James Anderson vs Courtney Walsh - The better Test bowler?

[The_Odd_One]

Two fast bowlers who have taken over 500 test wickets.

Anderson: 506 in 242 innings
Walsh: 519 in 242 innings

Both are considered a level below some elite fast bowlers. Who do you think is better? Discuss.

 

[Hasan123]

I'll go with Walsh.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Is this a joke thread? Walsh has an away average of 25, he averages below 25 in all countries except australia, he averages below 20 in India and South africa and slightly above 20 in nz and pakistan. walsh is 2/3 tiers above clouderson

 

[Haz95]

Lol is this legit? Walsh is probably the greatest non ATG bowler ever, his competition is Shaun Pollock level. Averages sub 25 everywhere but Oceania where it's 30 while averages sub 30 against everyone but the great Aussies who he averages 28 against and a weak Sri Lanka which is 34.

On the other hand James Anderson averages sub 30 only in the Windies and in England. Anderson should be up against bowlers like Vaas, Dev, Botham etc. This is a mismatch.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

If walsh didn't get a phainty in australia then he would have easily been in the top 5 bowlers of all time

 

[sachin100]

Haha. Its an insult to compare a home bully to an all time great.

Jimmy Anderson is what anil kumble is to spin bowling.

 

[Robert]

Walsh, because he was properly quick and travelled better.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I still can't understand why Walsh and Pollock are not considered ATGs.

 

[CanadianG00se]

I dont recall Walsh faking an injury on away tour when his team was getting butchered.

Anderson is great bowler in favourable conditions but pretty mediocre if going gets tough. Most recent tour to India, Kohli made him cry. Seriously, I dont get the obssession with Anderson. Yes, very useful bowler in English conditions but have very rare performance outside of England. He is poor man's Steyn.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Haha. Its an insult to compare a home bully to an all time great.

Jimmy Anderson is what anil kumble is to spin bowling.

Kumble would always be up for challenge no matter how difficult were the conditions. Anderson will run away when his bowling is nullified and getting hammered.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

I still can't understand why Walsh and Pollock are not considered ATGs.

Both of them are ATG

 

[Suleiman]

I think people underrate Walsh in general, had he been from any other country he would've been looked at with higher regard, but instead he hails from the region which has also given us Marshall, Holding, Ambrose. Personally he is my favorite pacer ever because of his attitude, personality and I think the raw aggression he had in his bowling style was one of a kind. I know people say Anderson is insane on green wickets which is true, but y'all should check out the footage of Walsh bowling on green pitches.

 

[Proactive_]

People comparing averages of 80s and 90s with today as if the conditions for batting and bowling are similar, never change cricket fans, never change.

Here are the stats of a spearhead, who has played 77 Tests for his country in the past 9 years, I'm not taking names, but look at these stats:

Overall Average: 36.93

In Australia : 62.15
In England : 36.84
In S.A: 51.14
In SL: 38.64
In Ind: 35.65

And this guy has played 77 Tests for his country, if this doesn't prove how dire the landscape of fast bowling has been in the past decade or so, nothing will.

Here's a chart of the No. of fast bowlers who have taken 150+ wickets in the last 10 years:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Anderson has the third best average behind Steyn and Philander and Philander has 270+ wickets less. To put things into perspective, Anderson's performances as a fast bowler in this era are MIND BOGGLING. He might be the last work horse reliable fast bowler that world cricket ever sees, and that in itself is something to be proud of. He's easily a great of the game and very possibly one of the all time greats.

 

[Justcrazy]

Walsh , no one will doubt that.

 

[wrongun]

I don't think we have to denigrate one in order to prefer the other.

Jimmy is fantastic bowler who has improved his game year on year.

Like a few others though, I'd pick Walsh simply as he was more reliable in more varied conditions over the course of his career.

 

[Buffet]

Unfair comparison. Walsh was comfortably better.

 

[Suleiman]

I don't think we have to denigrate one in order to prefer the other.

Jimmy is fantastic bowler who has improved his game year on year.

Like a few others though, I'd pick Walsh simply as he was more reliable in more varied conditions over the course of his career.

Agreed, I still think Anderson is class and the title of a mere workhorse doesn't do him justice. Makes it seem like he didn't have much skill but was a hardworker, whereas he is probably ones of the most skillful new ball bowlers in the 21st century.

 

[Ab Fan]

Walsh.He is an ATG- a lower level but indeed one.

