What's new

James Anderson versus Vernon Philander

James Anderson.

Philander cant match the fitness, work-ethic and longevity of Anderson, heck very few in the world can. Also, as [MENTION=141114]Hasan123[/MENTION] pointed out, being a leader of the pack and taking that many wickets is never too easy.

Unlike a Broad and Johnson, he has done well in Asia too. I gave up all my criticism when he performed in Ashes in Australia last year at this age of his career.

Philander is one of the most destructive bowlers too when the conditions are helpful. But his stats are heavily boosted by playing many games in bowling friendly conditions.
 
Jimmy is a true artist with the ball, there's been a lot of snobbery from the stats merchants on this forum who keep trying to convince each other that Broad is the better bowler, but these lads have probably never tried to swing a cricket ball in their lives.

He's the second best fast bowler of his generation, and still going strong because of supreme fitness and the lack of reliance on pure pace. There's every chance he'll end up with an average around 26 when he retires.
 
I really appreciate Anderson's longevity but Philander has 200 wickets at an average of below 22 without having inflated his stats against weak teams like Bang, WI and Zim. He should end his career with 300+ wickets.

Overall Philander seems more threatening to me.
 
Last Monetarist said:
Jimmy is a true artist with the ball, there's been a lot of snobbery from the stats merchants on this forum who keep trying to convince each other that Broad is the better bowler, but these lads have probably never tried to swing a cricket ball in their lives.

He's the second best fast bowler of his generation, and still going strong because of supreme fitness and the lack of reliance on pure pace. There's every chance he'll end up with an average around 26 when he retires.
Click to expand...

"Real artist" struggles to swing the kookaburra.
 
Anderson has had incredible longevity.
 
Philander is just about to register 200 Test wickets very quietly at a silly average of 22.

Has been phenomenal as well, won a series in Australia and England and was simply phenomenal not just a spectator. No need to cut off any dates for that matter. Incredible bowler. How many bowlers have bowled Australia out under 100 twice in their careers?
 
Last Monetarist said:
He did at Adelaide. He also swung it today in Christchurch just fine. You just choose not to see it.
Click to expand...

Adelaide was a pink ball with more lacquer, under lights. It's not the same.

It was mostly seam movement with angle across the leftie. A few moved a touch which is not "art." He's struggled with the kookaburra his whole career and that's a fact.

If you wanna see an actual swing artist, you should watch Boult. 1st innings, last game, in the space of 30 minutes nothing changed except the bowlers and Anderson could not move an inch in the same conditions Boult was getting it to curve.
 
Anderson is class. Not an ATG but very good bowler. He obviously beats Phialnder in terms of doing it over a longer period of time, but I think I can't ignore Vernon's amazing average of 22.

I think when both are at their best, Philander has had a more destructive impact on games than Anderson, just because seam is harder to play than swing. He needs to do it for longer to get into that ATG category and some big performances in Asia would help as well.

Anderson got 25 5 wicket hauls in 135 tests, while Philander has 12 in only 53 tests.
 
Longevity would matter when both bowlers have similar averages and strike-rates. You would give it to the bowler who has done it for longer by virtue of longevity. But when there is a gap of 5 runs in their bowling averages and almost 8 balls per wicket in their strike-rates, the longevity argument doesn't really hold up. Philander all the way.
 
Anderson has a career thrice the size of Phillander literally. It is simply unfair to compare the two. It's like comparing Steve Smith to Ricky Ponting or Ashwin to Kumble.

Ashwin, Yasir, Phillander, Ravado all have crazy numbers at this point. Remains to be seen how they their figures look like by the time they retire. Any conclusions drawn now are clearly premature and as your Bhaijaan I don't advise that.
 
Anderson is about to surpass mcgra in his wicket tally and thats more than enough for him to win this contest

Being a fast bowler his longevity is unreal in this game
 
What's the take now that Philander looked toothless in Sri Lanka? Philander still averages 21.54 while Anderson averages almost 27.
 
You can't compare someone with 580+ wickets to someone with 200 odd wickets. End of discussion.
 
Dios said:
Longevity would matter when both bowlers have similar averages and strike-rates. You would give it to the bowler who has done it for longer by virtue of longevity. But when there is a gap of 5 runs in their bowling averages and almost 8 balls per wicket in their strike-rates, the longevity argument doesn't really hold up. Philander all the way.
Click to expand...

It sure as hell does when the difference in longevity is of almost 100 tests.
 
[MENTION=142782]Darkrai[/MENTION] no batsman scored 10000 run in bradman era.Anderson and philander are playing in same are.Anderson total wicket is almost 3x more than philander.
 
Darkrai said:
Yes, you can. Don Bradman had around 6900 runs. Batsmen with 10000 runs will be better than Bradman?
Click to expand...

Were any of the 10k club batsmen contemporaries of Bradman?

Anderson (34) and Philander (33) are similar in age and have played in the same era.

Your reference to Bradman doesn't make any sense.
 
Srtfan said:
[MENTION=142782]Darkrai[/MENTION] no batsman scored 10000 run in bradman era.Anderson and philander are playing in same are.Anderson total wicket is almost 3x more than philander.
Click to expand...

the_outsider said:
Were any of the 10k club batsmen contemporaries of Bradman?

