James Anderson 600 wickets countdown thread [Update Post #98]

[Chrish]

Here we are folks! About to witness history being created.. 1st English bowler in their over 100 years of history to reach 400 wicket mark.

Your one and only, Sir Jimmy the Clouderson

 

[Slog]

Its a pleasure watching him bowl in England

so much skill

 

[shaz619]

The best bowler in the world today and easily the greatest from England. He'll blow away this record and go on to get 500, you should have started the 500 wickets countdown thread

 

[Slog]

The best bowler in the world today and easily the greatest from England. He'll blow away this record and go on to get 500, you should have started the 500 wickets countdown thread

Trolling?

he's 32 so not getting to 500

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Trolling?

he's 32 so not getting to 500

Probably trolling, overselling it a bit.

 

[Chrish]

The best bowler in the world today and easily the greatest from England. He'll blow away this record and go on to get 500, you should have started the 500 wickets countdown thread

400 is considered the ultimate and dream number for any bowler.. Anything over is the bonus..

 

[shaz619]

Trolling?

he's 32 so not getting to 500

Nope, I genuinely believe he can get to 500. Jimmy is an athlete and he has more gas left in the tank then what people think; however to prolong his test career he needs to retire from ODI's or play in selective series en-route to the 2019 World Cup in England. Mcgrath played until he was 36 or 37 so age isn't an issue an Anderson is a healthy guy, providing he doesn't suffer an injury he'll get there am certain of it; but wouldn't view him as someone injury prone.

 

[shaz619]

400 is considered the ultimate and dream number for any bowler.. Anything over is the bonus..

Anderson is going to surprise quiet a few of you, am not sure if you guys genuinely think he doesn't have a chance of getting 500 or think he won't because you don't want to jinx him or something [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] Having said that, agree that 400 in the magic number if you want to call it that; I rate Anderson more then Botham.

 

[CricFan2012]

Anderson is going to surprise quiet a few of you, am not sure if you guys genuinely think he doesn't have a chance of getting 500 or think he won't because you don't want to jinx him or something [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] Having said that, agree that 400 in the magic number if you want to call it that; I rate Anderson more then Botham.

English cricketers retire early

 

[shaz619]

English cricketers retire early

I guess that would end the debate if he chose to; hopefully he doesn't.

 

[Chrish]

Neither him nor Steyn will reach 500 mark.. Things get difficult after the age of 30 especially for a pace bowler.. Anyway that's a separate discussion altogether.. Sir jimmy is arguably 2nd best modern pacer after willis for England

 

[wrongun]

Anderson is going to surprise quiet a few of you, am not sure if you guys genuinely think he doesn't have a chance of getting 500 or think he won't because you don't want to jinx him or something [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] Having said that, agree that 400 in the magic number if you want to call it that; I rate Anderson more then Botham.

Botham 27x 5 wkt hauls in just under 400 wickets.

Jimmy 17x 5 wkt hauls in just under 400 wickets.

I'll take the matchwinner every time thanks.

 

[shaz619]

Botham 27x 5 wkt hauls in just under 400 wickets.

Jimmy 17x 5 wkt hauls in just under 400 wickets.

I'll take the matchwinner every time thanks.

You can take who you like, am not stopping you. You're welcome.

 

[wrongun]

Of course I can. Just stating the case for why Anderson has far less impact on winning games for his team than a match-winning bowler. It also suggests he can't finish off the job by claiming wickets when conditions don't suit.

 

[shaz619]

Of course I can. Just stating the case for why Anderson has far less impact on winning games for his team than a match-winning bowler. It also suggests he can't finish off the job by claiming wickets when conditions don't suit.

In the long run Anderson would have won more games for England then Botham, Longevity is undervalued. It's a myth he can't take wickets in difficult conditions, the recent WI series proves that; sure he is better when there's something in the pitch but who isn't? mind you he exploits such conditions better then most. Taking 400 wickets is a remarkable feat for an England bowler, one which has not been done before.

 

[Bilal7]

Highly overrated bowler. Got out-bowled by most pacers on display today and wasted the new ball spectacularly. Alway been a decent 30 averaging bowler and the only reason he will go down as a good one, is because he is fit enough to take 400 wickets.

A bit like Kapil Dev in this regards. Both bowlers are over-rated because of their longevity, skill-wise they were/are nothing outstanding.

400 is considered the ultimate and dream number for any bowler.. Anything over is the bonus..

Says who? Why not 300 or 500?

 

[Abdullah719]

Highly overrated bowler. Got out-bowled by most pacers on display today and wasted the new ball spectacularly. Alway been a decent 30 averaging bowler and the only reason he will go down as a good one, is because he is fit enough to take 400 wickets.

A bit like Kapil Dev in this regards. Both bowlers are over-rated because of their longevity, skill-wise they were/are nothing outstanding.



Says who? Why not 300 or 500?

Why not 800?

 

[Bilal7]

Why not 800?