 

[sachin100]

Atleast Kumble never fake an injury to escape the hammering unlike Clouderson. LOL

Kumble would always be up for challenge no matter how difficult were the conditions. Anderson will run away when his bowling is nullified and getting hammered. Waiting for Ashes series down under and how he will magically get injured and escape the hammering

I mean comparing their wicket tally with their peers. For both numbers look like atg level with regarding to number of wickets but they r no way close to that level based on their performances outside of their comfort zone

 

[UN talkz]

People comparing averages of 80s and 90s with today as if the conditions for batting and bowling are similar, never change cricket fans, never change.

Here are the stats of a spearhead, who has played 77 Tests for his country in the past 9 years, I'm not taking names, but look at these stats:

Overall Average: 36.93

In Australia : 62.15
In England : 36.84
In S.A: 51.14
In SL: 38.64
In Ind: 35.65

And this guy has played 77 Tests for his country, if this doesn't prove how dire the landscape of fast bowling has been in the past decade or so, nothing will.

Here's a chart of the No. of fast bowlers who have taken 150+ wickets in the last 10 years:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Anderson has the third best average behind Steyn and Philander and Philander has 270+ wickets less. To put things into perspective, Anderson's performances as a fast bowler in this era are MIND BOGGLING. He might be the last work horse reliable fast bowler that world cricket ever sees, and that in itself is something to be proud of. He's easily a great of the game and very possibly one of the all time greats.

U should have shown some respect.... He is a legend.

An ATG for his country and will soon be GOAT for his country in coming years.....

Man when u talk about him, you need to show respect and talk with clarity

 

[Saffer_XIII]

People comparing averages of 80s and 90s with today as if the conditions for batting and bowling are similar, never change cricket fans, never change.

Here are the stats of a spearhead, who has played 77 Tests for his country in the past 9 years, I'm not taking names, but look at these stats:

Overall Average: 36.93

In Australia : 62.15
In England : 36.84
In S.A: 51.14
In SL: 38.64
In Ind: 35.65

And this guy has played 77 Tests for his country, if this doesn't prove how dire the landscape of fast bowling has been in the past decade or so, nothing will.

Here's a chart of the No. of fast bowlers who have taken 150+ wickets in the last 10 years:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Anderson has the third best average behind Steyn and Philander and Philander has 270+ wickets less. To put things into perspective, Anderson's performances as a fast bowler in this era are MIND BOGGLING. He might be the last work horse reliable fast bowler that world cricket ever sees, and that in itself is something to be proud of. He's easily a great of the game and very possibly one of the all time greats.

Steyn's stats are truly ridiculous there. He has one less 5fer in 39 less games, same number of 10fers as Anderson. But I agree with you. Excluding Steyn, I see no reason why Anderson isn't the greatest of the flat track era.

 

[James]

Pitches have been much more batsman friendly in the last 15 years. Anderson's 500 wickets would have come at a lower average in any other era. Not saying he is better than Walsh, but again the usual ignorant and agenda-driven posting is evident in some corners of this thread.

Two great bowlers.

 

[James]

Interesting to note btw that most of the anti-Jimmy posters seem to be Indian. Guess they are a bit sore from him getting Tendulkar out so many times.

 

[jeetu]

Walsh by slight margin. Walsh did have a luxury to bowl alongside Ambrose.

 

[Robert]

Interesting to note btw that most of the anti-Jimmy posters seem to be Indian. Guess they are a bit sore from him getting Tendulkar out so many times.

Especially given that their Kapil averaged 37 in England, where you'd think a FM swinger would do well. Yet no English person derides Kapil.

 

[R0H1T]

People comparing averages of 80s and 90s with today as if the conditions for batting and bowling are similar, never change cricket fans, never change.

Here are the stats of a spearhead, who has played 77 Tests for his country in the past 9 years, I'm not taking names, but look at these stats:

Overall Average: 36.93

In Australia : 62.15
In England : 36.84
In S.A: 51.14
In SL: 38.64
In Ind: 35.65

And this guy has played 77 Tests for his country, if this doesn't prove how dire the landscape of fast bowling has been in the past decade or so, nothing will.

Here's a chart of the No. of fast bowlers who have taken 150+ wickets in the last 10 years:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Anderson has the third best average behind Steyn and Philander and Philander has 270+ wickets less. To put things into perspective, Anderson's performances as a fast bowler in this era are MIND BOGGLING. He might be the last work horse reliable fast bowler that world cricket ever sees, and that in itself is something to be proud of. He's easily a great of the game and very possibly one of the all time greats.

Sharmaji is there, surely we need another smilie for this ATG pacer from Asia

Oh & Walsh owns Jimmy anywhere & everywhere outside England, you tend to forget how DRS has also helped him immensely.

