James Anderson vs Courtney Walsh

[CasMcG24]

So glad the slippy food thing happened in my presence, else I would have been an utterly confused noob too.



Aah, I see you haven't familiarized yourself with Borges.

Wanted to inject humour than rather the voices in my head... I think.

 

[Borges]

The trundler now has company; two more people have voted for Anderson; or may be, trundler somehow hoodwinked everyone and managed to vote three times.

 

[trundler]

The trundler now has company; two more people have voted for Anderson; or may be, trundler somehow hoodwinked everyone and managed to vote three times.

I suspect Adders.

I should start a greatest trundler of all time thread.

 

[sledger]

This is why people should stop talking for others... "no daddy, I did do the dishes.... Jonny must have slipped and fell..." As it adds confusion and miss informs others.

Says the person who started with a post that said "these are the words of my father", or something to that effect.

 

[Jack1]

Anderson. Walsh was a great bowling too, but Anderson even on bowling alone imo. Different eras, batters are more skilled now. Anderson is a great fielder too. Anderson also doesn't have Ambrose to bowl in tandem with. Close call, but Anderson.

 

[Slifer]

Anyone ranking Anderson even in the same class as Walsh is high. Walsh's worst team is Australia at 28. And most of his shortcomings was in Australia. Remember that Australia of Walsh's time was an atg team. Anderson is a very very good bowler but most of his exploits have been at home. He's pretty much useless everywhere else.

 

[bagapath]

Anderson is another ishant sharma outside of england.
Walsh by a long way.

 

[Kirkut]

Under clouds Anderson is more unplayable than Steyn but when the sun is out, he's gun barrel straight.

P.S.: He's the fast bowling version of Kumble.

 

[Flem274*]

He's pretty much useless everywhere else.

Anderson is another ishant sharma outside of england.

when the sun is out, he's gun barrel straight.

P.S.: He's the fast bowling version of Kumble.

don't do drugs kids

 

[Jack1]

Anyone ranking Anderson even in the same class as Walsh is high. Walsh's worst team is Australia at 28. And most of his shortcomings was in Australia. Remember that Australia of Walsh's time was an atg team. Anderson is a very very good bowler but most of his exploits have been at home. He's pretty much useless everywhere else.

Walsh bowled in tandem with Ambrose. And bowled in a different era. Walsh was monotonous and could have been blocked out easier if the batsmen didn't have the nightmare of Ambrose up the other end. The batsmen were also less skilled then. If you can't see alternate perspective then you need to understand empathy a little more. Anderson and Walsh are both great bowlers. In a stacked attack I'd definitely pick Walsh, for their individual teams it's arguable Anderson has been more valuable. Depends how you look at it to be honest. Anderson is a great fielder too and probably better with the bat.

Walsh was a great bowler. I do understand anyone preferring him and wouldn't argue with it. Anderson was shocking away from home for a long time. I don't like judging a player on one aspect alone as it makes zero sense. Batting and fielding must come in to the equation as that's what a player is and on that basis Anderson wins for me overall. Judging a player on one thing alone is pretty tunnel visioned and highly questionable. A cricket team is about balance and player needs to be judged the same. In my opinion. Perfectly reasonable to disagree with that.

 

[Adders]

I suspect Adders.

No not me. I wanted to vote for Tikka Massala but slippy ****ed up and left it out of the pole.

Side rant: nothing grinds my gears like English fans who think Jimmy is the greatest ever. Perhaps my biggest pet peeve.

So who are these people? I know about Stewart and some very missguided comments he made and then we've got that new poster John who is just off his rocker anyway. If this is grinding your gears trundler then it surely must be a thing??, but I'm not seeing it (here at any rate) I'm probably up there with Jimmy's biggest fans on here and seem to spend half my CW posting trying not to headbut people who still call him Clouderson or rank rubbish away from home........but I don;t think he is in the same tier as Walsh.

I think you'll find most English fans understand perfectly where Jimmy Anderson sits in the grand scheme of things.....he is ATVG, a clear level below ATG.

 

[Jack1]

don't do drugs kids

I think some people only thing a player exists when they play their own side. These type of people don't follow, or understand cricket, as a whole. Anderson is much improved away from home. Although still has a lot of work to do.