Surely 1,000 test wickets is the ultimate milestone for any bowler. Who cares if you concede 30,000 runs in order to get there?

 

[Chrish]

Highly overrated bowler. Got out-bowled by most pacers on display today and wasted the new ball spectacularly. Alway been a decent 30 averaging bowler and the only reason he will go down as a good one, is because he is fit enough to take 400 wickets.

A bit like Kapil Dev in this regards. Both bowlers are over-rated because of their longevity, skill-wise they were/are nothing outstanding.



Says who? Why not 300 or 500?

Why not 300? Because 300 wkts bowlers are plenty.. Getting 400 mark adds the factor of longevity along side with quality.. You have to be both good and fit to reach that mark.. Getting 300+ is not particularly special.. As for 500, it's near impossible for a pacer and that's why only two pace bowlers in the history have done it.. That's why I said anything over 400 is plus..

 

[Chrish]

Why not 800?

It's impossible for a pace bowler.. Also he is the most controversial bowler in history of the game

 

[Bilal7]

Why not 300? Because 300 wkts bowlers are plenty.. Getting 400 mark adds the factor of longevity along side with quality.. You have to be both good and fit to reach that mark.. Getting 300+ is not particularly special.. As for 500, it's near impossible for a pacer and that's why only two pace bowlers in the history have done it.. That's why I said anything over 400 is plus..

This is your opinion, you were making it out to be a fact. IMO, even 250 wickets is a good enough sample-size to judge bowlers.

300, 400, 500 tell you nothing about how effective the bowler was. Nor have I seen many legendary bowlers go out of their way to achieve these records.

 

[Chrish]

This is your opinion, you were making it out to be a fact. IMO, even 250 wickets is a good enough sample-size to judge bowlers.

300, 400, 500 tell you nothing about how effective the bowler was. Nor have I seen many legendary bowlers go out of their way to achieve these records.

If the bowler wants to become a legend, he needs to have a longevity factor.. 250 wck might prove he is good but he will never be considered a legend.. Shane bond is the prime example.. So 250 and 300 aren't special numbers

 

[wrongun]

In the long run Anderson would have won more games for England then Botham, Longevity is undervalued. It's a myth he can't take wickets in difficult conditions, the recent WI series proves that; sure he is better when there's something in the pitch but who isn't? mind you he exploits such conditions better then most. Taking 400 wickets is a remarkable feat for an England bowler, one which has not been done before.

Nonsense. a 5 wicket haul is a fair measure of a) a match-winning performance
b) the ability to keep taking wickets throughout an innings, not just when it's new and swinging or old and reversing.

The relative lack of 5 wicket hauls by Anderson indicates his limitations- inability to bowl dry and still get wickets, to launch an effective bouncer attack, to think laterally to dismiss a set batsman. All of which Botham could do, and are the reson he would convert those handy 2-3 wicket bags into potentially matchwinning hauls.

 

[Robert]

IMO Willis > Botham > Gough > Hoggard > Anderson

Anderson was probably the most skillful new ball bowler of those but as wrongun opines there are other skills.

 

[Junaids]

IMO Willis > Botham > Gough > Hoggard > Anderson

Anderson was probably the most skillful new ball bowler of those but as wrongun opines there are other skills.

I think that Hoggard was quite similar to Anderson, but I'd take Anderson ahead of him. And that's not a hometown Roses opinion!

The recent absurd BBC ranking of England's fast bowlers was a travesty. My ranking of them using arbitrary rankings along the ICC model would be:

1. TRUEMAN 930 points
2. Barnes 900 points
3. Statham 870 points
4. Botham 860 points (910 pre-1981, 750 post-1981)
5. Bedser 855 points
6. Willis 850 points
7. Snow 840 points
8. Anderson 830 points
9. Gough 810 points
10. Hoggard 800 points

 

[Justcrazy]

He has good chance to get 500 wickets

 

[Boxer]

best bowler for Eng from the present lot

 

[Robert]

I think that Hoggard was quite similar to Anderson, but I'd take Anderson ahead of him. And that's not a hometown Roses opinion!

I admire Hoggy for taking fivefers all round the world. When it didn't swing he could block an end up for Harmi and Fred too.

 

[Junaids]

I admire Hoggy for taking fivefers all round the world. When it didn't swing he could block an end up for Harmi and Fred too.

Sure, but he had significantly better pace support than Jimmy.

Jimmy has basically had Broad and that's it. Hoggard had Harmison and Fred and Simon Jones, which meant that all of them could bowl shorter spells.

I'm still not convinced that Jimmy is back to his best. I think that the West Indies were every bit as "mediocre" as Colin Graves thought.

 

[shaz619]

Nonsense. a 5 wicket haul is a fair measure of a) a match-winning performance
b) the ability to keep taking wickets throughout an innings, not just when it's new and swinging or old and reversing.