 

[sachin100]

Interesting to note btw that most of the anti-Jimmy posters seem to be Indian. Guess they are a bit sore from him getting Tendulkar out so many times.

Sachin used to smash him for fun in his hey day. Only at the end of his career he got him a few times. Sachin is over the hill at that time and i dont want to degrade jimmy.

Even in England with green tops he averages 29 against india which is less than his home Average of 24.

He is as home track bully as ashwin in india.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Sharmaji is there, surely we need another smilie for this ATG pacer from Asia

Oh & Walsh owns Jimmy anywhere & everywhere outside England, you tend to forget how DRS has also helped him immensely.

Walsh even owns jimmy inside England, no contest. This guys has had like 2 good series away from home in his entire career, he's not fit to be mentioned alongside walsh, in fact it is an insult to walsh.

 

[Zaz]

Walsh You can still be a inferior bowler to him and still be a fine bowler like anderson is

 

[big_gamer007]

I like both of them used to copy Walsh's action as a kid was so smooth and good to bowl inswingers.. similarly jimmy's action and bowling is very pleasing to the eyes two great bowlers..

 

[Protea Fan]

Walsh even owns jimmy inside England, no contest. This guys has had like 2 good series away from home in his entire career, he's not fit to be mentioned alongside walsh, in fact it is an insult to walsh.

How? this is height of over hyping

Almost everyone knows that walsh is easily better bowler than jimmy not need such exaggerations for that

 

[kingusama92]

Anderson is a good bowler but he's quite rubbish away from home.

Since 2010

In AUS: 32.63 AVG
In IND: 36.06 AVG
In NZ: 37.00 AVG
In SA: 43.00 AVG

I mean that's trash during a good period in his bowling where he mastered the wobbly seam.

The stats were even worse during the first half of his career. The man averaged 102+ with the ball in AUS. )

 

[New Yorker]

I still can't understand why Walsh and Pollock are not considered ATGs.

I think the question will have to be taken up again quite seriously when Anderson reaches 600. He's only getting better with age, and if longevity doesn't count for something this Sachin fellow starts to look less special.

 

[R0H1T]

I think the question will have to be taken up again quite seriously when Anderson reaches 600. He's only getting better with age, and if longevity doesn't count for something this Sachin fellow starts to look less special.

Except his record against the best side of his time & his record away, also his record in each nation (away) & against top bowlers, tournament finals & WC etc. Clouderson has as many holes in his résumé as the other guy has stars on his fur coat.

 

[New Yorker]

Steyn's stats are truly ridiculous there. He has one less 5fer in 39 less games, same number of 10fers as Anderson. But I agree with you. Excluding Steyn, I see no reason why Anderson isn't the greatest of the flat track era.

I think Anderson is underrated, but while he played, Asif was better. Philander has been about as good as Anderson I would say, and the numbers would bear me out, but has just played much less. Rabada is already better than both.

 

[wrongun]

Anderson is a good bowler but he's quite rubbish away from home.

Since 2010

In AUS: 32.63 AVG
In IND: 36.06 AVG
In NZ: 37.00 AVG
In SA: 43.00 AVG

I mean that's trash during a good period in his bowling where he mastered the wobbly seam.

The stats were even worse during the first half of his career. The man averaged 102+ with the ball in AUS. )

Those stats for Oz & India aren't that bad (similar to numbers India accepts from its own pace spearheads) and actually reflect a bowler who is slowly learning to be more effective overseas. If he continues to improve on those, he'll gain massive respect.

I see him as a bit like Kumble- an absolute killer in his home conditions, world class and actually gained credibility in the end by figuring out a way to take wickets overseas.

 

[New Yorker]

Except his record against the best side of his time & his record away, also his record in each nation (away) & against top bowlers, tournament finals & WC etc. Clouderson has as many holes in his résumé as the other guy has stars on his fur coat.

Which other guy, Sachin? Brilliant fellow, but if we are going to start comparing averages he appears less singular.

 

[wrongun]

I think Anderson is underrated, but while he played, Asif was better. Philander has been about as good as Anderson I would say, and the numbers would bear me out, but has just played much less. Rabada is already better than both.

Rabada has the ability to be better than both & in more conditions too, but Rabada has never come close to putting together the kind of devastation across a series in their favoured conditions that both Jimmy & big Vern have wrought. You've got to DO it, again & again to get into the top bracket.

 

[Lefthanded]

Walsh doesn't get the credit he deserves. With Garner, Holding, Ambrose and Marshall taking the spotlight.

