Is James Anderson an ATG test bowler?

[sayon basak]

That’s right but his average during first half of his career was misleading. Hence, I would put him in same tier as Anderson.

Walsh and Anderson are in the same tier, and both are a tier above Philander/Statham/Hazlewood.

 

[Coronis]

That’s right but his average during first half of his career was misleading. That WPM is low. Hence, I would put him in same tier as Anderson.

Similarly for Pollock second half he was support bowler to Ntini and that WPM was low for him.

lol.. seriously trying to downgrade Walsh to up Anderson.

His average isn’t misleading wtf. Anderson’s WPM is lower than Walsh’s.

 

[Rob Wesley]

lol.. seriously trying to downgrade Walsh to up Anderson.

His average isn’t misleading wtf. Anderson’s WPM is lower than Walsh’s.

If you look at first 10 years of Walsh career(1985-1994), he averages 25.5 but he was always a support bowler, not even second lead in a bowling attack. Windies had number of fast bowlers who were averaging 19-20 during that period. Marshall was at his peak and by far the best between 1985-1990 while Garner picked a lot of wickets even in his final years with Walsh being a support bowler to the two in usually a 4 man pace attack.

Then by 1989-90, you can find that Ambrose and Bishop really peaked and straightaway became lead bowlers averaging 19-20 while Walsh was still averaging around the 25 mark. What Walsh did well was he was always a good enough performer throughout his career but he never reached the heights of 4-5 fast bowlers who played in his era.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[Randomfan]

Walsh statistically has better average and more all round record than Anderson.

But one needs to remember that Walsh in first half of his career was just a stock bowler and played supporting role to Marshall and Garner.

Ambrose came around 1989 and became the main man for Windies with Walsh and Bishop being his partner in crime.

It was only in latter part of his career that he was seen as a serious threat at a same level as Ambrose.

Anderson’s longevity lasted for 20 years and his prime started from 2010. 550 wickets@24 avg which included relatively more balanced record home, away and Asia and he did it being the lead bowler in his team.

I think both bowlers are product of longevity and great fitness but Anderson’s impact towards the game has been no lesser than Walsh.

Stock, Strike etc can't make anyone superior or inferior. A superior bowler can be a stock bowler for his team and inferior bowler can be strike for another. I had posters cite two peak periods for Anderosn above. Let's take that and compare him with Walsh when he was stock bowler and less impressive.

Outside of home,

Stock bowler Walsh in his less impressive half ( 1986-1992) : Avg 25 & SR 56

Vs

Strike bowler Anderson in his peak cited by posters above ( 2010 onwards ): 27 & SR 62
Strike bowler Anderson in his peak cited by posters above ( Jul 2015 - Feb 2021 ): 27.5 & 71

All we know that Anderson played for a long long time. He was poor before 2010. Got better after 2010. Everyone starts citing 2010 as cut off and says ignore previous period for Anderson. Well if you do that then ignore his wickets taken earier as well. Walsh and Anderosn both will have 500-550 wickets. If you give thsoe wickets to Anderson then count his average as well. You can't have it both ways.

Is there any period for Anderson where he was great home and away both?

We are seeing a stock bowler striking quicker in his weaker periods than strike bowler in his stronger period when stepping outside home.

If Walsh was playing for Eng with Anderson then he would have been a strike bowler for Eng.

Anderson should get credit for playing long time and getting so many wickets. Anderson had an ATG career at home , but below Walsh home and away combined. You can't compensate for lack of quality with volume of wickets. I think Walsh is vastly underrated by many fans. He was fantastic in the first half and got better in the second half.

 

[Rob Wesley]

Stock, Strike etc can't make anyone superior or inferior. A superior bowler can be a stock bowler for his team and inferior bowler can be strike for another. I had posters cite two peak periods for Anderosn above. Let's take that and compare him with Walsh when he was stock bowler and less impressive.

Outside of home,

Stock bowler Walsh in his less impressive half ( 1986-1992) : Avg 25 & SR 56

Vs

Strike bowler Anderson in his peak cited by posters above ( 2010 onwards ): 27 & SR 62
Strike bowler Anderson in his peak cited by posters above ( Jul 2015 - Feb 2021 ): 27.5 & 71

All we know that Anderson played for a long long time. He was poor before 2010. Got better after 2010. Everyone starts citing 2010 as cut off and says ignore previous period for Anderson. Well if you do that then ignore his wickets taken earier as well. Walsh and Anderosn both will have 500-550 wickets. If you give thsoe wickets to Anderson then count his average as well. You can't have it both ways.

Is there any period for Anderson where he was great home and away both?

We are seeing a stock bowler striking quicker in his weaker periods than strike bowler in his stronger period when stepping outside home.