Anderson (34) and Philander (33) are similar in age and have played in the same era.

Your reference to Bradman doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
[MENTION=146923]Srtfan[/MENTION]. Question is who is better not who has played more matches and therefore taken more wickets. Philander made debut in 2011 while Anderson made his debut in 2003. That should tell you all you need to know.

Hammond and Don started playing around the same time and retired around the same time as well. Hammond scored 7249 runs so therefore he was better than Bradman or even as good? Kapil Dev is better than IK, Garner, and Holding? James in better than Steyn?
 
Unfair, comparing someone who has played for 15 years to someone who hasn't even played for a decade. Anderson is a legend, it doesn't matter that he hasn't performed in certain countries. 564 wickets is huge and I don't think we will have anyone in the coming years who will even come close to that tally. Vernon Philander on the other had has been brilliant in his career. He has just played 55 Tests for SA but has a great record. He has done well in UAE and India as well. His record in Australia is good as well. So cannot call him inferior to Anderson.
 
Philander is a brilliant bowler in helpful conditions i.e. with duke or even with kookaburra. He averages 21 and has got 13 5-fers in 55 tests!

But he is not more than just a support bowler in places like Australia, India, Sri Lanka and UAE. He was largely ineffective in that Sri Lanka tour.

He will come into discussion once he takes 300 test wickets.
 
Jimmy and Philander both were terrible in SL tour. So, who is better bowler between the two?
 
What are James Anderson's average since 2008?

Philander hit the scenes in 2011 at age of 26 and while Morne Morkel was a permanent member in the squad, there were the likes of Tsotsobe getting preferred over him. If he had a career from 2004-05 onwards, his average would have been much lower.

However, no one can deny how lethal Philander has been in conditions favourable to him and that's what makes him such a destructive bowler when on song. A SA great.
 
Chief Destroyer said:
"Real artist" struggles to swing the kookaburra.
Click to expand...

You know, there was a debate and allegations of ball tempering when Wasim n Waqar used to reverse swing.

But Alec Stewart put an end to it by shutting everyone up when he said,
“Let anyone temper with the ball as much as they want, and they still can’t bowl like Wasim n Waqar”.


And same goes here - let anyone pace bowl with a Duke on English pitches for almost two decades n take 600 test wickets. (Anderson will probably end up getting to 700)

The point is,
For a change, try to be generous in acknowledgment and appreciation towards those who have played controversy free cricket for two decades with great discipline and professionalism. There is perhaps a thing or two for us to learn here.
 
Colorblind Genius said:
You know, there was a debate and allegations of ball tempering when Wasim n Waqar used to reverse swing.

But Alec Stewart put an end to it by shutting everyone up when he said,
“Let anyone temper with the ball as much as they want, and they still can’t bowl like Wasim n Waqar”.


And same goes here - <B>let anyone pace bowl with a Duke on English pitches for almost two decades n take 600 test wickets. (Anderson will probably end up getting to 700)</B>

The point is,
For a change, try to be generous in acknowledgment and appreciation towards those who have played controversy free cricket for two decades with great discipline and professionalism. There is perhaps a thing or two for us to learn here.
Click to expand...

Only England players will get the chance of doing that and Stuart Broad seems on the way to heading 600 wickets.
 
England fans tend to compare Anderson to Steyn and bring out the more "skillful" factor in play but forget the gulf of difference in their performance away from home.

Anderson is clearly more closer to Philander than to Steyn in terms of comparison as a test bowler and that is considering Jimmy's longevity. His stats improve from 2010 onwards but there is still a good disparity in their home-away averages.

The only thing that seperates Anderson from Boult and Philander is his longevity.
 
Only imbeciles don't understand that it's much harder to perform at an insanely high level over 150 tests than it is over 70. I'm convinced that most of the folks that criticize Anderson online have likely never swung a cricket ball in their lives.
 
I have seen many, many nonsensical opinions over the years. The opinion that Philander > Anderson has to be right up there.

Complete and utter nonsense.
 
Mamoon said:
I have seen many, many nonsensical opinions over the years. The opinion that Philander > Anderson has to be right up there.

Complete and utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

Anderson averages below 30 only in England, West Indies and UAE. What is your take on that?
 
Ted123 said:
Anderson averages below 30 only in England, West Indies and UAE. What is your take on that?
Click to expand...

So what? Average is not only the criteria that determines the success of a career.

No one will remember Philander few years from now, but Anderson’s name will be forever etched in history as the first (if not the only) fast bowler to break the 600 barrier. That is something that no one can take away from him.

If Anderson would have averaged below 30 in all countries, his status would have been higher. He would then be classed alongside the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose etc. However, he is obviously not as good as those guys.

Nevertheless, in spite of averaging below 30 in only 3 countries, his standing in the game and his statue is levels above Philander.

Philander will happily swap his career record with Anderson’s.
 
You take all the active pacers in the world and ask them to choose between 600+ Test wickets at a good average or 200-300 Test wickets at an excellent average.