Anderson has improved a lot, but he's a king at home, formidable in some countries and embarrassing in others.

Anderson is an England great, but their greats have never been on part greats from WI, AUS, IND, SL, PAK etc. Except Maybe Botham.

It's an absurd comparison. Like Dravid and Laxman. All time great vs Indian great.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Unfair comparison. Walsh was comfortably better.

How? Almost same number of wickets in the same number of innings despite bowling in batting friendly era?

 

[The_Odd_One]

Lol is this legit? Walsh is probably the greatest non ATG bowler ever, his competition is Shaun Pollock level. Averages sub 25 everywhere but Oceania where it's 30 while averages sub 30 against everyone but the great Aussies who he averages 28 against and a weak Sri Lanka which is 34.

On the other hand James Anderson averages sub 30 only in the Windies and in England. Anderson should be up against bowlers like Vaas, Dev, Botham etc. This is a mismatch.

Pollock is an ATG bowler in every format he played.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I still can't understand why Walsh and Pollock are not considered ATGs.

This. I will take Walsh over the likes of Waqar in tests. He bowled brilliantly even in his twilight years. In fact, he got better.

 

[Ab Fan]

Another WI great or perhaps an ATG not sure , Andy Roberts would have made a better comparison with Anderson. Remember, latter has bigger longevity and fitness than the former.

 

[CricketCartoons]

This comparison flatters Anderson. He averages 35 plus in away matches. Not fit to be called an ATG.

Walsh averages 23 at home, 25 away from home.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Interesting to note btw that most of the anti-Jimmy posters seem to be Indian. Guess they are a bit sore from him getting Tendulkar out so many times.

Do you think someone who averages 35 plus away from home be considered in the same breath as someone who averages 25 away.

 

[Rightarmfast]

Walsh, because he was properly quick and travelled better.

No doubt Walsh, totally agree. But Walsh at his quickest was medium fast. Properly quick? When?

 

[Robert]

No doubt Walsh, totally agree. But Walsh at his quickest was medium fast. Properly quick? When?

Walsh bowled within himself in his early years when he came on first change, but he revved up when he got the new ball for WI.

 

[Rightarmfast]

Walsh bowled within himself in his early years when he came on first change, but he revved up when he got the new ball for WI.

Bet he did.But whatever I saw of him ( and I watched 80's and 90's matches extensively ), he never looked 140+ . More like 135 to early 140's.

 

[another drop catch]

I will go with walsh as he has awesome away average though I consider jimmy anderson as modern day great

 

[IndianWillow]

About equal. Dont compare stats across eras. Peer comparison is important while judging players across eras. Anderson is perhaps only second to Steyn overall for all fast bowlers over the last decade. Who else is next to Steyn overall for a long time now? 500 wickets for a pace bowler is a great achievement in itself to be classified ATG material.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

About equal. Dont compare stats across eras. Peer comparison is important while judging players across eras. Anderson is perhaps only second to Steyn overall for all fast bowlers over the last decade. Who else is next to Steyn overall for a long time now? 500 wickets for a pace bowler is a great achievement in itself to be classified ATG material.

Do you know who walsh is? This is walsh's away record

in Australia	1984-2001	25	45	890.3	182	2472	72	5/74	7/123	[B]34.33[/B]	2.77	74.2	2	0	view innings
in England	1988-2000	21	40	854.4	231	2127	87	6/74	10/117	[B]24.44[/B]	2.48	58.9	3	1	view innings
in India	1987-1994	7	13	278.0	55	798	43	6/79	9/94	[B]18.55[/B]	2.87	38.7	3	0	view innings
in New Zealand	1987-1999	7	13	268.2	59	664	32	7/37	13/55	[B]20.75[/B]	2.47	50.3	3	1	view innings
in Pakistan	1986-1997	9	16	272.4	51	723	33	5/78	7/77	[B]21.90[/B]	2.65	49.5	2	0	view innings
in South Africa	1998-1999	4	8	158.5	36	416	22	6/80	7/111	[B]18.90[/B]	2.61	43.3	1	0	view innings

in West Indies	1985-2001	58	105	2250.0	520	5428	229	6/54	10/101	[B]23.70[/B]	2.41	58.9	8	1	view innings