If Walsh was playing for Eng with Anderson then he would have been a strike bowler for Eng.

Anderson should get credit for playing long time and getting so many wickets. Anderson had an ATG career at home , but below Walsh home and away combined. You can't compensate for lack of quality with volume of wickets. I think Walsh is vastly underrated by many fans. He was fantastic in the first half and got better in the second half.

I am not denying that Walsh wasn’t a better away from home bowler than Anderson. He was but here we are comparing their overall careers and not just away records.

what are Anderson’s stats from 2010 onwards?Home and away included.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

133 tests, 556 wickets, Avg 24

Home average- 22
Away average - 27
Neutral - 20( this was UAE which was technically a venue where Pakistan played their home matches for a decade)

Yes, away record is not outrageous but his record in most part of the world is very balanced with average around 31 mark being the worst in SA.

As for Walsh, he too got better with time just like Anderson but I already explained in post #303 how there were multiple fast bowlers better than him in first 10 years of his career and Walsh was always like 3rd pacer in the side. It does help when you have couple of guys averaging higher in a 4 man pace attack this making it easier for you as one change bowler.

 

[Silver Silva]

I am not denying that Walsh wasn’t a better away from home bowler than Anderson. He was but here we are comparing their overall careers and not just away records.

what are Anderson’s stats from 2010 onwards?Home and away included.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

133 tests, 556 wickets, Avg 24

Home average- 22
Away average - 27
Neutral - 20( this was UAE which was technically a venue where Pakistan played their home matches for a decade)

Yes, away record is not outrageous but his record in most part of the world is very balanced with average around 31 mark being the worst in SA.

As for Walsh, he too got better with time just like Anderson but I already explained in post #303 how there were multiple fast bowlers better than him in first 10 years of his career and Walsh was always like 3rd pacer in the side. It does help when you have couple of guys averaging higher in a 4 man pace attack this making it easier for you as one change bowler.

Anderson had a lot of privilege in his career. In teams with great/good fast bowling depth the margin for error is minimal, after Anderson's debut year in Test cricket it took him 91 Tests to get his bowling below 30 , how many fast bowlers in history would have that opportunity to figure out Test cricket before becoming ATG worthy? They would have been replaced by someone long ago especially in the 20th century for an English bowler where Ashes cricket performances were make or break in your career. I admire Anderson's longevity but he also had a lot of luck in his career.

 

[Randomfan]

I am not denying that Walsh wasn’t a better away from home bowler than Anderson. He was but here we are comparing their overall careers and not just away records.

what are Anderson’s stats from 2010 onwards?Home and away included.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

133 tests, 556 wickets, Avg 24

Home average- 22
Away average - 27
Neutral - 20( this was UAE which was technically a venue where Pakistan played their home matches for a decade)

Yes, away record is not outrageous but his record in most part of the world is very balanced with average around 31 mark being the worst in SA.

As for Walsh, he too got better with time just like Anderson but I already explained in post #303 how there were multiple fast bowlers better than him in first 10 years of his career and Walsh was always like 3rd pacer in the side. It does help when you have couple of guys averaging higher in a 4 man pace attack this making it easier for you as one change bowler.

3rd or 1st pacer does not make any difference. We should see how they both did home and away individually.

After remoing few test in start and few tests in End,

Walsh ( 1 Jan 86 - 15 Nov 2000) has Avg of 24 home and Away 23.xx
Anderson ( after 2010) has avg of of 22.5 home

Difference between away is far bigger than differnce between home if you see record for both.


----------------------------

Also, performing at home and performing away are not really same despite both getting counted in career avg. To illustrate the point, during Anderson's good period, you can see that many have good home and as result good career avg, but when you see away it's a totally different situation.

After 2010: bowlers with 100 plus wickets at home and sub 25 avg - 13




After 2010: bowlers with 100 plus wickets Home+Away and sub 25 avg - 11




But situation changes a lot as soon as you look for away,

After 2010: bowlers with 100 plus wickets at home and sub 25 avg - Only 2



Anyway, Walsh and Anderson both are very good bowlers but comparing career avg is not going tell us quality of bowlers. Jadeja will otherwise go down as an ATG.

 

[Rob Wesley]

3rd or 1st pacer does not make any difference. We should see how they both did home and away individually.

After remoing few test in start and few tests in End,

Walsh ( 1 Jan 86 - 15 Nov 2000) has Avg of 24 home and Away 23.xx
Anderson ( after 2010) has avg of of 22.5 home

Difference between away is far bigger than differnce between home if you see record for both.


----------------------------

Also, performing at home and performing away are not really same despite both getting counted in career avg. To illustrate the point, during Anderson's good period, you can see that many have good home and as result good career avg, but when you see away it's a totally different situation.

