Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[flibbertyjibber]

I really have to find that post where the guy mentions there's some awful use of stats in this thread

But on the subject on Ian Botham. Well, he was the equal 5th fastest bowler to 100 wickets - and if you decided to make it post WWI, equal 2nd, and post WWII, equal fastest - and the equal 5th fastest bowler to 200 - beating out Marshall, Warne, Muttiah and Donald. I happen to think that when you take 200 wickets at an average of 21, including about 17 5 wicket hauls, and become the highest wicket taker in test cricket I think there's a fair chance you were an all time great bowler.

We all know what happened with Botham, he became a crock and played on for about 6 years on reputation alone when he was a shadow of the great player he once was. Had he retired through the injuries in 86 he would be regarded higher as his batting and bowling averages would have been so much better.

 

[Jager]

We all know what happened with Botham, he became a crock and played on for about 6 years on reputation alone when he was a shadow of the great player he once was. Had he retired through the injuries in 86 he would be regarded higher as his batting and bowling averages would have been so much better.

After exactly half of Botham's 102-match career, his figures were...

Matches 51, Date: 8th of July, 1982
Batting average 38.80, 2833 runs, 11 centuries, HS 208
Bowling average 23.06, 231 wickets, BBI 8/34, 19 five-wicket hauls

Those figures would certainly have put him on par with Miller and Imran. To build on your 1986 example, at the start of that year his figures were worse but by that much.

Matches 80, Date: 21st of February, 1986
Batting average 35.91, 4453 runs, 13 centuries, HS 208
Bowling average 26.41, 345 wickets, BBI 8/34, 25 five-wicket hauls

 

[Jacknife]

Swann reckons that Saker was on a bit of a wind up with the comparisons.

Graeme Swann: Shane Warne comparisons a 'wind-up' | Cricket News | ESPN.co.uk

 

[SteveNZ]

We all know what happened with Botham, he became a crock and played on for about 6 years on reputation alone when he was a shadow of the great player he once was. Had he retired through the injuries in 86 he would be regarded higher as his batting and bowling averages would have been so much better.

This is another slant on the argument I was making on the previous page. Why should he be regarded less on the basis of those final years? That's such a media thing to do. 'So and so should retire before they taint their legacy/greatness'. It's rubbish. If every player retired at their absolute peak, we'd be a lot worse off for it.

If Warne comes back tomorrow, and is a lot less effective, is he less of an ATG? Surely not.

 

[Jono]

This is another slant on the argument I was making on the previous page. Why should he be regarded less on the basis of those final years? That's such a media thing to do. 'So and so should retire before they taint their legacy/greatness'. It's rubbish. If every player retired at their absolute peak, we'd be a lot worse off for it.

So true. Retire on top is a bull**** thing to do. Either retire when you no longer enjoy the sport/want to play, or retire if you know you aren't capable of meeting the demands or aren't good enough to make the best XI anymore.

If they aren't retiring then the selectors should sack up and drop em. Don't worry about their legacy ****. Once you're an atg you are, you don't go backwards. You just may not go forwards as much if your level drops.

 

[Debris]

The comparison is silly.

McGrath- one of the top 5 quick bowlers of all time.

Anderson- not, and never will be. Very good bowler who has improved.

There are a lot of weird comparisons to McGrath floating around at the moment. There was something in an article a while ago

"The inevitable comparison that falls to be made between him and Glen McGrath is as much a compliment to McGrath as it is to Van der Bijl."

Considering he never even played test cricket, that one kind of made me go

Are people forgetting already just how good McGrath was?

 

[silentstriker]

So true. Retire on top is a bull**** thing to do. Either retire when you no longer enjoy the sport/want to play, or retire if you know you aren't capable of meeting the demands or aren't good enough to make the best XI anymore.

If they aren't retiring then the selectors should sack up and drop em. Don't worry about their legacy ****. Once you're an atg you are, you don't go backwards. You just may not go forwards as much if your level drops.

I think you do - but that's just us - the player should play as long as he wants. The selectors should pick him as long as he is better than the alternative.

 

[Ruckus]

Anderson's overall stats would be irrelevant if he closed off his career with 3-4-5 more years of the kind of numbers he's put up since 2010. He would be an all-time great, no questions about it.