The relative lack of 5 wicket hauls by Anderson indicates his limitations- inability to bowl dry and still get wickets, to launch an effective bouncer attack, to think laterally to dismiss a set batsman. All of which Botham could do, and are the reson he would convert those handy 2-3 wicket bags into potentially matchwinning hauls.

That's all true but what is nonsense is a lack of value for longevity. Anderson post 2007 was a completely different bowler hence why his stats don't do his talent justice but getting to 400 will be a remarkable feat, something Botham could not achieve.

 

[shaz619]

I admire Hoggy for taking fivefers all round the world. When it didn't swing he could block an end up for Harmi and Fred too.

Sure, but he had significantly better pace support than Jimmy.

Jimmy has basically had Broad and that's it. Hoggard had Harmison and Fred and Simon Jones, which meant that all of them could bowl shorter spells.

I'm still not convinced that Jimmy is back to his best. I think that the West Indies were every bit as "mediocre" as Colin Graves thought.

Never forget Simon Jones in this discussion! He had the potential to be an ATG but was unfortunately injured after the Ashes Series in 2005

 

[Junaids]

Never forget Simon Jones in this discussion! He had the potential to be an ATG but was unfortunately injured after the Ashes Series in 2005

Too true.

He was a superb bowler.

 

[Bilal7]

If the bowler wants to become a legend, he needs to have a longevity factor.. 250 wck might prove he is good but he will never be considered a legend.. Shane bond is the prime example.. So 250 and 300 aren't special numbers

Imran, Marshall, Lillee, Waqar, Donald and a whole slew of other legendary bowlers haven't crossed this made up, 400 wickets barrier.

Faulty logic.

 

[Chrish]

Imran, Marshall, Lillee, Waqar, Donald and a whole slew of other legendary bowlers haven't crossed this made up, 400 wickets barrier.

Faulty logic.

Haven't seen a single "legend" with 250 wickets..

 

[Bilal7]

Haven't seen a single "legend" with 250 wickets..

Sydney Barnes, the bowling Bradman. Michael Holding and a few others as well.

You should see better.

 

[Chrish]

Sydney Barnes, the bowling Bradman. Michael Holding and a few others as well.

You should see better.

Michael Holding was a legend of WI, not a legend of Cricket.. As for Sydney Barnes, it's irrelevant when talking about modern day cricket.. Of course you would bring him into argument since it suites your agenda..

 

[Bilal7]

Michael Holding was a legend of WI, not a legend of Cricket.. As for Sydney Barnes, it's irrelevant when talking about modern day cricket.. Of course you would bring him into argument since it suites your agenda..

Lol, agenda. You've been proven wrong since both Holding and Barnes are legends of cricket. Now, if you're going to say that they are not, then I'm done here.

 

[Chrish]

Lol, agenda. You've been proven wrong since both Holding and Barnes are legends of cricket. Now, if you're going to say that they are not, then I'm done here.

No one in their right mind would rank Michael Holding as one of the legends of the game.. He was a WI great which is a remarkable feat in itself but one of the greats he is not..

Number of wickets do matter just like number of runs and tons made by batsmen matter..

 

[Bilal7]

No one in their right mind would rank Michael Holding as one of the legends of the game.. He was a WI great which is a remarkable feat in itself but one of the greats he is not..

Number of wickets do matter just like number of runs and tons made by batsmen matter..

Are you serious? Michael Holding is a bonafide ATG. Miles better than guys like Jimmy Anderson.

Number of wickets cannot be used to judge who is a legend and who isn't because not all players play an equal amount of games. I suppose Bradman was also, only an Australian great because he only managed to score 5000 runs.

 

[Chrish]

Are you serious? Michael Holding is a bonafide ATG. Miles better than guys like Jimmy Anderson.

Number of wickets cannot be used to judge who is a legend and who isn't because not all players play an equal amount of games. I suppose Bradman was also, only an Australian great because he only managed to score 5000 runs.

Bradman's case is unique and there is legitimate reason why could only get to 5000.. He lost several years of Cricket to WW2..

As for Holding vs Jimmy, yes holding was better.. But you have to consider the quality of wickets too.. Holding played in much more bowling friendly conditions. Jimmy on the other hand will only end up as an English great because he has longevity on his side but quality factor is debatable with the average of 29..

 

[Robert]

No one in their right mind would rank Michael Holding as one of the legends of the game.. He was a WI great which is a remarkable feat in itself but one of the greats he is not..

Number of wickets do matter just like number of runs and tons made by batsmen matter..

Well, I must be insane then, like Sir Viv who said Holding was the best quick he played with or against.

 

[Mamoon]

Longevity certainly matters, but there are no official rules for the minimum number of wickets/runs a player needs to be qualified as a great of the game.

Anderson is a top bowler in my opinion due to a number of factors but he's nothing more than an England great while someone like Holding with far less wickets is definitely an all-time great.

Taking 250 wickets is not easy and as far as Anderson is concerned, you can't take 400 Test wickets without being a good bowler, unless your dismissals are illegal/dodgy like Murali or Dartbhajan.