Those are ATG stats in every country except australia

Now let's look at anderson's away record:-

in Australia	2006-2014	13	26	497.0	111	1653	43	4/44	7/127	[B]38.44[/B]	3.32	69.3	0	0	view innings
in England	2003-2017	76	145	2811.5	736	8138	335	7/42	11/71	24.29	2.89	50.3	20	3	view innings
in India	2006-2016	10	18	309.5	71	870	26	4/40	6/79	[B]33.46[/B]	2.80	71.5	0	0	view innings
in New Zealand	2008-2013	5	9	176.0	35	653	18	5/73	7/130	[B]36.27[/B]	3.71	58.6	1	0	view innings
in South Africa	2005-2016	8	14	315.1	55	998	25	5/63	8/161	[B]39.92[/B]	3.16	75.6	1	0	view innings
in Sri Lanka	2003-2012	4	7	135.4	30	448	11	5/72	5/98	[B]40.72[/B]	3.30	74.0	1	0	view innings
in U.A.E.	2012-2015	6	12	216.0	63	452	22	4/17	6/69	20.54	2.09	58.9	0	0	view innings
in West Indies	2009-2015	7	11	248.2	68	648	26	6/42	7/77	24.92	2.60	57.3	1	0	view innings

Those are some pathetic away stats no matter which era you play. Walsh is leagues above anderson

 

[Amjid Javed]

Huge insult to compare the two bowlers, Walsh had intelligence and skill to be handful to any batsmen in all conditions something anderson at times has failed to do in his career.

 

[IndianWillow]

I know their bowling averages. A good bowling average used to be 25 in the past. It is around 30 these days. Away averages are even worse because very few foreign tours these days have enough practice matches for acclimatization. There are more onesided away tours now than ever before in the past. There arent any pace bowlers with the quantity and quality of Steyn followed by Anderson for over a decade. For good reasons. Having watched cricket since the 80s I have drawn the conclusion that modern bowling and cricket is in general a lot more challenging due to heavier load, more formats, more teams etc and hence stats cannot be used as the sole yardstick for comparing players. How players compare to their peers is a very useful parameter.

When batsmen make runs it is readily attributed to flat wickets, big bats etc. But the same conditions dont apply to bowlers?

 

[ToeCrusher2]

I know their bowling averages. A good bowling average used to be 25 in the past. It is around 30 these days. Away averages are even worse because very few foreign tours these days have enough practice matches for acclimatization. There are more onesided away tours now than ever before in the past. There arent any pace bowlers with the quantity and quality of Steyn followed by Anderson for over a decade. For good reasons. Having watched cricket since the 80s I have drawn the conclusion that modern bowling and cricket is in general a lot more challenging due to heavier load, more formats, more teams etc and hence stats cannot be used as the sole yardstick for comparing players. How players compare to their peers is a very useful parameter.

When batsmen make runs it is readily attributed to flat wickets, big bats etc. But the same conditions dont apply to bowlers?

Walsh averages under 22 in 4 away countries, he averages under 20 in India and South africa, those stats are out of this world even in the so called bowling friendly era. An away average above 36 is bad even in this so called "batting friendly" era.

 

[RamLakhan]

Pitches have been much more batsman friendly in the last 15 years. Anderson's 500 wickets would have come at a lower average in any other era. Not saying he is better than Walsh, but again the usual ignorant and agenda-driven posting is evident in some corners of this thread.

Two great bowlers.

But in the modern era, batsmen are also going for more shots than in the past. So there are more chances of picking wickets because of the influence of LOI. In the past people like Gavaskar, Boycott, etc would drain out days & days of test matches without giving wickets. So it balances up everything somehow... In the past batsmen were probably not scoring quickly, so it would affect bowler's Strike Rate for wickets, while in the current era batsmen would score runs quickly which would ruin the average runs per wicket.

 

[Nil Dhumrojal]

Anderson = .5* Walsh in terms of quality and talent and many others..

 

[Plumb]

. Walsh is way above anderson.

 

[Jind25086]

Anderson is no way near to Walsh

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Anderson took England to the top of the rankings and Jimmy is a local Burnley lad so has to be Jimmy


Probably the best English strike bowler since Matthew Hoggard
Always has a trick up his sleeve and models for CK too

 

[New Yorker]

I know their bowling averages. A good bowling average used to be 25 in the past. It is around 30 these days. Away averages are even worse because very few foreign tours these days have enough practice matches for acclimatization. There are more onesided away tours now than ever before in the past. There arent any pace bowlers with the quantity and quality of Steyn followed by Anderson for over a decade. For good reasons. Having watched cricket since the 80s I have drawn the conclusion that modern bowling and cricket is in general a lot more challenging due to heavier load, more formats, more teams etc and hence stats cannot be used as the sole yardstick for comparing players. How players compare to their peers is a very useful parameter.