Obviously I've used stats for my example but it's perfectly reasonable to look past just the overall number in an average. If Anderson blew arse for the first 3-4 years of his career, and put up awful numbers, reinvented himself and took a truckload of wickets and was one of the best bowlers in the world (which he is) yet his overall number was affected by early form, thus not matching him up to 'ATG's', there's no reason he can't join that company.

Yeah I kind of like this perspective actually. Much more of a 'human' take on it and puts an emphasis on raw skills rather than just numbers.

 

[uvelocity]

And McGrath makes my ATXI no doubt about it, wouldn't dream of putting our guys with him, said that in my first post in the thread.

GIMHby the temerity to associate the two is crime enough

Anderson's overall stats would be irrelevant if he closed off his career with 3-4-5 more years of the kind of numbers he's put up since 2010. He would be an all-time great, no questions about it.

stats blah blah he will probably average 23 and 25 and 27 and a 34 and be done with whatever average 29 or something. He will be remembered as an outstanding example of a bowler who could swing the ball at pace in either direction at will, and was a massive part of getting England to be the best team in cricket for a bloody long time.

But he, and more importantly the entire pommy attack needs to do a hell of a lot more to invite comparisons yet. laughable!

 

[Teja.]

While Anderson has had an excellent three years or so, It's worth mentioning that the Messiah had a considerably prolonged, though admittedly injury-stricken, career of excellence which no doubt included four-five years at least as good as Anderson has been since his resurgence.

I reckon there's still a gap between them. Not very big, but a gap nevertheless. Very plausible though that Anderson will retire about his equal.

Broad on the other hand is just hitting his straps in test cricket and will be the greatest cricketer of the early 21st century tbh. Fantastic talent. Brilliant bowler to watch.

 

[Ruckus]

Broad on the other hand is just hitting his straps in test cricket and will be the greatest cricketer of the early 21st century tbh.

Good lord I hope that's intentional hyperbole

 

[Furball]

The Anderson-Botham comparison is interesting, because I reckon Anderson will finish his career with more wickets at a better average than Botham. I think when analysing players there's an inherent bias in favour of players like Botham who start their careers brilliantly and then fade away compared with Anderson who start their careers badly and become very very good.

With Anderson's "first phase", I often think that part of the problem was that England were too impatient with him. He struggled in his second series against South Africa, but on the rare occasions where he actually had a place for an entire series (West Indies 2004, India 2007), Anderson did ok. Not outstandingly well, but decently enough. But the rest of his time in the England team was one off games here and there (Sri Lanka away in 2003 and 2007, South Africa away in 2004/05, India in 2006) where, with the exception of Mumbai, he did badly. In Australia he should never have been picked after his injury woes and he did about as badly as you'd expect, although he'd found a bit of rhythm by Sydney and bowled pretty well there from memory.

Phase 1 of Anderson's career - from debut to the end of the first Test in New Zealand in 2008, saw Anderson play in 20 out of the 64 Tests played by England in this period. His career figures in that period aren't terribly flattering - 62 wickets in 20 Tests at an average of 39.20, SR of 62.7 and an economy rate of 3.74.

After the first Test in New Zealand, Anderson came back into the side as Peter Moores decided the likes of Hoggard and Harmison were done and that blokes like Anderson and Broad represented the future. From that 2nd Test up until the most recent Test played by England, England have played 54 Tests. Anderson has featured in 50 of them - the only Tests he's missed after his recall in New Zealand have been the 51 all out disaster at Sabina Park (where the England management decided not playing Swann and Anderson was a good idea), the away series in Bangladesh (can't remember if Anderson was injured or rested), and the 2nd Test v Sri Lanka at Lord's when he had a side strain.

Since his recall in New Zealand, Anderson's career is 50 Tests, 205 wickets @ 27.28, econ 2.94, SR 55.6.

Yet even this phase can be further split - between his recall and the end of the South Africa away series, Anderson whilst a much improved bowler still had the tendency to put in anonymous displays (taking no wickets in the final 2 Tests of the Ashes in 2009 or the final Test in South Africa for example, despite bowling pretty well in the first 3 Tests of both series). Since the start of the 2010 summer (which is almost half of Anderson's "phase 2" career), his stats read thus:

24 Tests, 111 wickets @ 23.36, econ 2.65, SR 52.8

If Anderson maintains or improves his current series average then it'll be the 8th series in a row where he's averaged under 30 (in fact his worst series in this time frame has been in the UAE against Pakistan where he took 9 wickets at an average of 27.66.)