 

[Chrish]

Well, I must be insane then, like Sir Viv who said Holding was the best quick he played with or against.

He is not even considered best from WI.. When you rank all time great pacers, Marshall and Ambrose are always ranked 1st from wi.. The same reason why some one like Garner who had 259 wickets with the dream average of 20.97 is not considered the greatest bowler. Both garner and holiding will always rank behind Marshall and Ambrose because they lack longevity factor althouth quality wise they are right there at the top.

 

[axl100mph]

Longevity certainly matters, but there are no official rules for the minimum number of wickets/runs a player needs to be qualified as a great of the game.

Anderson is a top bowler in my opinion due to a number of factors but he's nothing more than an England great while someone like Holding with far less wickets is definitely an all-time great.

Taking 250 wickets is not easy and as far as Anderson is concerned, you can't take 400 Test wickets without being a good bowler, unless your dismissals are illegal/dodgy like Murali or Dartbhajan.

Calling Murali a chucker is shameful even after he bowled with a brace showcasing his deformity. Anyone who understands how bowling works would know that he completed his action and didn't chuck like ajmal. Surprised that a student of anatomy/biology didn't realize this

 

[Neferpitou]

Calling Murali a chucker is shameful even after he bowled with a brace showcasing his deformity. Anyone who understands how bowling works would know that he completed his action and didn't chuck like ajmal. Surprised that a student of anatomy/biology didn't realize this

Yeah, Ajmal passed the tests too, twice. But as soon as bowling legally didn't work, he resorted back to his old ways just like Murali and Bhajji used to. The latter is still chucking freely.

 

[axl100mph]

Do u understand biomechanics, kineaesthetics? If u do so, then u won't lablel akhtar or murali as chuckers.

The latter effectively used his non bowling arm and had an unusually long runup for a spinner, which is the reason why he got so much purchase, not to forget that he had rubber like wrists.
He used his shoulder rotation to the full, effectively completing his action. therefore, u could see that his follow through was not too dissimilar to a leg spinner or even a slow medium pacer
A chucker however never completes his action as for him the key for putting work on the ball is throough the use of the elbow rather than shoulder rotation.

The authenticity and effectiveness can be further proved by the fact that he could bowl very good legspinners with the same run up and gather. In fact before he learned the doosra, he used the leg spinner as the away going delivery, and u have to be a dumb tool to argue that one can chuck while bowling legspin.

Another noticeable thing was that u could also notice that his fastest balls rarely exceeded the 95 kph mark despite the effort put in. However, someone like samuels or ajmal would dart in at 110 kph just from 2 steps. This is where u can distinguish if someone is a chucker.

To add to the reply to your post, Murali voluntarily wore a metal brace and bowled the doosra and off spinner, which both turned appreciably on a pretty fresh surface, so it is not like he was tested in a lab. In fact, He actually showed that he could bowl the doosra with the brace on

 

[Neferpitou]

One of England's greats but I don't see him getting to 500. He's on his last legs like Steyn. Doesn't have the zip and swing anymore, except in patches.

 

[Junaids]

Calling Murali a chucker is shameful even after he bowled with a brace showcasing his deformity. Anyone who understands how bowling works would know that he completed his action and didn't chuck like ajmal. Surprised that a student of anatomy/biology didn't realize this

I heard Simon Hughes discuss that on TMS a few months ago, and in particular how the brace Test involved Murali bowling so slowly that everyone realised that he really was a chucker. Talk about a gimmick backfiring, big time!

 

[Junaids]

He is not even considered best from WI.. When you rank all time great pacers, Marshall and Ambrose are always ranked 1st from wi.. The same reason why some one like Garner who had 259 wickets with the dream average of 20.97 is not considered the greatest bowler. Both garner and holiding will always rank behind Marshall and Ambrose because they lack longevity factor althouth quality wise they are right there at the top.

Marshall, yes.

But Ambrose was just the best West Indian quick of his (weaker) generation, and even then only after Ian Bishop had to change his action.

My personal opinion is that Ambrose and Garner were totally equal, and nearly identical. And I could not separate the two of them from Andy Roberts and Michael Holding, just below Malcolm Marshall.

Jeff Dujon who played with all of them was recently asked on TMS who the best West Indian bowler was. He actually laughed out loud and replied "That's an easy question! Malcolm Marshall!"

 

[Junaids]

Do u understand biomechanics, kineaesthetics? If u do so, then u won't lablel akhtar or murali as chuckers.

The latter effectively used his non bowling arm and had an unusually long runup for a spinner, which is the reason why he got so much purchase, not to forget that he had rubber like wrists.
He used his shoulder rotation to the full, effectively completing his action. therefore, u could see that his follow through was not too dissimilar to a leg spinner or even a slow medium pacer
A chucker however never completes his action as for him the key for putting work on the ball is throough the use of the elbow rather than shoulder rotation.

