If you could pick 2 fast bowlers from any era to form a new-ball Test pair, who would you chose?

[silent ischemia]

Akram and Ambrose

 

[moghul]

Waqar Younis and Dennis Lille at their peak.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Hmm, let’s see Anderson take an eightfer against a Pakistan side with the likes of Shoaib Mohammed, Miandad, Salim and Imran. Dilley and Foster were bowlers of consequence. With central contracts they would have stayed fit and taken many more wickets.

You haven’t. DRS saves batsmen as well as giving them out. I said spinners have benefitted from the change in the lbw law where batters can be given out by a ball pitching outside the line. And yet Cook still scored 560 runs in four tests in India, unlike the current mob who cannot pick an arm ball and play everything from back on the stumps.

(I don’t particularly rate Jadeja either. He’s a home track bully with the ball and a red ink hunter with the bat.)

Cook scored 560 runs against India when Ashwin was in his worst form and our 2nd spinner was average. Cook couldn't do jack in 2016 when we had a peak Ashwin and Jadeja. Those tracks were very flat and Cook averaged 36 with the bat.

 

[Ahmed216]

New ball bowling in tests is about making the batsmen play as much as possible.
Since i've started watching cricket the best imo Mohammed Asif and glenn McGrath

 

[random20]

McGrath and Asif were actually the Delhi Daredevils attack in the first IPL. Didn’t do as well as they would have hoped for. Still the most exciting IPL attack till Malinga, Bumrah and Boult got together for MI.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

I rate Anderson very highly which is why I also opted for him in this discussion. But you overrate him because England is your second favourite cricket team.

I don't always agree with Robert, as him and Junaids often like to overhype the cricketers from the older era but when it comes to Anderson he makes some very valid points especially in relation to his performance in the 2000s.

He is a legendary conventional swing bowler and is by far the best new ball bowler I've personally seen but with the kookaburra and on flat wickets, he just isn't as good and is hence why he is known by some as "Clouderson".

Anderson falls short of ATG status because firstly his away test bowling average is above 30. I don't think you will find another undisputed ATG fast bowler with such a high bowling average overseas. Secondly, for at least half of his career he was averaging above 30 with the ball and that's simply because he had a lot of bad series.

Anderson is simply not as good as you think.

Anderson was treated like a street guy in 07 ashes by the Aussie legends. He also never had a great Ashes, which is necessary for an english to be considered one of the best ever. He averages 29 at home in ashes. That's just too high for a supposed top 3 of all time. He clearly hasn't done enough to be in the top 10 of all time. But will definitely be among top 20.

 

[topspin]

Anderson was treated like a street guy in 07 ashes by the Aussie legends. He also never had a great Ashes, which is necessary for an english to be considered one of the best ever. He averages 29 at home in ashes. That's just too high for a supposed top 3 of all time. He clearly hasn't done enough to be in the top 10 of all time. But will definitely be among top 20.

I broadly agree, definitely in my top 25 but is that enough to make him an ATG? - because I can name 3 x World XIs (perhaps more) featuring better pacers than Anderson.

 

[Mamoon]

Anderson was treated like a street guy in 07 ashes by the Aussie legends. He also never had a great Ashes, which is necessary for an english to be considered one of the best ever. He averages 29 at home in ashes. That's just too high for a supposed top 3 of all time. He clearly hasn't done enough to be in the top 10 of all time. But will definitely be among top 20.

He did in 2010-11.

Was the leading wicket-taker on either side with 24 scalps. 9 more than any Australian bowler and 7 more than England’s second leading wicket-taker.

After Cook’s batting, his bowling was the second biggest factor behind England imposing an unprecedented thrashing on Australia on Australian soil with three innings defeat in five Tests.

It was the lowest point for Australia at home since the 1978-79 Ashes.

That series alone makes him an English legend, notwithstanding the fact that he has 614 Test wickets for a pace bowler.

 

[Mamoon]

I rate Anderson very highly which is why I also opted for him in this discussion. But you overrate him because England is your second favourite cricket team.

I don't always agree with Robert, as him and Junaids often like to overhype the cricketers from the older era but when it comes to Anderson he makes some very valid points especially in relation to his performance in the 2000s.

