesn’t mean I should ignore the period outside of that (his first 10 years) were he was average at best at home and exceedingly mediocre overseas.

Even considering his work over the last 8 years, he still averages well above 30 in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa (notoriously helpful bowling countries) and Sri Lanka, barely under 30 in India. Comparing to Willis, who averaged below 30 everywhere except the West Indies, and below 25 except Australia and Pakistan.
Click to expand...
:blink:
 
P

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The Willis no ball thing makes a pretty big difference doesn't it?

Anderson is comfortably ahead anyway.
 
Himannv

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
If Anderson was Australian, he'd be an underwear model. If Willis was Australian, he'd be someone's nan.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pothas said:
Find people having these sorts of guys above Anderson just genuinely bizarre at this stage.
Click to expand...
It's not even that the gap is enormous, it's just that it's hard to think of a single plausible argument that Willis was better.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Uppercut said:
it's just that it's hard to think of a single plausible argument that Willis was better.
Click to expand...
Better average, better strike rate, better home average, better away average, better average in every country bar the West Indies. Its harder for me to think of arguments for Anderson outside of longevity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top