The authenticity and effectiveness can be further proved by the fact that he could bowl very good legspinners with the same run up and gather. In fact before he learned the doosra, he used the leg spinner as the away going delivery, and u have to be a dumb tool to argue that one can chuck while bowling legspin.

Another noticeable thing was that u could also notice that his fastest balls rarely exceeded the 95 kph mark despite the effort put in. However, someone like samuels or ajmal would dart in at 110 kph just from 2 steps. This is where u can distinguish if someone is a chucker.

To add to the reply to your post, Murali voluntarily wore a metal brace and bowled the doosra and off spinner, which both turned appreciably on a pretty fresh surface, so it is not like he was tested in a lab. In fact, He actually showed that he could bowl the doosra with the brace on

You are oversimplifying. Early Murali was as you described, and not especially effective. And then he realised that if he also straightened his arm and chucked he became a lot more dangerous and could also spin it the other way.

 

[Bilal7]

He is not even considered best from WI.. When you rank all time great pacers, Marshall and Ambrose are always ranked 1st from wi.. The same reason why some one like Garner who had 259 wickets with the dream average of 20.97 is not considered the greatest bowler. Both garner and holiding will always rank behind Marshall and Ambrose because they lack longevity factor althouth quality wise they are right there at the top.

Marshall and Ambrose are ranked higher because they were better bowlers. How many greats have said that they rate Marshall better than Holding because he had a hundred more wickets? None.

If that was the case then McGrath would be the greatest pacer without doubt, but that is not the case.

 

[Junaids]

No one in their right mind would rank Michael Holding as one of the legends of the game.. He was a WI great which is a remarkable feat in itself but one of the greats he is not..

Number of wickets do matter just like number of runs and tons made by batsmen matter..

I respect you a lot but this is plain silly. Holding took as many wickets as the smaller number of Tests and higher quality of bowler at the other end permitted.

This century only Glenn McGrath and Dale Steyn have approached his quality, and both fall slightly short of him. Neither one of them could do this to a batsman with the world's best defence of the last seventy years.

 

[Chrish]

Marshall and Ambrose are ranked higher because they were better bowlers. How many greats have said that they rate Marshall better than Holding because he had a hundred more wickets? None.

If that was the case then McGrath would be the greatest pacer without doubt, but that is not the case.

Mcgrath actually has a very strong case for being the greatest bowler of all time.. Not just because he has taken X number of wickets, but because he has got those wickets with extraordinary average. He has both longevity and quality.

As I mentioned, getting certain number of wickets doesn't make you ATG.. That's the reason Jimmy won't end up as an ATG but rather only English great. The same reason why Kumble is not a legend of the game but rather only an Indian great.. The average of these two blowers are bit too high to be considered legends.

 

[Chrish]

I respect you a lot but this is plain silly. Holding took as many wickets as the smaller number of Tests and higher quality of bowler at the other end permitted.

This century only Glenn McGrath and Dale Steyn have approached his quality, and both fall slightly short of him. Neither one of them could do this to a batsman with the world's best defence of the last seventy years.

Holding was lethal.. No one is denying that. I have extensively studied scorecards of 70s and 80s WI matches and I have observed firsthand how Holding and Garner destroyed opposition and won matches for their country..

That being said, we are discussing separate issue here. Shane Bond was one of the most fearsome bowlers I have ever seen. But would I consider him a legend?? The answer is NO. The same way I would never rank these two WI bowlers as ATG. They were great for their country and that's where it ends. You gotta have long enough career with consistency to be considered a legend of the game.

 

[Chrish]

Marshall, yes.

But Ambrose was just the best West Indian quick of his (weaker) generation, and even then only after Ian Bishop had to change his action.

My personal opinion is that Ambrose and Garner were totally equal, and nearly identical. And I could not separate the two of them from Andy Roberts and Michael Holding, just below Malcolm Marshall.

Jeff Dujon who played with all of them was recently asked on TMS who the best West Indian bowler was. He actually laughed out loud and replied "That's an easy question! Malcolm Marshall!"

Ambrose is regarded as one of the greatest modern day pacer! He is NOT limited to just being a WI great..

 

[Bilal7]

Mcgrath actually has a very strong case for being the greatest bowler of all time.. Not just because he has taken X number of wickets, but because he has got those wickets with extraordinary average. He has both longevity and quality.

As I mentioned, getting certain number of wickets doesn't make you ATG.. That's the reason Jimmy won't end up as an ATG but rather only English great. The same reason why Kumble is not a legend of the game but rather only an Indian great.. The average of these two blowers are bit too high to be considered legends.

Okay. I was only disagreeing with your statement that 400 is a number that is

considered the ultimate and dream number for any bowler.. Anything over is the bonus..

As long as you realize that a bowler can become an ATG even if he has 300 or 250 wickets, but has the quality that is expected from an ATG, then we are on the same page.