He is a legendary conventional swing bowler and is by far the best new ball bowler I've personally seen but with the kookaburra and on flat wickets, he just isn't as good and is hence why he is known by some as "Clouderson".

Anderson falls short of ATG status because firstly his away test bowling average is above 30. I don't think you will find another undisputed ATG fast bowler with such a high bowling average overseas. Secondly, for at least half of his career he was averaging above 30 with the ball and that's simply because he had a lot of bad series.

Anderson is simply not as good as you think.

There is no one criteria for ATG status. The away average below 30 It is an arbitrary criteria used by cricket nerds on Internet forums. The rest of the world cares more about aggregate, large numbers.

James Anderson is a legend and has an immortal legacy in history of cricket, just like Kapil Dev does for India in spite of averaging 30+ away from home, for what he has achieved.

The fact that he has more wickets than every single fast bowler in 144 years of history of Test cricket makes him one of the greatest ever to bowl.

There are many fast bowlers with better away averages but they do not have half the legacy that Anderson does because they did not take enough wickets.

All those bowlers would happily swap their 26-27 away averages for Anderson’s 31, if it means having Anderson’s 614 (and counting) wickets, an unprecedented achievement that no one can take away from him and which is a greater representation of his talent, skill, determination, mentality and longevity than his away average of 31.

To claim that a fast bowler with 614 Test wickets and more than anyone in history is unbelievable arrogant and ignorant statement that does not deserve to be entertained.

Anderson is as good as anyone, and probably better than anyone excluding a handful of bowlers like Marshall, Lillee, McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Wasim, Imran, Ambrose, Donald and Pollock.

But to discount Anderson status as one of the greats because he averages 31 away from home is less arrogant than claiming that bowlers like Caddick, Hoggard, Fraser, Gough etc. None of those bowlers have half the legacy Anderson has established.

 

[Robert]

Those examples you mentioned were against spin. India's spinners are world-class, I would expect even the batsmen with the greatest techniques to struggle against the likes of Ashwin on those ripping wickets.

Perhaps you are not seeing the planning that goes into each delivery Anderson bowls, his bowling is of quite a high standard to make even the best batsmen appear foolish.

Yes, players aren't really that willing to grind it out, but I think that test batting techniques have actually improved in recent times through proper training and the availability of data, and also the ability to replicate conditions in different areas of the world.

When you see supposedly international batters who can’t pick an arm ball and get bowled by deliveries that go straight on, again and again, nothing to do with the pitch, you know they have no technique against spin.

Just nine years ago Cook and KP were racking up centuries against Ashwin on turning tracks. They had decent defensive techniques. It’s a lost art in England in under a decade.

 

[Robert]

But to discount Anderson status as one of the greats because he averages 31 away from home is less arrogant than claiming that bowlers like Caddick, Hoggard, Fraser, Gough etc. None of those bowlers have half the legacy Anderson has established.

This is what you’re not getting. Had Anderson played in the pre-central contracts era he would have a career similar to Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Hoggard because he would have broken down for half his tests and been worn out by by cumulative injury at age 33 or so. He might have topped out at 200 test wickets.

 

[Last Monetarist]

This is what you’re not getting. Had Anderson played in the pre-central contracts era he would have a career similar to Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Hoggard because he would have broken down for half his tests and been worn out by by cumulative injury at age 33 or so. He might have topped out at 200 test wickets.

Hoggard made his debut after the central contracts era.

The first-class records of the other three bowlers are inferior to Anderson's.

However, I don't in any way disagree with the assertion that the modern era has allowed Anderson and Broad to maintain fitness and sustain international careers over a longer period. Nor do I dispute that Anderson would not have taken close to 600 test wickets if he had debuted a decade earlier.

The thing for which you keep getting questioned is the implicit equivalence between those bowlers and Anderson in terms of ability and skill. Anderson is the most skilled swing bowler that has played the game over the last 30 years, no other bowler has been able to master both types of swing as he has. Not even Wasim Akram. Any bowler that has played the game can attest to how Anderson can land the new ball on a sixpence with a simple flick of the wrist.