He's been performing brilliantly for the last 3 years, and IMO is the closest thing England have to a peak level McGrath.

 

[Jacknife]

The Anderson-Botham comparison is interesting, because I reckon Anderson will finish his career with more wickets at a better average than Botham. I think when analysing players there's an inherent bias in favour of players like Botham who start their careers brilliantly and then fade away compared with Anderson who start their careers badly and become very very good.

With Anderson's "first phase", I often think that part of the problem was that England were too impatient with him. He struggled in his second series against South Africa, but on the rare occasions where he actually had a place for an entire series (West Indies 2004, India 2007), Anderson did ok. Not outstandingly well, but decently enough. But the rest of his time in the England team was one off games here and there (Sri Lanka away in 2003 and 2007, South Africa away in 2004/05, India in 2006) where, with the exception of Mumbai, he did badly. In Australia he should never have been picked after his injury woes and he did about as badly as you'd expect, although he'd found a bit of rhythm by Sydney and bowled pretty well there from memory.

Phase 1 of Anderson's career - from debut to the end of the first Test in New Zealand in 2008, saw Anderson play in 20 out of the 64 Tests played by England in this period. His career figures in that period aren't terribly flattering - 62 wickets in 20 Tests at an average of 39.20, SR of 62.7 and an economy rate of 3.74.

After the first Test in New Zealand, Anderson came back into the side as Peter Moores decided the likes of Hoggard and Harmison were done and that blokes like Anderson and Broad represented the future. From that 2nd Test up until the most recent Test played by England, England have played 54 Tests. Anderson has featured in 50 of them - the only Tests he's missed after his recall in New Zealand have been the 51 all out disaster at Sabina Park (where the England management decided not playing Swann and Anderson was a good idea), the away series in Bangladesh (can't remember if Anderson was injured or rested), and the 2nd Test v Sri Lanka at Lord's when he had a side strain.

Since his recall in New Zealand, Anderson's career is 50 Tests, 205 wickets @ 27.28, econ 2.94, SR 55.6.

Yet even this phase can be further split - between his recall and the end of the South Africa away series, Anderson whilst a much improved bowler still had the tendency to put in anonymous displays (taking no wickets in the final 2 Tests of the Ashes in 2009 or the final Test in South Africa for example, despite bowling pretty well in the first 3 Tests of both series). Since the start of the 2010 summer (which is almost half of Anderson's "phase 2" career), his stats read thus:

24 Tests, 111 wickets @ 23.36, econ 2.65, SR 52.8

If Anderson maintains or improves his current series average then it'll be the 8th series in a row where he's averaged under 30 (in fact his worst series in this time frame has been in the UAE against Pakistan where he took 9 wickets at an average of 27.66.)

He's been performing brilliantly for the last 3 years, and IMO is the closest thing England have to a peak level McGrath.

This.

 

[zaremba]

There are a lot of weird comparisons to McGrath floating around at the moment. There was something in an article a while ago

"The inevitable comparison that falls to be made between him and Glen McGrath is as much a compliment to McGrath as it is to Van der Bijl."

Considering he never even played test cricket, that one kind of made me go

Are people forgetting already just how good McGrath was?

No, but I strongly suspect that a lot of people are forgetting (or are unaware) just how good Vince Van der Bijl was.

To maintain a FC bowling average of 16.5 over a single season is extraordinary; and he managed it over the course of a long career. Compared against the FC records of the other three outstanding South African fast bowlers of his era(s), he comes out well: Procter 19.5; Garth le Roux 21.2; Peter Pollock 21.9, Clive Rice 22.5. On any view, those were world class bowlers, and VDB's figures suggest he was at least their equal.

I'm aware, of course, that judging players by their FC averages is not an infallible way of going about things. But 16.5 suggests he had a very special ability.

We can only guess how well he'd have done had he not been denied his Test career, but personally I'd put a lot of money on him making something of a success of it. Given that he was known for being tall, miserly, getting awkward bouce and relentless accuracy, the McGrath comparison seems a pretty legitimate one.

