James Anderson

[trundler]

There's got to be some disastrous takes in this thread. Someone who can digest the richard spam to find them

People were wrong 15 years ago based on things that have happened since, shocker.

 

[Howe_zat]

People were wrong 15 years ago based on things that have happened since, shocker.

Nah it's still a disaster take when people post things like 'Steve Smith hasn't got any of the basic skills to be in internationals and should never play again.' Which is the sort of thing I guessed would be here.

 

[GIMH]

Thought I'd dig up an Anderson thread.

Don't think he should be an automatic pick for England in any format. Most definitely should not be playing in a 4-man attack in a Test match. He's just too innocuous most of the time, you can't rely on him as a main bowler.

heh. I thought this would have an Onions-related agenda and reading on...it did.

The difference in Jimmeh now and two years ago is that he keeps it much tighter when it's not swinging. In days gone by he would be going at 4 or 5 an over when conditions didn't suit whereas now if he isn't running through a side he's still reaosnably economical

Good post IMO

Onions is better I reckon.

Onions>Anderson>Broad.

Was actually a common enough view circa 09 round here. I never shared it but it just shows you how things can shift. Hence me not digging this one to humiliate Uppercut but to show how much Anderson improved post that 08/09 period where he had his moments but also had some horror shows. And Broad was probably picked too early but it worked out in the end.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah, from what I remember you could have made the case for Onions over Anderson on form in 2009 without too much trouble.

Honestly if that's the worst then everyone here did pretty well considering. Maybe I'm thinking of Stuart Broad as the one where people were completely unforgiving early on

 

[GIMH]

Broad there's definitely a lot of egg on face.

 

[Jarquis]

Broad there's definitely a lot of egg on face.

Pretty sure I spat the dummy when he was picked for Headingley in 2009

 

[Pavel]

I Tweeted today that Jimmy is only 13 wickets away from 400 since he turned 30, only Herath has more in the post 30 club (15 ahead).








Will he get their by the end of the English summer?

 

[Uppercut]

Onions probably was better when I made that post. Just demonstrates why durability is arguably the most important skill for a fast bowler. The number of people who can bowl at the level of a good test player is much smaller than the number of people who can do it without damaging their bodies beyond repair after a few years. A guy who can do it for well over a decade is a freak.

 

[GIMH]

Onions probably was better when I made that post. Just demonstrates why durability is arguably the most important skill for a fast bowler. The number of people who can bowl at the level of a good test player is much smaller than the number of people who can do it without damaging their bodies beyond repair after a few years. A guy who can do it for well over a decade is a freak.

If Onions was ever better it was purely on form alone IMO. Anderson always had the superior skill set. IMO of course.
But either way not to detract from your point which is hugely well made. I remember when Zaheer Khan or James Anderson was a legit debate. Looking back it feels a bit like debating Kaiser Chiefs and Arctic Monkeys.

 

[GIMH]

I’ll grant you that making Zaheer the Kaiser Chiefs is a bit harsh. He can be Razorlight instead

 

[Uppercut]

Meh, in my head form just kind of means ‘good but in an unsustainable way’. Onions’s effectiveness was only unsustainable because he couldn’t bowl to that standard while staying fit. It’s the most common English fast bowler problem. They seem to find far more bowlers who are good enough but can’t stay fit than bowlers who just aren’t up to it.

I think nowadays I’d consider durability very strongly when assessing a bowler. I’d never have put Archer above Anderson, to take a random example. But it wasn’t really baked in when we talked about bowlers at the time. If you’d said Shane Bond was better than Anderson back then no one would have even argued. We just kind of meant something different by ‘better’.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Looking back it feels a bit like debating Kaiser Chiefs and Arctic Monkeys.

Can you translate this for the non-British

 

[Flem274*]

Onions was a really good bowler back in the day and had a fun name, so I was a fan.

Onions probably was better when I made that post. Just demonstrates why durability is arguably the most important skill for a fast bowler. The number of people who can bowl at the level of a good test player is much smaller than the number of people who can do it without damaging their bodies beyond repair after a few years. A guy who can do it for well over a decade is a freak.

You mean bigger/greater? Otherwise I'm a bit lost here.

 

[Flem274*]

I’ve come around to bracket him as an ATG. Just borderline but the sheer number of wickets, fitness and skill is too hard to ignore.

I was thinking similar on the dunny yesterday. He's hit another level ever since and just before I called him a fraud, which is a common theme with my **** posting and why I am usually always very careful to be complimentary to certain players.

He's probably less talented than he was when he was 20 or even 35 but he's much better at getting results in every situation now.

 

[Shady Slim]

I Tweeted today that Jimmy is only 13 wickets away from 400 since he turned 30, only Herath has more in the post 30 club (15 ahead).




View attachment 32088



Will he get their by the end of the English summer?

and rangana also did it with less games... everyone wants to talk about jimmy's fitness and rightly so he's a phenom but nobody wants to give due credit to the fatman...

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, I think the sheer longevity and consistency pushes Thaatha to ATG levels from the "great" level I had him pegged a bit ago.

 

[the big bambino]

I think there will always be a cloud hanging over his achievements.

 

[GIMH]

Meh, in my head form just kind of means ‘good but in an unsustainable way’. Onions’s effectiveness was only unsustainable because he couldn’t bowl to that standard while staying fit. It’s the most common English fast bowler problem. They seem to find far more bowlers who are good enough but can’t stay fit than bowlers who just aren’t up to it.

I think nowadays I’d consider durability very strongly when assessing a bowler. I’d never have put Archer above Anderson, to take a random example. But it wasn’t really baked in when we talked about bowlers at the time. If you’d said Shane Bond was better than Anderson back then no one would have even argued. We just kind of meant something different by ‘better’.

Funnily enough I originally mentioned Shane Bond before deleting and going for Zaheer as that was an active debate once upon a time.
Anyhow I get what you mean but I guess the point for me is I never agreed at the time that Onions was better. He had a handful of matches where he outperformed Anderson maybe, but even by then Jimmy had enough in the bank for me. But as I say that’s just my opinion alas one I do recall arguing at the time.

It is interesting to look back though. Because anyone making that argument now would be considered to be insane or Scaly Piscine. But as you say, there is a case that can be made.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

James Anderson really is the future for England imo. Would also love to see Broad get a game.

I don’t remember simmy at all, but of all the stuff (good word that) written in 2007 this is not bad.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yeah, from what I remember you could have made the case for Onions over Anderson on form in 2009 without too much trouble.

Honestly if that's the worst then everyone here did pretty well considering. Maybe I'm thinking of Stuart Broad as the one where people were completely unforgiving early on

i remember the jokes about broad and they were Extremely Not Funny