James Anderson vs Ryan Harris

[TheJediBrah]

This isn't even a contest, in 2017 Jimmy took 55 wickets at 17.58....

In 2011 Harris averaged 17.33

Ignoring longevity

Harris wins

 

[Groundking]

In 2011 Harris averaged 17.33

Ignoring longevity

Harris wins

Only 15 wickets, not really comparable to 55 is it?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Only 15 wickets, not really comparable to 55 is it?

Ignore longevity

Harris wins

Lalalalalalalalalalalalala

 

[Groundking]

Ignore longevity

Harris wins

Lalalalalalalalalalalalala

If we're really doing this... then 39 wickets @ 14.10. Sit.

 

[Chin Music]

I largely think longevity shouldn't be a factor when you are comparing players with a fair size of career sample and you can look at quality and performances against the best sides. For instance, I will always debate people rating Alastair Cook to highly because he was quite ordinary for the last 5 years of his career, after getting dismembered by Harris (and then Johnson) two series in a row. I will always rate Harris highly because of that, but it is a bit nuts to consider him anything other than a very good bowler who was very good for a short while. Anderson basically had nigh on over a decade and more of being an outstanding bowler, even if he was inconsistent and often downright poor for the first five years of his career or so.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Love the immense insecurity of the poms in this board that you can't help but come into a thread specifically saying "ignore longevity" to say over and over again "but longevity". It goes without saying that comapring these 2 players is absurd for the exact reason we're being told to ignore. But you still can't help yourselves

GIMH the only one of you that hasn't embarassed himself

 

[Coronis]

If we're really doing this... then 39 wickets @ 14.10. Sit.

Against some top quality batting, I might add.

 

[trundler]

Love the immense insecurity of the poms in this board that you can't help but come into a thread specifically saying "ignore longevity" to say over and over again "but longevity". It goes without saying that comapring these 2 players is absurd for the exact reason we're being told to ignore. But you still can't help yourselves

GIMH the only one of you that hasn't embarassed himself

Ignoring such disparate longevities is nonsensical. You have to assume quality is is independent of longevity entirely which simply isn't true. And even if we do ignore longevity, you could find a much better 27 test period for Anderson.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ignoring such disparate longevities is nonsensical.

Literally In the post you quoted:

It goes without saying that comapring these 2 players is absurd for the exact reason we're being told to ignore.

Apparently doesn't go without saying. Many, many times

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're absolutely correct though

 

[karan_fromthestands]

I largely think longevity shouldn't be a factor when you are comparing players with a fair size of career sample and you can look at quality and performances against the best sides. For instance, I will always debate people rating Alastair Cook to highly because he was quite ordinary for the last 5 years of his career, after getting dismembered by Harris (and then Johnson) two series in a row. I will always rate Harris highly because of that, but it is a bit nuts to consider him anything other than a very good bowler who was very good for a short while. Anderson basically had nigh on over a decade and more of being an outstanding bowler, even if he was inconsistent and often downright poor for the first five years of his career or so.

Longevity is extremely important. Although in this case it's clearly mentioned that we are not considering longevity. So we are just doing guess-work on how good Ryan Harris was in comparison with Anderson(more or less an eye test). Which isn't wrong in context of this thread.

 

[Chin Music]

Bond looked great, but


Longevity is extremely important. Although in this case it's clearly mentioned that we are not considering longevity. So we are just doing guess-work on how good Ryan Harris was in comparison with Anderson(more or less an eye test). Which isn't wrong in context of this thread.

Well it is pretty daft trying to assess a guy who didn't play 30 tests. I have found that some of the player assessments on here a little daft when too much has centred on player X must have been better because he played for many more games. The Roberts v Pollock one being a fair example Roberts played in a different era with less tests and less test teams around but played nearly 50 tests and also must have missed a fair number of games because of WSC. He didn't have the chance to pad his stats against some of the weaker teams to have got test status.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Since Poms are useless and can't do ****. Here is Anderson 5 year peak where he averaged 21.41 better than Harris 23.5.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I think the problem in this thread is that TJB has been posting a lot and he doesn't seem to have been factoring in longevity?

 

[Ali TT]

I think the problem in this thread is that TJB has been posting a lot and he doesn't seem to have been factoring in longevity?

He hasn't even voted

 

[Howe_zat]

What does 'no factoring in longevity' even mean anyway? Best match? Best delivery?

Surely if you use an average or tally of wickets in any way, you're using longevity at least a little bit.

 

[number11]

Sans longevity, Harris was the better bowler. Jimmy is the greater bowler obviously.

 

[Coronis]

Well it is pretty daft trying to assess a guy who didn't play 30 tests. I have found that some of the player assessments on here a little daft when too much has centred on player X must have been better because he played for many more games. The Roberts v Pollock one being a fair example Roberts played in a different era with less tests and less test teams around but played nearly 50 tests and also must have missed a fair number of games because of WSC. He didn't have the chance to pad his stats against some of the weaker teams to have got test status.

Pretty sure Windies players missed 0 tests because of WSC.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What does 'no factoring in longevity' even mean anyway? Best match? Best delivery?

Surely if you use an average or tally of wickets in any way, you're using longevity at least a little bit.

TJB already covered this among his multitude of posts ITT:

lol this will be good. How much can we narrow "peak" down to?

Jimmy never bowled a ball as good as the Harris to Cook ball

So if that's his peak ball, then I guess the answer is Harris

 

[Prince EWS]

TJB already covered this among his multitude of posts ITT:

I think you're wrong anyway. That ball barely moved at all, was just a good line and length. Obviously a good nut but it's remembered much more fondly because if it was the first ball of the innings and in the Ashes than the actual quality of it in a vacuum, a bit like Starc to Burns.

Jimmy bowled some absolute jaffas that moved miles late and were much better than that ball. Ironically predominantly before he actually became a world class bowler.