I already realize your rejoinder that Anderson has only peaked post the age of 30, and that in the previous era he would have retired around that age. However, that is a hypothetical argument and generalizes fitness levels across bowlers that played during the era. Anderson has a different body type and action to bowlers such as Hoggard, Fraser, and Caddick. While Gough was always beset with niggles due to chronic knee problems, and rarely managed to sustain fitness over a single county season.

There is nothing whatsoever to be gained from this argument except to trivialize Anderson's career.

 

[NishanKonar]

Dale Steyn & Malcolm Marshall - 2 guys who were effective in all conditions , including the slow pitches of subcontinent

Most other great pacemen had their weak spots - especially in India / Pakistan conditions

 

[Local.Dada]

I mean learn to play a forward defensive and backward defensive, don’t leave a gate you can drive a truck through. Don’t try to score at four an over, there are times when the bowlers get on top, dig in and wait for them to tire.

England are as guilty as any. How many times have they got rolled for 70? There’s nobody who will dig in to stop a collapse. It’s all aggression. Their performance in India was embarrassing. Boycott, Gower, Gatting, Cook, Pietersen, Bell wouldn’t play for spin against arm balls and get bowled like that. The defensive techniques are not there.

The return of SA in early 90’s automatically raises the profile of any player who played in those decades compared to a prior era.

In fact since 90’s even teams like Zimbabwe and now Afghan have the potential to upset big teams in their day.

Need to stop romanticizing the past.

WI might have not been as lethal as they were in prior decades but the have produced ATG’s with the bat and ball still.

Nzl,Ind, England (2000’s onwards considering they were average in the 90’s) and Srilanka in these decades compared to previous teams, I mean it is a no brainer.

Pakistan has a stronger 80’s but even in 70’s they were a middling team and in 90’s they had pretty much 90% of their greatest cricketers in the side.

On topic though- Steyn and Akram for me and Mcgrath as the 3rd seamer.

By the time I saw Imran and Marshall they were past their prime and not for any political reasons but while I think Imran the allrounder is one of the bonafide G O A T’s of the game his bowling is eulogized too much here.

I have never heard a single great batsman rate or say they were quaking in their boots facing him like some is his counterparts like Lillee/ Thommo or WI bowlers or even his own protégés like Wasim/Waqar or Shoaib Akthar.

 

[Majestic]

The return of SA in early 90’s automatically raises the profile of any player who played in those decades compared to a prior era.

In fact since 90’s even teams like Zimbabwe and now Afghan have the potential to upset big teams in their day.

Need to stop romanticizing the past.

WI might have not been as lethal as they were in prior decades but the have produced ATG’s with the bat and ball still.

Nzl,Ind, England (2000’s onwards considering they were average in the 90’s) and Srilanka in these decades compared to previous teams, I mean it is a no brainer.

Pakistan has a stronger 80’s but even in 70’s they were a middling team and in 90’s they had pretty much 90% of their greatest cricketers in the side.

On topic though- Steyn and Akram for me and Mcgrath as the 3rd seamer.

By the time I saw Imran and Marshall they were past their prime and not for any political reasons but while I think Imran the allrounder is one of the bonafide G O A T’s of the game his bowling is eulogized too much here.

I have never heard a single great batsman rate or say they were quaking in their boots facing him like some is his counterparts like Lillee/ Thommo or WI bowlers or even his own protégés like Wasim/Waqar or Shoaib Akthar.

1990s was the best era of bowling. With return of South Africa in international cricket, it became even more harder for batsman. That decade featured highest number of ATG bowlers like Wasim, McGrath, Donald, Ambrose, Pollock, Walsh, Waqar, Bishop, Warne, Murali and Kumble.

 

[Saurav]

Dale Steyn & Malcolm Marshall - 2 guys who were effective in all conditions , including the slow pitches of subcontinent

Most other great pacemen had their weak spots - especially in India / Pakistan conditions

McGrath and Donald were good in India

 

[cricket4all]

I havre already said best with new ball deffinitley Lillee and Marshall. However, bowling with the old ball is probably a bigger skill and more important. No doubt Wasim and Waqar were the best there

 

[topspin]

There is no one criteria for ATG status. The away average below 30 It is an arbitrary criteria used by cricket nerds on Internet forums. The rest of the world cares more about aggregate, large numbers.

