Is James Anderson an ATG test bowler?

[Sunil1z]

Well that’s about the worst argument for anything I’ve heard on here so far this year. Congrats.

Says a guy who posted Gavaskar’s average in Test wins few days ago . Are you this stupid ?

 

[centurymaker]

the majority is probably tipped by people who want to legitimise Ashwin

No. It has nothing to do with Ashwin or whether or not he is an ATG. Thats an entirely separate discussion. This is only about Anderson, who is a better bowler than Ashwin!

Anderson's numbers speak volumes.

 

[Molehill]

When playing away he tends to be shielded unless conditions are favourable, by either not playing or bowling geriatric workloads. Very low wickets per match, probably because he is bowling dry instead of seeking wickets. He has such a low workload over the last 5 years that he is verging on a joke. His playing is hurting England badly by not letting others establish themselves and find their wicket taking groove. It's shameful and only possible because anyone can take wickets in the last 5 years

You mean like the series in Pakistan, played on the flattest of wickets that England somehow won 3-0? Used as an impact bowler, picked up 8 key wickets at 18 with a SR of 50.

Yeah, he's had the odd bad match (Oval), but his stats over the last 10 years are ridiculous. Unless of course you're saying the likes of Cummins and Hazlewood are average players?

 

[Socerer 01]

the majority is probably tipped by people who want to legitimise Ashwin

yeah im sure the likes of @GIMH @Molehill @Adders want to legitimise Ashwin while we have the noble and impartial Aussie fans trying to delegitimise an England bowler

 

[srbhkshk]

Thats an entirely separate discussion. This is only about Anderson, who is a better bowler than Ashwin!

I have seen this opnion being waved around like a fact for some time from others as well, what exactly makes Anderson better as a bowler than Ashwin?

The criticism for them is similar , Anderson has more wickets but Ashwin has a far superior average to compensate and that gap is there even though great spinners tend to average more than great pacers in general.

 

[Coronis]

Says a guy who posted Gavaskar’s average in Test wins few days ago . Are you this stupid ?

lol. I didn’t mention it as any way of rating him, just that it was unusual compared to others.

 

[Sunil1z]

lol. I didn’t mention it as any way of rating him, just that it was unusual compared to others.

And what I wanted to say that both IND and AUS would have benefited more in 80s if they had Ashwin/Anderson instead of Gavaskar/Border because of number of matches won by them on their own .
Obvious Border/Gavaskar were superior player .

 

[Coronis]

And what I wanted to say that both IND and AUS would have benefited more in 80s if they had Ashwin/Anderson instead of Gavaskar/Border because of number of matches won by them on their own .
Obvious Border/Gavaskar were superior player .

So… say that originally? Rather than randomly comparing them to Murali Vijay and Dean Elgar.

 

[Victor Ian]

You mean like the series in Pakistan, played on the flattest of wickets that England somehow won 3-0? Used as an impact bowler, picked up 8 key wickets at 18 with a SR of 50.

Yeah, he's had the odd bad match (Oval), but his stats over the last 10 years are ridiculous. Unless of course you're saying the likes of Cummins and Hazlewood are average players?

Are you serious? That is exactly the crock that this **** is doing. He wasn't an impact bowler. Those decks were ****ed and he got a juicy moment in one innings, where Robinson did the same. The jerry is taking a spot that another bog average player could fill. Anderson did not win England those games. He just participated like he has been doing for a few years. Anderson is great. But now he is taking the piss and in my opinion every extra game he plays lowers my estimation of him.

I'll defer to others to judge Hazlewood and Cummins. Personally, I feel I'm underwhelmed by them. They are too rare to step up and win the match on their own. Sure they take some wickets that matter, but they do not regularly demolish teams on their own like Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, etc, so I'm often underwhelmed by them.

 

[Victor Ian]

I have seen this opnion being waved around like a fact for some time from others as well, what exactly makes Anderson better as a bowler than Ashwin?

The criticism for them is similar , Anderson has more wickets but Ashwin has a far superior average to compensate and that gap is there even though great spinners tend to average more than great pacers in general.

Yeah - surely Ashwin is much better than Anderson. Both suffer from conditionsalitis, but Ashwin is far more devastating in his element than Anderson.

 

[peterhrt]

Trueman or Barnes I think

Personal view is that Anderson and Trueman are similar and neither are ATGs. Barnes is well ahead of both.

