Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
When the case is for longevity it does help that you break a few records, not just follow 50-100 wickets behind.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Jimmy Anderson
- Thread starter Adders
- Start date
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It doesn't seem like it proportionally, but 50-100 wickets is a lot. It's like, a whole Tim Bresnan career.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Broad is a very good bowler who can bowl great spells. Anderson is a great bowler who can bowl very good spells. Anderson wins you matches in conditions you expect him to. And does not win you matches where you think he won't. With Broad, it is all a bit unpredictable. That consistency and the reliability of Anderson makes him better IMO.
Victor Ian
International Coach
It doesn't matter who it is, it is great to get two great bowlers with careers that largely coincide.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Indeed... It is like Ambrose and Walsh but a notch below. Ambrose was ATG. Walsh was great. Here, to me, Anderson is great. Broad is very good.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
It's just amazing when you read numbskulls like stephen saying he's 'not a very good bowler'
I've always said I'd put @RossTaylorsBox in my first helicopter but I read drivel like that and I am tempted to reconsider
I've always said I'd put @RossTaylorsBox in my first helicopter but I read drivel like that and I am tempted to reconsider
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's too bad you can't read then isn't it. I said he's not THAT good of a bowler, with reference to his statistical output. To interpret for your clearly superior intellect - an average of under 25 flatters him, as does being crowned the highest wicket taking pace bowler. In most places around the world he's closer to Pathan than McGrath.
He's not a bad bowler and in the right conditions he's an excellent bowler. But like David Warner he is frequently poor outside those conditions.
Warner is the guy I'd say is most like Jimmy. At first you see his numbers, or how he performs at home and you think he's amazing and one of the best ever, but as soon as conditions don't favour him he's quite ordinary. Not bad, just middle of the road.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Tbf one of those is relative and the other isn't so there can be a lot of variation there.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sure he's been in or around the top 5 fast bowlers in the world for like 10+ years. There's nothing inherently better about being equally good in all conditions than being *amazing* in some and not great in others. Stephen's just being an oddball.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
His quote was 'But he's also not deceiving anyone with his numbers. I think people get a little annoyed seeing Jimmy have such great numbers when he's really not that good of a bowler.' Now that he's cleared up, fine, 'that' refers to his numbers. However, it's poorly expressed and a reasonable inference of that final phrase is to take it in that 'he's just not that good' context. It isn't clear that it's relative, especially as he's used a generalisation rather than tying it to his actual numbers.
So stephen can tell me I can't read all he likes; maybe he should piece his posts together more precisely. I was taught in Year 6 that you should avoid ambiguity, but maybe stephen just isn't that bright.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Still wouldn't put him in a world team for the 2010s. I'd give Steyn and Philander the new ball as both could bowl with the Kookaburra and he (Anderson) couldn't play as a 3rd seamer (Cummins, Johnson, Rabada, Harris, and possibly Bumrah all could and obviously Wagner is an ATG 3rd/4th seamer and Morkel decent option too if height and pace are wanted).
Anderson is better as a new ball bowler than Johnson and Morkel and might be better than Rabada too. It is early days in Bumrah's career but he could be special - has a Waqarish ability to run through teams. I admit Anderson is ahead of Boult and Southee overall (although their spells in SL a few years ago were amazing) but think Wagner is better.
Anderson is better as a new ball bowler than Johnson and Morkel and might be better than Rabada too. It is early days in Bumrah's career but he could be special - has a Waqarish ability to run through teams. I admit Anderson is ahead of Boult and Southee overall (although their spells in SL a few years ago were amazing) but think Wagner is better.
Last edited:
I would pick him over Philander but I don't think either is particularly controversial. I think there was a vote on here which ended up with both of them and I can definitely see why that seems unsatisfactory.
He more than edges out Boult and Southee but that is not really relevant.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha what
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Wagner takes wickets on roads and in sunny conditions, doesn't get the new ball and wins unwinnable tests when the batsmen are in control. He's probably the best left armer since Wasim.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
as if