James Anderson is a legend and has an immortal legacy in history of cricket, just like Kapil Dev does for India in spite of averaging 30+ away from home, for what he has achieved.

The fact that he has more wickets than every single fast bowler in 144 years of history of Test cricket makes him one of the greatest ever to bowl.

There are many fast bowlers with better away averages but they do not have half the legacy that Anderson does because they did not take enough wickets.

All those bowlers would happily swap their 26-27 away averages for Anderson’s 31, if it means having Anderson’s 614 (and counting) wickets, an unprecedented achievement that no one can take away from him and which is a greater representation of his talent, skill, determination, mentality and longevity than his away average of 31.

To claim that a fast bowler with 614 Test wickets and more than anyone in history is unbelievable arrogant and ignorant statement that does not deserve to be entertained.

Anderson is as good as anyone, and probably better than anyone excluding a handful of bowlers like Marshall, Lillee, McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Wasim, Imran, Ambrose, Donald and Pollock.

But to discount Anderson status as one of the greats because he averages 31 away from home is less arrogant than claiming that bowlers like Caddick, Hoggard, Fraser, Gough etc. None of those bowlers have half the legacy Anderson has established.

Having an away test bowling average in excess of 30 is like a batsman with an away test average of under 40. Can you name me an ATG test batsman with an away batting average of under 40?

Anderson has been fortunate to play 150+ tests because he happens to play England who play more tests than anyone. Nearly every summer they play 7 home tests and they usually have at least 2 away tours a year. That equates to 12-15 tests per year.

Not to forget at home he has had the luxury of bowling with the Duke ball in favourable swing bowling conditions, on seaming wickets and overcast weather. You take the duke ball and English wickets out of the equation, he isn't anywhere near as effective and this reflected by his average. You can't be an ATG if you can't prove your worth in all conditions at a consistent level.

As mentioned by Robert, England bowlers of the past didn't get these opportunities because they were tied up with county cricket. Darren Gough has a much better away bowling average. If he had the chance to play 100+ tests he may have had a better claim to ATG status than Anderson. I won't go as far as saying Caddick, Hoggard and Fraser were better. I agree that's an absurd opinion from someone who happens to be part of the old era hype brigade.

You see Anderson is as good as anyone but the reality I could come up 4 World All-Time Test XIs with fast bowlers who are superior to him.

Also the less said about his white ball career the better.

In my eyes, he is the best conventional swing bowler and the best England test bowler I've personally ever seen. A legend who simply falls just short of ATG status.

 

[Robert]

The return of SA in early 90’s automatically raises the profile of any player who played in those decades compared to a prior era.

In fact since 90’s even teams like Zimbabwe and now Afghan have the potential to upset big teams in their day.

Need to stop romanticizing the past.

WI might have not been as lethal as they were in prior decades but the have produced ATG’s with the bat and ball still.

Nzl,Ind, England (2000’s onwards considering they were average in the 90’s) and Srilanka in these decades compared to previous teams, I mean it is a no brainer.

Pakistan has a stronger 80’s but even in 70’s they were a middling team and in 90’s they had pretty much 90% of their greatest cricketers in the side.

On topic though- Steyn and Akram for me and Mcgrath as the 3rd seamer.

By the time I saw Imran and Marshall they were past their prime and not for any political reasons but while I think Imran the allrounder is one of the bonafide G O A T’s of the game his bowling is eulogized too much here.

I have never heard a single great batsman rate or say they were quaking in their boots facing him like some is his counterparts like Lillee/ Thommo or WI bowlers or even his own protégés like Wasim/Waqar or Shoaib Akthar.

I don’t “romanticise the pace”.

I understand and respect it.

I have never heard any great batsman say any fast bowler made them quake in their boots. They are great batsmen because they can cope with really fast bowlers.

 

[Ab Fan]

Anderson's away performance is overstated.

Most careers are of 10-12 years and if you consider Anderson from 2010 onwards, his away performance and in Asia performance is as good as any all-time great of the game.

I posted the stats some time ago and he had like 450 test wickets at 22-23 with away average of 26. Is that not an ATG career given the considered sample size is still as big as any other international career is?