There are likenesses between Anderson and Trueman. Both mastered favourable home conditions. Their overall numbers lead them to be overrated. At their statistical peaks neither was fast and they could be innocuous.

When Trueman hung up his boots virtually nobody thought he had been as good as Larwood. Not as fast or as accurate. As all-time England XIs appeared during the 1970s Larwood and Barnes were in all of them, Trueman in hardly any.

Like latter-day Botham, Trueman was under the illusion that his bouncers would intimidate good batsmen. After 1960 they were medium-pace long hops. At Leeds in 1964 they cost England the series and Trueman his place in the team.

One difference between Anderson and Trueman is how they were perceived while still playing. Anderson is constantly hyped up by the English media. Trueman's reputation was more mixed and only grew significantly long after he retired, partly through stats-based revisionism. Hutton never rated him. Nor did selectors Gubby Allen and Freddie Brown. The narrative that Trueman was let down by the selectors is not supported by Cowdrey, who felt he was actually picked too often.

 

[Socerer 01]

I'll defer to others to judge Hazlewood and Cummins. Personally, I feel I'm underwhelmed by them. They are too rare to step up and win the match on their own. Sure they take some wickets that matter, but they do not regularly demolish teams on their own like Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, etc, so I'm often underwhelmed by them.

the good old cricket has devolved logic, where have we seen this before

 

[Victor Ian]

Media hype really is something now. I perhaps baulk too much the other way because of it, so it's nice to hear measured, well put opinions.

 

[Victor Ian]

the good old cricket has devolved logic, where have we seen this before

People have devolved. Cricket is just a by product.

 

[Socerer 01]

Personal view is that Anderson and Trueman are similar and neither are ATGs. Barnes is well ahead of both.

There are likenesses between Anderson and Trueman. Both mastered favourable home conditions. Their overall numbers lead them to be overrated. At their statistical peaks neither was fast and they could be innocuous.

When Trueman hung up his boots virtually nobody thought he had been as good as Larwood. Not as fast or as accurate. As all-time England XIs appeared during the 1970s Larwood and Barnes were in all of them, Trueman in hardly any.

Like latter-day Botham, Trueman was under the illusion that his bouncers would intimidate good batsmen. After 1960 they were medium-pace long hops. At Leeds in 1964 they cost England the series and Trueman his place in the team.

One difference between Anderson and Trueman is how they were perceived while still playing. Anderson is constantly hyped up by the English media. Trueman's reputation was more mixed and only grew significantly long after he retired, partly through stats-based revisionism. Hutton never rated him. Nor did selectors Gubby Allen and Freddie Brown. The narrative that Trueman was let down by the selectors is not supported by Cowdrey, who felt he was actually picked too often.

what this proves is that nobody rates active players seriously during the times unless they’re extraordinarily good or had the aura and a lot of their reputation gets added by nostalgia and post career analysis

 

[Socerer 01]

People have devolved. Cricket is just a by product.

good troll buddy good troll

 

[Molehill]

Media hype really is something now. I perhaps baulk too much the other way because of it, so it's nice to hear measured, well put opinions.

I can kind of get where you're coming from, but at the same time, how the leading wicket taking seamer of all time isn't an ATG is just not even a consideration for me. You don't take 700 wickets by accident.

 

[honestbharani]

good troll buddy good troll

If the trolls are better, is that a sign of improvement or devolution?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can kind of get where you're coming from, but at the same time, how the leading wicket taking seamer of all time isn't an ATG is just not even a consideration for me. You don't take 700 wickets by accident.

That's a way to look at it but should you bet bumped up to be with the best ever just because you were sort of close enough, didn't want to retire and English Test spam gave you a cumulative record?

Alistair Cook could easily have done the same for batting if he really wanted (if anything the team needed his batting more than it did Anderson's bowling)

 

[Molehill]

That's a way to look at it but should you bet bumped up to be with the best ever just because you were sort of close enough, didn't want to retire and English Test spam gave you a cumulative record?

Alistair Cook could easily have done the same for batting if he really wanted (if anything the team needed his batting more than it did Anderson's bowling)

Not saying he's the best ever, but he's got 700 wickets. It's only been the last year where you could question his selection though. Cook went through a period where his selection was regularly questioned, I don't think Anderson has ever had that since becoming a regular.

Would you question Tendulkar by the same token?