When batsmen make runs it is readily attributed to flat wickets, big bats etc. But the same conditions dont apply to bowlers?

Better than Steyn no, but Steyn is also among the very best ever. Better than or as good as Anderson yes. Asif, Harris, Philander, Rabada, Hazelwood...

The fact that there are fewer greats around does not necessarily mean bowling has gotten harder. It could just mean there are fewer greats around.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

After taking 500 wickets, Anderson has two performances of note away from home. One against a finished Indian team in transition, the other against the weakest Aussie team in 25 years.

 

[IndianWillow]

Bowlers like to hunt in pairs or even packs, like hungry wolves attacking relentlessly and wearing down the batsmen, breaking their will by attacking from both ends. Most of the bowlers we label as greats often liked to hunt in groups as well. Walsh usually had Ambrose bowling at the other end. And Anderson had whom? Another ATG bowler for company? All these - Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh, Garner, Roberts, Lillee, Thommo, Imran, Wasim, Waqar and many other greats had another world class bowler in the bowling lineup which rarely allowed batsmen to breathe easy anytime - match after match, year after year. The exceptions to this rule are far and few between.

This matters a lot in test cricket. Especially while playing away from home. Especially when you are a young promising bowler. Especially on modern flatbeds and against aggressive modern batsmen who score faster. I dont think the so called stats specialists consider all this, while pronouncing a 500 wicket haul world class test bowler to mediocrity.

 

[Abdullah719]

Bowlers like to hunt in pairs or even packs, like hungry wolves attacking relentlessly and wearing down the batsmen, breaking their will by attacking from both ends. Most of the bowlers we label as greats often liked to hunt in groups as well. Walsh usually had Ambrose bowling at the other end. And Anderson had whom? Another ATG bowler for company? All these - Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh, Garner, Roberts, Lillee, Thommo, Imran, Wasim, Waqar and many other greats had another world class bowler in the bowling lineup which rarely allowed batsmen to breathe easy anytime - match after match, year after year. The exceptions to this rule are far and few between.

This matters a lot in test cricket. Especially while playing away from home. Especially when you are a young promising bowler. Especially on modern flatbeds and against aggressive modern batsmen who score faster. I dont think the so called stats specialists consider all this, while pronouncing a 500 wicket haul world class test bowler to mediocrity.

He's had Broad as a partner, they've taken almost 750 wickets in Tests played together. Some people actually rate Broad higher...

 

[IndianWillow]

Naw. Can you guess why there have been many Steyn vs Jimmy threads here and very few/none on Broad vs Steyn? Broad is a good bowler, no doubt, has outshone Anderson at times. But Broad and Anderson together dont evoke the same emotions as Ambrose and Walsh together. Not by any stretch of imagination, I am afraid.

 

[Abdullah719]

Naw. Can you guess why there have been many Steyn vs Jimmy threads here and very few/none on Broad vs Steyn? Broad is a good bowler, no doubt, has outshone Anderson at times. But Broad and Anderson together dont evoke the same emotions as Ambrose and Walsh together. Not by any stretch of imagination, I am afraid.

I agree. But I don't see how having a superior bowler at the other end would enhance Jimmy's status. It's not as though he's been bowling with duds all his career, not quite a situation similar to what Kapil faced, for example.

Just for comparison, Steyn didn't have regular support at the other end, yet he took 238 Test wickets at an average of 23 until Philander arrived on the scene. During this time, he had the support of a declining Ntini and then later a fresh Morne Morkel.

I do understand the point you're making and Jimmy definitely is not mediocre but he is nowhere near the all-time greats either.

 

[IndianWillow]

Better than Steyn no, but Steyn is also among the very best ever. Better than or as good as Anderson yes. Asif, Harris, Philander, Rabada, Hazelwood...

The fact that there are fewer greats around does not necessarily mean bowling has gotten harder. It could just mean there are fewer greats around.

It could mean that the definition of greatness based on stats is not constant. Almost all modern players are fitter than previous generations - for example, just check modern fielding standards. A score of 16-17 on the yo-yo test would have considered decent back in the 80s and 90s, but these players might be rejected in a modern international side just for failing a fitness test, where 18-19-20 elite score is the new benchmark for team selection. How did the fitter, more hungry ruthless competitive modern players suddenly lose the ability to figure among ATGs? What the modern game is, what defines greatness now, is not the same as for the previous generations. Most players before the 70s would not even make it to a modern test or ODI or T20 side (even a domestic side perhaps) because they would be considered too fat, unfit, even grandpa like, for team selection. But they are viewed as greats now, because they were greats during their own playing days where greatness was evaluated with different yardsticks.