 

[trundler]

Differences in home and away averages are greater than ever before. No batsman in the current series knows where his off-stump is. Batsmanship has been woeful in every series I've seen this year (SA vs, Aus, Eng v Pak, WI vs SL, SL vs SA, Eng vs India) barring very few exceptions. Batsmen have **** defensive techniques. No, batsmen aren't more skilled. They've actually gotten worse at test match batting. Any time there's a pitch with life in it, we see multiple lollapses in the same match.

Anderson and Walsh both aren't great bowlers. Walsh is, Anderson isn't. I'll give you that Anderson is a terror in the right conditions but he's as condition reliant as a finger spinner. He simply isn't a great bowler. The Kumble analogy is very apt.

 

[Flem274*]

"All batsmen suck today" is a myth. I remember the late 90s and early 00s. Put those blokes up against the quality of bowling attacks on some of the challenging decks of today and we'd see some batting averages plummetting. Go back earlier and an Atherton-esque average that is now considered good because 90s was still considered neither here nor there unless you were Michael Atherton himself.

It's also funny to see the change from "all these batsmen are FTBs" to "all these bowlers are home track heroes"

 

[Kirkut]

Anderson averages 30+ away from home leaving WI and UAE against weaker batting line ups. I still remember him trundling under hot sun against Amla and Kallis, smashing 300 and 200.

 

[Slifer]

Walsh bowled in tandem with Ambrose. And bowled in a different era. Walsh was monotonous and could have been blocked out easier if the batsmen didn't have the nightmare of Ambrose up the other end. The batsmen were also less skilled then. If you can't see alternate perspective then you need to understand empathy a little more. Anderson and Walsh are both great bowlers. In a stacked attack I'd definitely pick Walsh, for their individual teams it's arguable Anderson has been more valuable. Depends how you look at it to be honest. Anderson is a great fielder too and probably better with the bat.

Walsh was a great bowler. I do understand anyone preferring him and wouldn't argue with it. Anderson was shocking away from home for a long time. I don't like judging a player on one aspect alone as it makes zero sense. Batting and fielding must come in to the equation as that's what a player is and on that basis Anderson wins for me overall. Judging a player on one thing alone is pretty tunnel visioned and highly questionable. A cricket team is about balance and player needs to be judged the same. In my opinion. Perfectly reasonable to disagree with that.

What?? Less skilled batsmen?? U mean like Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Steve Waugh, M Waugh, Hayden, Ponting, Langer, Javed, Inzi, Saeed, Sachin, Dravid, Azhurahdin, Kirsten, Cullinan , A Flower etc . Batting in the 90s was tougher not because of less skill but because most teams had challenging attacks with no respite. WI : Walsh, Amby, Bishop (ocassionally ), Aust: McGrath, warne, Gillespie,
Reiffel, McDermott, macgill, Fleming RSA : Donald, de Villiers, Pollock, Pak : WW , saqlain, mustaq, India: kumble, srinath ( India were a handful at home in particular) SL : Vaas , Murali, Eng: Gough , Fraser, Caddick etc. The only teams now that have better attacks than their 90s counterparts are probably Nz and India (probably Eng. too) . But none of these attacks are particularly head and shoulders above their 90s counterparts like for example Pakistan or WI.

Walsh probably single handedly ended the promising career of vinod kambli and helped the wi tie a tough away series in India in 94. Walsh was the only marquee bowler from the wi and he helped wi tie in India where other teams were being blown away. People remember that 99 series vs Australia as the Lara series but in those 4 tests Walsh also excelled taking 26 wkts vs an ATG team.

How old exactly are u John?? Do some research before sprouting bs about the great Courtney Walsh. Oh and I don't know where other skills come in I thought it was obvious that we're comparing them as test bowlers. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This is going against the norm.

A Slippy thread is considered a dull affair if there are not any discussions on cuisines.

 

[trundler]

Can we stop trying to make Anderson something he's not (a truly great, multifaceted test great) and instead appreciate him for what he is (an extremely durable swing bowler who is great to watch at home)? Let's also take this moment to admit that he's gotten better away but these threads are just embarrassing.

 

[vcs]

I went for Anderson, dunno why, guess there's some recency bias there, and I felt people were being a little harsh on him in this thread. Walsh had great longevity as well though.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Walsh for me, probably the most under-rated bowler of the last 30 years.