 

[sivaji]

Anderson is a chucker according to the old rules. Chucker is a chucker

 

[sivaji]

Michael Holding was a legend of WI, not a legend of Cricket.. As for Sydney Barnes, it's irrelevant when talking about modern day cricket.. Of course you would bring him into argument since it suites your agenda..

You must be mad to suggest Holding was not a legend of the game. He is an ATG.

 

[sivaji]

In the long run Anderson would have won more games for England then Botham, Longevity is undervalued. It's a myth he can't take wickets in difficult conditions, the recent WI series proves that; sure he is better when there's something in the pitch but who isn't? mind you he exploits such conditions better then most. Taking 400 wickets is a remarkable feat for an England bowler, one which has not been done before.

And in the long run, he would have loved lost more matches too. He can play till he is 60 and win 100 more matches but it wouldnt mean he was a better bowler than Marshall. Would hebe able to rip through a line up as quickly as Marshall? No. Then he would never be better. He could achieve more but wont be better

 

[Chrish]

Dude is a commentator and thus popular.. People sometimes confuse popularity with greatness. To each his own.. Anyways I am done with holding debate here..

 

[Junaids]

Holding was lethal.. No one is denying that. I have extensively studied scorecards of 70s and 80s WI matches and I have observed firsthand how Holding and Garner destroyed opposition and won matches for their country..

That being said, we are discussing separate issue here. Shane Bond was one of the most fearsome bowlers I have ever seen. But would I consider him a legend?? The answer is NO. The same way I would never rank these two WI bowlers as ATG. They were great for their country and that's where it ends. You gotta have long enough career with consistency to be considered a legend of the game.

You are not accounting for the smaller number of Test teams and Tests played in the 1980s.

When Michael Holding retired the world record number of Test wickets was 366, held by Ian Botham (average of 27.21 then, later increased to 28.40), so he was just 117 wickets short of the world record. He didn't "not play enough" or "not get enough wickets. Holding ended with 249 wickets at a considerably better average of 23.68.

Even then, like now, the records were monopolised by the most recent Test players because more Tests were being played. The only players from before 1975 (when he started out) who were above him on the list of most wickets were:

Lance Gibbs - an off-spinner - 309 wickets in 79 Tests at an average of 29.09
Fred Trueman 307 wickets in 67 Tests at an average of 21.57
Brian Statham 255 wickets in 70 Tests at an average of 24.84
(Michael Holding 249 wickets in 60 Tests at an average of 23.68)

There were also 3 other retired players who were contemporaries of his who had more wickets - but at a substantially inferior average and strike rate. They were Bob Willis (325 wickets at 25.20), Bishan Bedi (266 wickets at 28.71) and Derek Underwood (297 wickets at 25.83).

"Current" fast bowlers always retire after their average starts to grow with age.

But I hope that I have shown that Michael Holding retired with the second best bowling record in Test history of a former player, behind only Fred Trueman. Trueman was also the only retired player with at least 200 Test wickets to have a better strike rate, and his was 49.4 compared with Holding's 50.9.

So when you look at a qualification threshold of 200 wickets, and then look at average and strike rate, Michael Holding actually retired as the number 2 fast bowler of all time.

Certainly not just a "West Indies great". Which is why normally calm people like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] found the assertion so bizarre and unfounded.

 

[sivaji]

Dude is a commentator and thus popular.. People sometimes confuse popularity with greatness. To each his own.. Anyways I am done with holding debate here..

Thats probably how you know him but for people like me who grew up watching WI dominate know that Holding is an ATG and legeng of the game.

 

[sivaji]

Ohh so he looked up the scorecard. Thanks for the lol.

 

[Junaids]

Ambrose is regarded as one of the greatest modern day pacer! He is NOT limited to just being a WI great..

The thing is this.

Malcolm Marshall is the best fast bowler ever, period. Using the ICC ranking sizes I'd call him a 900 in terms of his median and mode ranking for my purposes. (I'm amending it slightly from what I put the other day in the other thread.)

You then have Fred Trueman at 890. Arguably SF Barnes belongs here too, but none of us really know.

But you then have a cluster of fast bowlers who are all around "880". They include Ray Lindwall, Dennis Lillee, Michael Holding, Joel Garner, Andy Roberts and Curtly Ambrose.

You then have several 870s - Glenn McGrath, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Alan Davidson, Wasim Akram and Dale Steyn.

Drop down a fair bit in quality to 850 and you have Waqar Younis, Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Colin Croft, Wes Hall and Courtney Walsh.

In the 1990s people often commented on Wasim Akram, Glenn McGrath and Curtly Ambrose being the best three quicks. They were - they were what I would rank in the 870s and 880s, and then there were several other all-time great quicks in the 850s - Donald, Pollock, Walsh and Waqar.

Contrast that with today. Dale Steyn stands alone in the 870s, and you have to go down to the 790s or 800s before you get to Jimmy Anderson or Ryan Harris or Mitchell Johnson. It's a much weaker period in Test bowling history.