 

[uvelocity]

split split split split nothing

GD McGrath
95-97 24 tests 128 wickets @ 20.41 econ 2.65 sr 46.1
99-01 24 tests 119 wickets @ 18.87 econ 2.35 sr 48.2
04-06 24 tests 112 wickets @ 20.94 econ 2.50 sr 50.1

probably more and better examples

 

[Furball]

split split split split nothing

GD McGrath
95-97 24 tests 128 wickets @ 20.41 econ 2.65 sr 46.1
99-01 24 tests 119 wickets @ 18.87 econ 2.35 sr 48.2
04-06 24 tests 112 wickets @ 20.94 econ 2.50 sr 50.1

probably more and better examples

McGrath was a better bowler over a longer period than Anderson? News to me.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I stay amused...Dale Steyn is still around, so is a certain Philander who may or may not consolidate on his early promise, and is far likelier to be an apt comparison with the great man if indeed he does. Anderson is good, no doubt, but good enough to even mention in the same breath as the guy regularly coupled with Marshall as the greatest to have held ball in hand? Mcgrath was indomitable, ridiculously self assured, and freakishly skilled at what he did. Anderson, so far, can only lay claim to the last of those attributes..and to be honest, a fit Zaheer is every bit his equal in terms of pure skill, and figures in terms of late career bloom, especially considering the conditions he has to bowl in. But hey, it's the best English bowler in a generation so let the hyperbole ensue!

 

[Furball]

I stay amused...Dale Steyn is still around, so is a certain Philander who may or may not consolidate on his early promise, and is far likelier to be an apt comparison with the great man if indeed he does. Anderson is good, no doubt, but good enough to even mention in the same breath as the guy regularly coupled with Marshall as the greatest to have held ball in hand? Mcgrath was indomitable, ridiculously self assured, and freakishly skilled at what he did. Anderson, so far, can only lay claim to the last of those attributes..and to be honest, a fit Zaheer is every bit his equal in terms of pure skill, and figures in terms of late career bloom, especially considering the conditions he has to bowl in. But hey, it's the best English bowler in a generation so let the hyperbole ensue!

Didn't realise we were comparing Anderson with mythical creatures.

 

[Spikey]

pfffffffffffffft Zaheer Khan has a test average of 31. into the bin!

 

[zaremba]

I stay amused...Dale Steyn is still around, so is a certain Philander who may or may not consolidate on his early promise, and is far likelier to be an apt comparison with the great man if indeed he does. Anderson is good, no doubt, but good enough to even mention in the same breath as the guy regularly coupled with Marshall as the greatest to have held ball in hand? Mcgrath was indomitable, ridiculously self assured, and freakishly skilled at what he did. Anderson, so far, can only lay claim to the last of those attributes..and to be honest, a fit Zaheer is every bit his equal in terms of pure skill, and figures in terms of late career bloom, especially considering the conditions he has to bowl in. But hey, it's the best English bowler in a generation so let the hyperbole ensue!

I just don't see the hyperbole here, or any basis for your implication that it's the English getting carried away with themselves.

Quite apart from the fact that he's Australian, and the bowling coach so probably entitled to talk his lads up a bit, Saker wasn't seriously suggesting Anderson is McGrath's equal. I think this is pretty obvious if you read what he was saying in context rather than looking just at a headline or the odd quote in isolation. His basic point is a valid one: that the English bowling attack at the moment are highly skilled, have outstanding spells, and manage to achieve some of the strangulating consistency which was the hallmark of Warne/McGrath's bowling.

And nor have the Poms here been talking Anderson up unrealistically. We're all agreed, I think, that he's a damn good bowler - freakishly skilled, to use your expression - but I don't see anyone saying he's as good as McGrath was.

Anyway, the "McGrath is better than Anderson" debate can only run for so long (ie nil seconds) before it becomes sterile, so I'll just add that in my view there are three good things that need to be said about Anderson. First, away from the pitch, he seems like a great guy. Second, the way he has matured into a high class bowler after a difficult start to his career has been admirable. And third, his ability to get the ball to swing either way - both with orthodox and reverse swing - is pretty bloody remarkable.