 

[IndianWillow]

I agree. But I don't see how having a superior bowler at the other end would enhance Jimmy's status. It's not as though he's been bowling with duds all his career, not quite a situation similar to what Kapil faced, for example.

Just for comparison, Steyn didn't have regular support at the other end, yet he took 238 Test wickets at an average of 23 until Philander arrived on the scene. During this time, he had the support of a declining Ntini and then later a fresh Morne Morkel.

I do understand the point you're making and Jimmy definitely is not mediocre but he is nowhere near the all-time greats either.

Early days of Steyn overlapped with Pollock, Ntini etc. And SA had among the best fielding sides ever to backup that bowling. SA always had a more balanced bowling side than many other sides for bowling on greenish/bouncy type wickets, as well.

Yeah, Jimmy is better off than the likes of Kapil. But most ATG bowlers usually had another ATG or some great bowler in their ranks, seems to happen together and seems to play a role in their emergence as ATG.

Steyn is truly great, greater than Jimmy. Averaging and maintaining 22-23 in this era over a 13 year career is mind boggling stuff. But even Steyn I think is kind of one dimensional bowler relying a lot on pace, outswing and exceptional fielding and batting prowess of his side that has been ranked a top test side for most part of Steyn's career. It helps playing in the best sides when you are also very talented.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Someone post their stats against Top 6 & Top 7 batsmen.

Past bowlers got a number of tailenders to bully and boost up their numbers.

Still think Walsh's numbers will be better than Anderson. The latter has way too many failed series to be better than Walsh.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Walsh by a few country miles

 

[Robert]

Someone post their stats against Top 6 & Top 7 batsmen.

Past bowlers got a number of tailenders to bully and boost up their numbers.

Still think Walsh's numbers will be better than Anderson. The latter has way too many failed series to be better than Walsh.

I think Anderson has the fourth highest percentage of top five batters among his wicket tally in history.

As a FM swinger he is somewhat limited by not being able to polish the tail off, which fast bowlers are good at.

 

[New Yorker]

It could mean that the definition of greatness based on stats is not constant. Almost all modern players are fitter than previous generations - for example, just check modern fielding standards. A score of 16-17 on the yo-yo test would have considered decent back in the 80s and 90s, but these players might be rejected in a modern international side just for failing a fitness test, where 18-19-20 elite score is the new benchmark for team selection. How did the fitter, more hungry ruthless competitive modern players suddenly lose the ability to figure among ATGs? What the modern game is, what defines greatness now, is not the same as for the previous generations. Most players before the 70s would not even make it to a modern test or ODI or T20 side (even a domestic side perhaps) because they would be considered too fat, unfit, even grandpa like, for team selection. But they are viewed as greats now, because they were greats during their own playing days where greatness was evaluated with different yardsticks.

I think you mistook the cricket board for the exercise board.

The standard was taking wickets and scoring runs, and it still is.

You haven't answered the question, just added to the befuddlement.

This mantra about fitness I can sort of understand, in terms of where it is coming from, even if its relevance in all instances is doubtful.

Botham was great because was great. It didn't matter if he had a beer before a match. And he would still be great if he played today.

But 'ruthlessness' and 'hunger.'? What on earth are you talking about? On what basis do you presume to compare 'hunger'? It's sounds like rubbish management speak. Gordon Gecko with a cricketing bat.

What people show emotionally is a function above all of social convention.

Otherwise we can only go on results.

 

[Abdullah719]

Someone post their stats against Top 6 & Top 7 batsmen.

Past bowlers got a number of tailenders to bully and boost up their numbers.

Still think Walsh's numbers will be better than Anderson. The latter has way too many failed series to be better than Walsh.

301 of Anderson's 506 Test wickets are top 5 batsmen i.e. ~59%.

270 of Walsh's 519 Test wickets are top 5 batsmen i.e. ~52%.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

I still can't understand why Walsh and Pollock are not considered ATGs.

Pollock is bona fide ATG, he was the second best test bowler of 90s, min 100 wickets

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

301 of Anderson's 506 Test wickets are top 5 batsmen i.e. ~59%.

270 of Walsh's 519 Test wickets are top 5 batsmen i.e. ~52%.

Thanks but I was asking more in terms of average (breakdown) and SR.

Can you post those stats too?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Pollock is bona fide ATG, he was the second best test bowler of 90s, min 100 wickets

View attachment 76200

If a desi has Pollock stats and is not rated ATG, there would be riots. lol.

Pollock is an ATG bowler and ATG allrounder and MILES better than any current AR we have now.