 

[Junaids]

The thing is this.

Malcolm Marshall is the best fast bowler ever, period. Using the ICC ranking sizes I'd call him a 900 in terms of his median and mode ranking for my purposes. (I'm amending it slightly from what I put the other day in the other thread.)

You then have Fred Trueman at 890. Arguably SF Barnes belongs here too, but none of us really know.

But you then have a cluster of fast bowlers who are all around "880". They include Ray Lindwall, Dennis Lillee, Michael Holding, Joel Garner, Andy Roberts and Curtly Ambrose.

You then have several 870s - Glenn McGrath, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Alan Davidson, Wasim Akram and Dale Steyn.

Drop down a fair bit in quality to 850 and you have Waqar Younis, Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Colin Croft, Wes Hall and Courtney Walsh.

In the 1990s people often commented on Wasim Akram, Glenn McGrath and Curtly Ambrose being the best three quicks. They were - they were what I would rank in the 870s and 880s, and then there were several other all-time great quicks in the 850s - Donald, Pollock, Walsh and Waqar.

Contrast that with today. Dale Steyn stands alone in the 870s, and you have to go down to the 790s or 800s before you get to Jimmy Anderson or Ryan Harris or Mitchell Johnson. It's a much weaker period in Test bowling history.

I'm mortified - I'm from Lancashire and I left Brian Statham out of the 860s! Oops.

 

[Junaids]

Dude is a commentator and thus popular.. People sometimes confuse popularity with greatness. To each his own.. Anyways I am done with holding debate here..

[MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION],
I have shown you.

The all-time records for most wickets of retired fast bowlers when Michael Holding retired were:

1. Willis 325 wickets at 25.20 (SR 53.4)
2. Trueman 307 wickets at 21.57 (SR 49.4)
3. Holding 249 wickets at 23.68 (SR 50.9)

The guy is a popular commentator BECAUSE he retired as the second most successful fast bowler ever (accounting for Willis having quantity not quality).

You are applying ridiculous modern standards to times when they did not apply. For Michael Holding to take 500 Test wickets he would have had to take more than 4 wickets in every single innings of his 12 year career, with the likes of Marshall, Garner and Roberts bowling at the same time.

No wonder people like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=129948]Bilal7[/MENTION] arw struggling to accept your dismissal of Holding as a local hero rather than a bone fide great.

I repeat, who else could do this to the guy with the world's best defensive technique for 7 decades?

 

[hk031992]

How can anyone claim that Holding is not an all time great? How is he supposed to get 500 plus wickets when they simply did not play anywhere near as much cricket.

Holding is a great commentator and was an even greater player. Its simply ridiculous to suggest he is not an all time great

 

[Robert]

He is not even considered best from WI.. When you rank all time great pacers, Marshall and Ambrose are always ranked 1st from wi.. The same reason why some one like Garner who had 259 wickets with the dream average of 20.97 is not considered the greatest bowler. Both garner and holiding will always rank behind Marshall and Ambrose because they lack longevity factor althouth quality wise they are right there at the top.

All four are certainly great bowlers. Garner and Holding both had ten-year careers at a time when the WI fast bowler production line was at full speed.

 

[Robert]

You then have Fred Trueman at 890.

I am unsure about making Trueman #2. His record is extraordinary overall but there was a bias toward home games. He was certainly the best bowler in English conditions ever.

 

[Fahdi]

No one in their right mind would rank Michael Holding as one of the legends of the game.. He was a WI great which is a remarkable feat in itself but one of the greats he is not..

Number of wickets do matter just like number of runs and tons made by batsmen matter..

Did I just read this?

Michael Holding is widely regarded as one of the best ever and many even regard him as the best.

 

[Junaids]

I am unsure about making Trueman #2. His record is extraordinary overall but there was a bias toward home games. He was certainly the best bowler in English conditions ever.

It's not his fault that Andrew Strauss' spiritual ancestors wouldn't take him on tour for half his career.

He played against all six other Test countries, and his worst record was against Australia - an average of 25.30 with 79 wickets in 19 Tests. Dale Steyn can only dream of such a record, and Jimmy Anderson is not even entitled to dream. And I am a Lancashire lad writing this about a Yorkie.

But the key indicator should be his 86 wickets at 23.46 in 18 Tests against the West Indies - which means the greatest ever middle order in Test history initially - the three Ws - and then Sobers later.

I think Fred really were "T'Greatest Fast Bowler Who Ever Drew Breath" until Maco came along. And he's still miles better than anyone else since Marshall.

 

[Bilal7]

Dude is a commentator and thus popular.. People sometimes confuse popularity with greatness. To each his own.. Anyways I am done with holding debate here..

The only one who is confused is you. PP is a very diverse place but I'd feel confident saying that everyone here rates Michael Holding as an ATG. Then we have former greats who say the same and King Viv who rates him as the best he played with or against.