It's really time to put a full-stop against this debate.

 

[Robert]

I rate Anderson very highly which is why I also opted for him in this discussion. But you overrate him because England is your second favourite cricket team.

I don't always agree with Robert, as him and Junaids often like to overhype the cricketers from the older era but when it comes to Anderson he makes some very valid points especially in relation to his performance in the 2000s.

He is a legendary conventional swing bowler and is by far the best new ball bowler I've personally seen but with the kookaburra and on flat wickets, he just isn't as good and is hence why he is known by some as "Clouderson".

Anderson falls short of ATG status because firstly his away test bowling average is above 30. I don't think you will find another undisputed ATG fast bowler with such a high bowling average overseas. Secondly, for at least half of his career he was averaging above 30 with the ball and that's simply because he had a lot of bad series.

Anderson is simply not as good as you think.

Thank you. Though I don’t overhype earlier era players, I respect the outstanding ones. For every Marshall, there was a Pringle. For every Knott there was a Downton. Decent players who had good days but not so many of them.

Anderson is deadly when armed with Duke and a bit of rising moist air and facing today’s technically weak batters. Put him on a flat deck with a Kookaburra and he will block an end up, but he won’t get many of those batters out because he lacks the pace and bounce to make something happen when it doesn’t swing. Compare with Botham who (before he got worn down by injury) could take wickets on flatties with lifting deliveries and quicker-than-expected bouncers.

 

[Saurav]

Marshall and Akram

 

[Mamoon]

Having an away test bowling average in excess of 30 is like a batsman with an away test average of under 40. Can you name me an ATG test batsman with an away batting average of under 40?

Anderson has been fortunate to play 150+ tests because he happens to play England who play more tests than anyone. Nearly every summer they play 7 home tests and they usually have at least 2 away tours a year. That equates to 12-15 tests per year.

Not to forget at home he has had the luxury of bowling with the Duke ball in favourable swing bowling conditions, on seaming wickets and overcast weather. You take the duke ball and English wickets out of the equation, he isn't anywhere near as effective and this reflected by his average. You can't be an ATG if you can't prove your worth in all conditions at a consistent level.

As mentioned by Robert, England bowlers of the past didn't get these opportunities because they were tied up with county cricket. Darren Gough has a much better away bowling average. If he had the chance to play 100+ tests he may have had a better claim to ATG status than Anderson. I won't go as far as saying Caddick, Hoggard and Fraser were better. I agree that's an absurd opinion from someone who happens to be part of the old era hype brigade.

You see Anderson is as good as anyone but the reality I could come up 4 World All-Time Test XIs with fast bowlers who are superior to him.

Also the less said about his white ball career the better.

In my eyes, he is the best conventional swing bowler and the best England test bowler I've personally ever seen. A legend who simply falls just short of ATG status.

A batsman who averages 50+ at home and 40+ away from home and more importantly, ends up scoring more Test runs than anyone in history would undoubtedly be regarded as one of the greats of all time.

It would be absurd to diminish his record on hypotheticals (if XYZ would have played so many games, he would also have done it) and because of arbitrary/subjective metrics (away average).

Away average is not the sole criteria for greatness and legendary status. Literally every single bowler in the world would rather have 600+ Test wickets at an away average of 31 over 300 Test wickets at an average of 25.

As far as the quality vs quantity debate is concerned, when you literally have more wickets (or runs) than anyone in history, you simply cannot ignore the weight of the quantity.

I named around 10 bowlers that I deem better than Anderson and I can probably name a few more, so even I would not have him in my three or four all-time best XIs.

Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that he is one of the best Test bowlers of all time because his achievements are greater than 99% of the bowlers who have played Test cricket and he also holds the ultimate record among all fast bowlers, i.e. the greatest number of Test wickets.

 

[Robert]

If the test match was in England I would get Hadlee and Alderman (latter took 81 wickets in twelve tests here, against batters who could play swing bowling).

 

[subshakerz]

We are talking about the new ball specifically. Which means exploiting the bright red cherry and getting any movement off the pitch as well as using morning conditions.

Hadlee and McGrath would be a nightmare. No better pair.

 

[Mamoon]

If the test match was in England I would get Hadlee and Alderman (latter took 81 wickets in twelve tests here, against batters who could play swing bowling).

