subshakerz
International Coach
Nah, Walsh is better than Jimmy but they are in the same tier.Thats the most insulting thing I’ve ever read about Courtney Walsh.
Nah, Walsh is better than Jimmy but they are in the same tier.Thats the most insulting thing I’ve ever read about Courtney Walsh.
I don't think in the current era where a modern cricketer is expected to play a decade plus, 200 wickets is enough to judge definitively. Longevity is a factor.What if bowlers could be rated ATG on more than just an arbitrary wickets milestone?
200+ is fine. 300+ is more than enough.
You could split Jimmy's career in half. Pre-30 he's just your run of the mill 300 wicket taking seamer (if such a thing exists). Post 30 he's ATG, unless 380 wickets at 22.6 somehow don't qualify.Nah, Walsh is better than Jimmy but they are in the same tier.
You can split anyones career in half. He’s still **** unless he’s at home and **** with the ball the majority of the world uses.You could split Jimmy's career in half. Pre-30 he's just your run of the mill 300 wicket taking seamer (if such a thing exists). Post 30 he's ATG, unless 380 wickets at 22.6 somehow don't qualify.
Yeah you can, but you don't normally find 350 wickets. I sense from your tone that maybe that annoys you....You can split anyones career in half. He’s still **** unless he’s at home and **** with the ball the majority of the world uses.
Played In | Mat | O | M | R | W | 5w | 10w | Best | Avg | S/R | E/R |
Australia | 21 | 824.3 | 217 | 2313 | 68 | 1 | 0 | 5/43 | 34.01 | 72.75 | 2.81 |
England and Wales | 101 | 3640.2 | 962 | 10207 | 429 | 24 | 3 | 7/42 | 23.79 | 50.91 | 2.80 |
India | 13 | 375.4 | 102 | 997 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 4/40 | 29.32 | 66.29 | 2.65 |
New Zealand | 9 | 319.2 | 74 | 1021 | 36 | 1 | 0 | 5/73 | 28.36 | 53.22 | 3.20 |
Pakistan | 2 | 67.0 | 17 | 148 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 4/36 | 18.50 | 50.25 | 2.21 |
South Africa | 10 | 385.1 | 75 | 1177 | 34 | 2 | 0 | 5/40 | 34.62 | 67.97 | 3.06 |
Sri Lanka | 7 | 207.4 | 49 | 599 | 18 | 2 | 0 | 6/40 | 33.28 | 69.22 | 2.88 |
United Arab Emirates | 6 | 216.0 | 63 | 452 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 4/17 | 20.55 | 58.91 | 2.09 |
West Indies | 10 | 346.3 | 95 | 893 | 36 | 2 | 0 | 6/42 | 24.81 | 57.75 | 2.58 |
179 | 6382.1 | 1654 | 17807 | 685 | 32 | 0 | 7/42 | 26.00 | 55.90 | 2.79 |
Those numbers don't reflect the unique impact Anderson has had in the SC. He has been better than McGrath IMO.Anderson has been briliant in England, but merely good in most other countries. I really wish that he and Root had performed better in Australia as the Ashes series would have been more exciting.
Played In Mat O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R Australia 21 824.3 217 2313 68 1 0 5/43 34.01 72.75 2.81 England and Wales 101 3640.2 962 10207 429 24 3 7/42 23.79 50.91 2.80 India 13 375.4 102 997 34 0 0 4/40 29.32 66.29 2.65 New Zealand 9 319.2 74 1021 36 1 0 5/73 28.36 53.22 3.20 Pakistan 2 67.0 17 148 8 0 0 4/36 18.50 50.25 2.21 South Africa 10 385.1 75 1177 34 2 0 5/40 34.62 67.97 3.06 Sri Lanka 7 207.4 49 599 18 2 0 6/40 33.28 69.22 2.88 United Arab Emirates 6 216.0 63 452 22 0 0 4/17 20.55 58.91 2.09 West Indies 10 346.3 95 893 36 2 0 6/42 24.81 57.75 2.58 179 6382.1 1654 17807 685 32 0 7/42 26.00 55.90 2.79
Come on, Anderson doesn't even come close to Cummins' rate of wickets which are on par with McGrath even if you limit him to the last few years like Cummins. He's a great beneficiary of Test span and workload management even accounting for his improvements. Cummins handily clears him and isn't too far off McGrath at similar stages in their careers (in matches played).I don't really see how Cummins ends up anywhere near McGrath. He's currently about to turn 30 and has 217 wickets at 21.5 and has been prone to injuries.
In the last 6 years, Anderson has 218 wickets at 20.6 so he doesn't even compare favourably with a certain 'over-rated' English veteran.
I wouldn't be surprised if Cummins ends up with less than 400 wickets in his career and that leaves him nowhere near McGrath.
Cummins just needs to clear 300 plus wickets to be comparable to McGrath IMO.Come on, Anderson doesn't even come close to Cummins' rate of wickets which are on par with McGrath even if you limit him to the last few years like Cummins. He's a great beneficiary of Test span and workload management even accounting for his improvements. Cummins handily clears him and isn't too far off McGrath at similar stages in their careers (in matches played).
Maybe if he takes 100 wickets at 10Cummins just needs to clear 300 plus wickets to be comparable to McGrath IMO.
Sure but none of the ATG bowlers before are anywhere as untouchable as Bradman is for batters. I don't get this idea that they can't be compared when the numbers are strikingly close. And no, it's not just averages being looked at here.Like I'm all for there's ATG bowlers in the 10s and 20s but it's ****ing McGrath. Arguably the best of all time.
Actually when you look into it, it is very rare for a cricketer to provide 10 respectable or better years. Rarer still for 10 good years.I don't think in the current era where a modern cricketer is expected to play a decade plus, 200 wickets is enough to judge definitively. Longevity is a factor.
Those are pretty straightforward judgments to make though. It's where it becomes more line ball where the potential impact of nostalgia/recency bias comes into play.And someone made a comment about 90s bowlers getting rated because of "nostalgia". I disagree with that notion, because we already rate S Smith as an atg. We already rate Williamson as NZ's best and Root is routinely picked in an English atg XI.
I thought Cummins had bowled superbly last year to take his wickets on those Pakistan roads at 22.5, but then Anderson came along and did it at 4 runs less. Cummins entire Test career is matched by Anderson aged 34-40, just let that sink in....Come on, Anderson doesn't even come close to Cummins' rate of wickets which are on par with McGrath even if you limit him to the last few years like Cummins. He's a great beneficiary of Test span and workload management even accounting for his improvements. Cummins handily clears him and isn't too far off McGrath at similar stages in their careers (in matches played).
As an Englishman, it pains me to say it, but this.Like I'm all for there's ATG bowlers in the 10s and 20s but it's ****ing McGrath. Arguably the best of all time.
Steyn had some really bowler friendly pitches at home tbf.Steyn is the only real ATG bowler and McGrath is somewhere nearby, every plodder averages <25 when the wickets are conducive to pace bowling.