After 2010: bowlers with 100 plus wickets at home and sub 25 avg - 13
View attachment 44482



After 2010: bowlers with 100 plus wickets Home+Away and sub 25 avg - 11
View attachment 44483



But situation changes a lot as soon as you look for away,

After 2010: bowlers with 100 plus wickets at home and sub 25 avg - Only 2
View attachment 44481


Anyway, Walsh and Anderson both are very good bowlers but comparing career avg is not going tell us quality of bowlers. Jadeja will otherwise go down as an ATG.

You are only comparing their away average and making a conclusion. Anderson has played a key role in winning his team Ashes away in 2010 and also India series in 2012.

Would you rate Allan Border and Steve Waugh above Ponting and Lara purely in away averages?

I think impact in home conditions also matter. Anderson has phenomenal impact in winning his team games at home while Walsh was a bit behind in that regard. That ability to dominate vs all teams at home was lacking in case of Walsh. Anderson has it and he has good away record too. Walsh has better away record but he has not been a strike bowler all his career.

As for who will open the bowling between Anderson and Walsh, look at their skills set. Anderson was a master with new ball, could swing the ball both ways. He has to open the attack. Walsh will likely continue from other end.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You are only comparing their away average and making a conclusion. Anderson has played a key role in winning his team Ashes away in 2010 and also India series in 2012.

Would you rate Allan Border and Steve Waugh above Ponting and Lara purely in away averages?

I think impact in home conditions also matter. Anderson has phenomenal impact in winning his team games at home while Walsh was a bit behind in that regard. That ability to dominate vs all teams at home was lacking in case of Walsh. Anderson has it and he has good away record too. Walsh has better away record but he has not been a strike bowler all his career.

As for who will open the bowling between Anderson and Walsh, look at their skills set. Anderson was a master with new ball, could swing the ball both ways. He has to open the attack. Walsh will likely continue from other end.

who cares. Walsh isn't an ATG either

 

[Fuller Pilch]

We don't have 50 test pacers better than Anderson. It's simply not possible.

To put it in context,

We have only 46 pacers with sub 29 avg and 150 plus career wickets.

Yes, but there are also those with fewer than 150 wickets who are better than Anderson.

 

[Line and Length]

Yes, but there are also those with fewer than 150 wickets who are better than Anderson.

Who did you have in mind? Neil Adcock possibly? Frank Tyson's 17 Tests is too short to be considered imo.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Who did you have in mind? Neil Adcock possibly? Frank Tyson's 17 Tests is too short to be considered imo.

Contenders might include
19th century bowlers such as Lohmann, Ferris, Spofforth ...,
Bill Johnston (some wickets as spin), Adcock, Tyson (if enough tests), Croft, Larwood etc.

I should have written "may be considered better" rather than "are better". Anderson post 2015/16 did enough to be rated highly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Who did you have in mind? Neil Adcock possibly? Frank Tyson's 17 Tests is too short to be considered imo.

Lance Cairns, Ewen Chatfield, Matt Henry, Richard Collinge, Bruce Taylor, John Bracewell, Dick Motz, Simon Doull, Dion Nash, Shane Bond (actually), Hedley Howarth, Ajaz Patel, John Reid, James Franklin, Kyle Jamieson, Daryl Tuffey, Dipak Patel, Mitch Santner

to name a few

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Will O’Rouke as well

 

[Northerner]

Lots of negativity about Anderson, he was a great bowler, was he better than Trueman ? no. was he better than Willis ? no. just like many bowlers he was excellent when the conditions where in his favour, in conditions that did not suite him he was good but not great. but one thing you have to admire his is fitness and how he had a long distinguished career,

 

[Ali TT]

I know why people get nerdy about cricket stats but man, following cricket through spreadsheets sure saps the fun out of the game.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Lance Cairns, Ewen Chatfield, Matt Henry, Richard Collinge, Bruce Taylor, John Bracewell, Dick Motz, Simon Doull, Dion Nash, Shane Bond (actually), Hedley Howarth, Ajaz Patel, John Reid, James Franklin, Kyle Jamieson, Daryl Tuffey, Dipak Patel, Mitch Santner

to name a few

Probably the most sensible thing you've ever posted on here, although you forgot Cowie.

 

[Johan]

Lots of negativity about Anderson, he was a great bowler, was he better than Trueman ? no. was he better than Willis ? no. just like many bowlers he was excellent when the conditions where in his favour, in conditions that did not suite him he was good but not great. but one thing you have to admire his is fitness and how he had a long distinguished career,

he's better than Willis

 

[Northerner]

he's better than Willis

Not in my view, if i was playing in Australia or India i would pick Willis over Anderson every time,

 

[Johan]

Not in my view, if i was playing in Australia or India i would pick Willis over Anderson every time,

you're wrong then but eh