 

[Mamoon]

Few things in life are less absurd than suggesting that Holding isn't an ATG.

 

[Chrish]

[MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION],
I have shown you.

The all-time records for most wickets of retired fast bowlers when Michael Holding retired were:

1. Willis 325 wickets at 25.20 (SR 53.4)
2. Trueman 307 wickets at 21.57 (SR 49.4)
3. Holding 249 wickets at 23.68 (SR 50.9)

The guy is a popular commentator BECAUSE he retired as the second most successful fast bowler ever (accounting for Willis having quantity not quality).

You are applying ridiculous modern standards to times when they did not apply. For Michael Holding to take 500 Test wickets he would have had to take more than 4 wickets in every single innings of his 12 year career, with the likes of Marshall, Garner and Roberts bowling at the same time.

No wonder people like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=129948]Bilal7[/MENTION] arw struggling to accept your dismissal of Holding as a local hero rather than a bone fide great.

I repeat, who else could do this to the guy with the world's best defensive technique for 7 decades?

You are solely focusing on quality factor here.. I already gave you example of Bond. Ryan Harris is another.. These two bowlers definitely have quality for an Atg player.. But in the end they couldn't maintain fitness level required..believe it or not that's also one of the requirement and skill of the pace bowler to maintain enough stamina so they can play and win games for their country.. Your claim that Holding didn't get more wickets because wi played less matches it simply inaccurate.. Both holding and garner missed several matches.. So they certainly had opportunities to do better.. But the fact remains they didn't.. Someone like Hadlee is certainly a legend because he maintained both quality and longevity throughout his career. The same reason why Mcgrath, Steyn, Akram will go go down as Atg because these players rarely skipped any matches. What you have done in your posts is to completely neglect the value of longevity.. Also it's in human nature to completely overrate past and undermine present.. Unfortunately things aren't that simple in life..

 

[Chrish]

Ohh so he looked up the scorecard. Thanks for the lol.

No better way to analyze numbers than directly looking at scoreboard.. Along with watching online clips and reading cricket discussions of course.

 

[Chrish]

I'm mortified - I'm from Lancashire and I left Brian Statham out of the 860s! Oops.

Let me tell you McGrath, Steyn and Wasim were better than any Wi bowlers apart from Marshall and Ambrose.. Steyn averages 23 in the world of flat roads, smaller boundaries and bigger bats.. Again human instinct to overrate past always takes over..

 

[hk031992]

You can tell anyone whatever you want to tell. It does not change reality.

It isn't human nature to overrate the past. In fact many younger fans automatically underrate past players and consider them to be inferior for no other reason other than they were older players.

I guarantee you that virtually no cricketing expert would agree with your claim that Michael Holding is not an all time great. That is one of the most absurd comments i have ever seen.

And your mention of Bond and Harris is laughable. Neither one of those guys reached anywhere near 250 or so wickets. So to make a comparison to Holding is a joke.

And no, as a test bowler, Holding is ahead of Mcgrath and maybe even Steyn.

 

[Mamoon]

Calling Murali a chucker is shameful even after he bowled with a brace showcasing his deformity. Anyone who understands how bowling works would know that he completed his action and didn't chuck like ajmal. Surprised that a student of anatomy/biology didn't realize this

Sorry for the late reply.

Murali's case was different and you can call it legit as well. He had an above normal shoulder rotation that allowed him a great natural advantage and for whom the rules were relaxed. Therefore, although you cannot call him a cheat like Ajmal and Dartbhajan but you also cannot deny that his success is definitely controversial to a certain degree and many people question whether he should have been allowed to play or not because even if you have a natural condition, rules are rules.

 

[Scrolln]

You can tell anyone whatever you want to tell. It does not change reality.

It isn't human nature to overrate the past. In fact many younger fans automatically underrate past players and consider them to be inferior for no other reason other than they were older players.

I guarantee you that virtually no cricketing expert would agree with your claim that Michael Holding is not an all time great. That is one of the most absurd comments i have ever seen.

And your mention of Bond and Harris is laughable. Neither one of those guys reached anywhere near 250 or so wickets. So to make a comparison to Holding is a joke.

And no, as a test bowler, Holding is ahead of Mcgrath and maybe even Steyn.

No he isn't.

Holding is an ATG though.

 

[Chrish]

You can tell anyone whatever you want to tell. It does not change reality.

It isn't human nature to overrate the past. In fact many younger fans automatically underrate past players and consider them to be inferior for no other reason other than they were older players.

I guarantee you that virtually no cricketing expert would agree with your claim that Michael Holding is not an all time great. That is one of the most absurd comments i have ever seen.

And your mention of Bond and Harris is laughable. Neither one of those guys reached anywhere near 250 or so wickets. So to make a comparison to Holding is a joke.

And no, as a test bowler, Holding is ahead of Mcgrath and maybe even Steyn.

May be in a world where dragons and unicorns exist..