Every single one of them would prefer the illustrious honor and distinction of taking 600+ wickets.

You can do the same for batsmen. What is better? 5,000 runs at 50 or 10,000 runs at 45?

Certainly 10,000 runs. It is a bigger milestone and achievement than averaging 50.
 
Mamoon said:
So what? Average is not only the criteria that determines the success of a career.

No one will remember Philander few years from now, but Anderson’s name will be forever etched in history as the first (if not the only) fast bowler to break the 600 barrier. That is something that no one can take away from him.

If Anderson would have averaged below 30 in all countries, his status would have been higher. He would then be classed alongside the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose etc. However, he is obviously not as good as those guys.

Nevertheless, in spite of averaging below 30 in only 3 countries, his standing in the game and his statue is levels above Philander.

Philander will happily swap his career record with Anderson’s.
Click to expand...

In my opinion he should be mentioned alongside those players, average is a good metric and so is away performance, however when those players left their team did the replacements take a healthy number of wickets soon after ? Anderson playing for the length he has ensured England win more Test matches directly because he has taken more wickets and won more games for his country compared to the other greats
 
The longer Anderson plays, the better England are off for it and the more wickets he takes, the greater his legend grows. No one can match his longevity, arguably the most important quality and one which is to be cherished when it comes to a fast bowler / their profesionalism
 
Mamoon said:
So what? Average is not only the criteria that determines the success of a career.

No one will remember Philander few years from now, but Anderson’s name will be forever etched in history as the first (if not the only) fast bowler to break the 600 barrier. That is something that no one can take away from him.

<B>If Anderson would have averaged below 30 in all countries, his status would have been higher. He would then be classed alongside the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose etc</B>. However, he is obviously not as good as those guys.

Nevertheless, in spite of averaging below 30 in only 3 countries, his standing in the game and his statue is levels above Philander.

Philander will happily swap his career record with Anderson’s.
Click to expand...

And Steyn does that but you call him overrated.
 
Ab Fan said:
And Steyn does that but you call him overrated.
Click to expand...

Overrated by those who call him the greatest of all time. A claim that has no basis.

However, I do agree that he is one of the greatest of all time. Anyone who disagrees is criminally underrating him.
 
Mamoon said:
Overrated by those who call him the greatest of all time. A claim that has no basis.

However, I do agree that he is one of the greatest of all time. Anyone who disagrees is criminally underrating him.
Click to expand...

That becomes a comparison across era which in a way is futile. But no test bowler debuted in last 20 years has over 400 wickets under 23 average.
 
Mamoon said:
I have seen many, many nonsensical opinions over the years. The opinion that Philander > Anderson has to be right up there.

Complete and utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

If I was the admin, I would’ve actually issued a warning to OP to begin with.
IMO, it’s more of a trolling attempt rather than displaying an iota of genuine cricket interest and being able to contribute something valuable and worthwhile to this forum.

But since we are feeding the troll, let’s see how many pages this thread goes?
 
Anderson is a poor man's Philander. In helpful conditions, Anderson is good, very good, but Philander is even better.
 
Ted123 said:
Jimmy and Philander both were terrible in SL tour. So, who is better bowler between the two?
Click to expand...

You seem quite desperate to know. What are you going to do with it once you find out?

I mean “who is better based on an SL tour when both were terrible”? lol This point is so deeply philosophical that it may have left many cricket analysts flabbergasted.
 
Anderson leaves Philander in the dust.

At one point, Philander looked like he would go on to do great things.

It didn't work out that way.
 
Colorblind Genius said:
You seem quite desperate to know. What are you going to do with it once you find out?

I mean “who is better based on an SL tour when both were terrible”? lol This point is so deeply philosophical that it may have left many cricket analysts flabbergasted.
Click to expand...

You seem to be getting triggered with the comparison. There is a reason why you are not admin and with this attitude will never be.

Given that you look quite "flabbergasted", can you respond to this-

Anderson averages below 30 only in England, Windies and UAE. So, an ATG who averages 30+ in all major countries??
 
Last Monetarist said:
Only imbeciles don't understand that it's much harder to perform at an insanely high level over 150 tests than it is over 70. I'm convinced that most of the folks that criticize Anderson online have likely never swung a cricket ball in their lives.
Click to expand...

The standards are pretty low when we call 'Away' average of 32 as insanely high level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Poll Poll
Mitchell Starc versus Vernon Philander: who is more effective in Tests?
Replies
15
Views
307
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
Unbiased-Fan
The five greatest Test fast bowlers of the 21st Century
Replies
10
Views
1K
Blackbradman
Blackbradman
FearlessRoar
[EXCLUSIVE] "Pakistan's batting is a real concern": Vernon Philander
Replies
8
Views
590
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
T
James Anderson versus Andy Roberts: Who is the better Test bowler?
Replies
71
Views
719
sindhiboy
S
Cricket Warrior
[EXCLUSIVE] "Gary Kirsten will fit in nicely in the Pakistan team culture": Vernon Philander
Replies
25
Views
2K
ask_analyse_act
ask_analyse_act
Back
Top