If you are judging the records of players based on a dozen Tests, then I assume that you must consider Voges as the second greatest batsman of all time because he averaged 95.5 after 15 Tests.

With only 170 Test wickets, Alderman is not fit to tie Anderson’s shoelaces, let alone take the new ball in England over Anderson.

This is exactly the type of nostalgia-driven arrogance that gives old era fans a bad rep.

 

[Majestic]

A batsman who averages 50+ at home and 40+ away from home and more importantly, ends up scoring more Test runs than anyone in history would undoubtedly be regarded as one of the greats of all time.

It would be absurd to diminish his record on hypotheticals (if XYZ would have played so many games, he would also have done it) and because of arbitrary/subjective metrics (away average).

Away average is not the sole criteria for greatness and legendary status. Literally every single bowler in the world would rather have 600+ Test wickets at an away average of 31 over 300 Test wickets at an average of 25.

As far as the quality vs quantity debate is concerned, when you literally have more wickets (or runs) than anyone in history, you simply cannot ignore the weight of the quantity.

I named around 10 bowlers that I deem better than Anderson and I can probably name a few more, so even I would not have him in my three or four all-time best XIs.

Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that he is one of the best Test bowlers of all time because his achievements are greater than 99% of the bowlers who have played Test cricket and he also holds the ultimate record among all fast bowlers, i.e. the greatest number of Test wickets.

Anderson's longevity is overrated. The only reason he has 600+ wickets is because he plays for England. Had he played for India or Australia, he would have played about 120 tests and taken only 450 wickets. If he played for NZ , SA, SL or Pak, his wicket tally would have been about same as Botham, Kapil or Ntini.

 

[Mamoon]

Anderson's longevity is overrated. The only reason he has 600+ wickets is because he plays for England. Had he played for India or Australia, he would have played about 120 tests and taken only 450 wickets. If he played for NZ , SA, SL or Pak, his wicket tally would have been about same as Botham, Kapil or Ntini.

I agree that he wouldn’t have had 600 wickets had he played for any other team. If he was French, he would have had 0 Test wickets.

These ifs and buts are pointless because you can downplay the record of any player.

It is never easy to prove yourself to be good enough and fit enough to play 160+ Tests, let alone for a pace bowler.

Over the last 18 years and counting, Anderson has performed well enough to keep his place in the England team, he has kept himself fit enough and he has also managed to keep younger bowlers in County Cricket out of the team.

Other bowlers have come and gone, but Anderson has survived. He is almost 40 but he is still better than any young swing bowler in County Cricket, which is a testament of his talent and skill.

Hoggard and Harmison were done after 60 odd Tests, Simon Jones’ knees gave up after a dozen, Finn was touted as the next great England bowler but his form and fitness deteriorated after 20 odd Tests, Tremlett was also a few Tests merchant, Bresnan could only last for a few Tests, Sajid Mahmood proved to be a mentally weak failure like almost every British Asian player.

The list goes on and on. Anderson and also Broad have done exceptionally well to prove themselves to be good enough and fit enough to survive for so many matches and not lose their way like numerous other English bowlers.

 

[ManFan]

McGrath and Akram

One, you can’t score against.

The other, you are always playing with the risk of every ball being a wicket.

 

[wrongun]

McGrath and Asif were actually the Delhi Daredevils attack in the first IPL. Didn’t do as well as they would have hoped for. Still the most exciting IPL attack till Malinga, Bumrah and Boult got together for MI.

Difference between working guys over in a Test with all the time in the world to examine their technique + 5 attacking fielders & the rest keeping singles is very different to trying not to get hit for fours with maybe 1-2 slips & batsman swinging like a rusty gate where fluking 3-4 boundaries is good enough to get a pass mark in T20 but an abject failure in Tests.

 

[shamaan]

Mcgarth and Akram

 

[Saj]

Marshall and Akram.

Right arm genius and left arm genius.

Both unplayable on their day.

 

[MenInG]

Anderson and Broad now 1001 wickets together, tied with McGrath and Warne

 

[proud_pakistani]

Wasim Akram and Glenn Mcgrath.

Anything else is wrong.