Ben Stokes, Shakib, Ashwin, Jadeja, Moeen - BIG LOL.

 

[IndianWillow]

I think you mistook the cricket board for the exercise board.

The standard was taking wickets and scoring runs, and it still is.

You haven't answered the question, just added to the befuddlement.

This mantra about fitness I can sort of understand, in terms of where it is coming from, even if its relevance in all instances is doubtful.

Botham was great because was great. It didn't matter if he had a beer before a match. And he would still be great if he played today.

But 'ruthlessness' and 'hunger.'? What on earth are you talking about? On what basis do you presume to compare 'hunger'? It's sounds like rubbish management speak. Gordon Gecko with a cricketing bat.

What people show emotionally is a function above all of social convention.

Otherwise we can only go on results.

I was only pointing to the fact that athletes in general, only improve over time. Records are broken in every olympics. So why not in cricket? Why should ATGs suddenly disappear in this decade when cricket enjoys much patronage and when there is much more at stake for the players to show intent.

Players continue to get fitter and more skilful due to better training methods and this is why we see new records getting broken in various sports. Modern cricketers benefit too. It is somehow a fashion to say "Old is gold". Every earlier generation likes to boast that their generation players were somehow superior to the current generation. So we hear comments like Bradman would average 100 even today. Or that Walsh would average 24 today with the 'mighty' support of 'Ambrose' Broad at the other end, even in overseas conditions. Unless we try to properly try to measure the direction of evolution of the game over time, we may not be able to compare players who played across different eras.

Game priorities have changed dramatically since the T20s came along. Test matches are played at a faster clip and always result oriented - draws are becoming less common, more runs are scored, even tailenders these days are no pushovers and cant always be dismissed cheaply. This has resulted in both bowlers and batsmen playing the game with a different mindset and goals than in the past. Batsmen are more attacking and bowlers a bit more defensive this decade( for example, even a 4th innings target of 350-400 is no longer considered safe and could be chased down in 75 overs by a motivated team - not at all normal in the past), compared to the previous eras. Stats based comparisions across eras have to be done very carefully.

 

[Leo23]

I was only pointing to the fact that athletes in general, only improve over time. Records are broken in every olympics. So why not in cricket? Why should ATGs suddenly disappear in this decade when cricket enjoys much patronage and when there is much more at stake for the players to show intent.

Players continue to get fitter and more skilful due to better training methods and this is why we see new records getting broken in various sports. Modern cricketers benefit too. It is somehow a fashion to say "Old is gold". Every earlier generation likes to boast that their generation players were somehow superior to the current generation. So we hear comments like Bradman would average 100 even today. Or that Walsh would average 24 today with the 'mighty' support of 'Ambrose' Broad at the other end, even in overseas conditions. Unless we try to properly try to measure the direction of evolution of the game over time, we may not be able to compare players who played across different eras.

Game priorities have changed dramatically since the T20s came along. Test matches are played at a faster clip and always result oriented - draws are becoming less common, more runs are scored, even tailenders these days are no pushovers and cant always be dismissed cheaply. This has resulted in both bowlers and batsmen playing the game with a different mindset and goals than in the past. Batsmen are more attacking and bowlers a bit more defensive this decade( for example, even a 4th innings target of 350-400 is no longer considered safe and could be chased down in 75 overs by a motivated team - not at all normal in the past), compared to the previous eras. Stats based comparisions across eras have to be done very carefully.

few months back someone made an interesting argument and no one was able to make a convincing reply

i am not sure but i think it was [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] or [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

basically if we agree that modern batsmen have boosted averages because of flat pitches and big bats then that means that the impact has been the opposite on the modern bowlers

so if a 50 average batsman would average 35 20 years ago than that means that a 27 average bowler like anderson would be averaging 20-21 in previous era which makes him as good as the best bowlers in history like marshall,wasim,mcgrath,imran etc

similarly considering it is a batsman's era now the great bowlers of the 70s and 80s would have higher bowling averages and strike rates today

imo it is a very solid argument that bridges the gap between modern and past players and shows that the old is gold notion is a myth
[MENTION=139754]New Yorker[/MENTION]

your views?

 

[bujhee kom]

Walsh was leagues ahead.

 

[Abdullah719]

Thanks but I was asking more in terms of average (breakdown) and SR.

Can you post those stats too?

If I find these stats someday, I'll let you know.

The CI stats for this are completely incorrect. They don't calculate the number of runs the bowler conceded, they calculate the # of runs the batsman got out on which completely skews the stats.

 

[Big Mac]