Is Jimmy Anderson OVERRATED at Home & UNDERRATED Overseas?🤷♂️| Bumble & Kimber
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- Subscribe: bit.ly/3QocmCr
talkSPORT's Cricket editor and presenter Jon Norman sits down with the legendary David 'Bumble' Lloyd and cricket writer Jarrod Kimber to discuss all things cricket.
In today's episode, Bumble and Kimber discuss Jimmy Anderson's retirement, whether he is the best English bowler of all time, and whether Anderson is replaceable going forward.
talkSPORT Cricket is where you will find the best cricket content from talkSPORT, the world’s biggest sports radio station.
Subscribe for weekly cricket content from our multi-award-winning sports commentary team featuring the likes of Kevin Pietersen, Harsha Bhogle, David ‘Bumble’ Lloyd, Jarrod Kimber, Steve Harmison, Darren Gough and Neil Manthorp.
Join top broadcaster Neil Manthorp and Steve Harmison every Tuesday for Following On; a weekly and topical cricket show that mixes guests, debate and insight. Following On is available wherever you get your podcasts.
🖥️ talkSPORT's Website: /talksport.com/
📲 talkSPORT's Twitter: / talksport
📷 talkSPORT's Instagram: www.instagram.....
👤 talkSPORT's Facebook: / talksport
📱 talkSPORT's Tik Tok: / talksport
🔴 Download the talkSPORT app HERE! - talksport.com/...
#talksport
#cricket
#cricketnews
#cricketlover
#jimmyanderson
#englandcricket
#indiacricket
#australiacricket
#subscribe
You have to remember with Anderson that he's had a career of 2 halves. The first half he was quite average, but since 2014, of all the bowlers to have taken 200+ wickets, only Rabada and Ashwin have had better averages (hes taken 360 at 22.66). His average in the last decade in Asia is 23 as well. Elite numbers.
Exactly, this is what people need to take into account. If he was only picked for test from 2014 people would be talking about him as an all time great. So why penalise him for having played earlier.
Pat Cummins? And I’m pretty sure that two halves make a whole. You and I and everyone else can rate his career or status whichever way we like, but I’m not sure that conveniently excluding a huge chunk of it would be a true measurement.
In the last 5 years he’s taken more than 11 wickets in a test series just once.
And Ashwin only ever plays in favourable conditions.
@@longjohn5322 They do but you are ignoring the point Anderson had a c.10 year consecutive period during which his stats compare to most bowlers that have ever played. Lots of all time greats had careers that were even 10 years long so t is a reasonable to say that Anderson bowled at the level of an all-time for a period which was in some case longer than the entire careers of some of the all time greats. Given his unique career it makes complete sense to divide it up. Your like a person saying Beethoven was better than Mozart because all of Mozart younger work dilutes the quality of his mature music. It's nonsense.
@@longjohn5322 Cummins has averaged 22.79 so a little over. Of course you need to look at his whole career, but I think it's important to properly contextualise his achievements - his longevity is extraordinary, and his peak has been long and up there with the very best, which I think people don't quite appreciate. He's not just a good seamer, his numbers in his 30s are up there with all the best. I don't think he's as good as McGrath, or Ambrose, or Wasim, but he is nevertheless one of the greatest we've seen. And to take 700 wickets as a seamer is ridiculous. Longevity can't just be put aside as an irrelevance.
From 2010 to 2022 he took 527 wickets in 133 games at an average of 23.68 if thats not true greatness i dont know what is
Yep! If you're judging him on his record overseas, i feel you can't rate Lillee either. Lillee took 231 of his 355 wickets in Australia and had horrendous averages in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and he never toured India. If you aren't gonna question Lillee's greatness, i'm not sure how you can question Jimmy's greatness either.
@morgoth16 thank you. Someone with sense. It's like someone said you can't consider root an all time great until he scores runs in Australia. By that common sense Ricky ponting isn't an all time great cos his average is horrendous in India!! NONSENSE!
@@CHRISSYCHICK About Joe Root, I'd like to know of one player who has played in multiple conditions post-war who averages 50+ in all countries? The great Gary Sobers, arguably the greatest all-round cricketer ever, averaged under 20 in Nz and only in the 30's in Pakistan. I wonder if people will be quick to question his greatness then? Good to have differing opinions based on facts. But, you then have to level the playing field and judge everyone's greatness by the same yardstick. I have seen some people question Bradman's greatness because he only played a few test playing nations. I hate this mindset that in order to prove the greatness of one's favorite, you have to pull somebody else down. Cynical and mean spirited if you ask me. Whatever happened to agree to disagree and respecting other's opinions?
Warne averaged 43 in India, yet no one would argue he isnt a great
He averaged over 36 in Australia and South Africa. When there was no swing or seam he had no plan B. In his era Mgrath and Steyn were way ahead.
Yeah but i'll counter that by saying apart from the tour where they won the batters were making like 150/200 runs. Don't care how good a bowler is if the batters are getting skittled for that amount the bowlers aren't doing much. In the series they won in Australia he was the leading wicket taker.
Ashwin averages 40 in south Africa England aus newzeland. Ashwin Anderson are not in the same league as McGrath warne Akram etc who were effective everywhere
@@laggers54 that tour a major drought broke in the east coast. It was the most English like condtions seen in an Ashes asses series in living memory. It's the only time they have won there since 87, haven't won a test in Oz since. Can't win at home these days either.
So is that why he has been playing for 22 years?
@@nuvinpooliyadde7319 you can't deny without swing or favourable pitches he doesn't fair too well. It's what will always set him apart from the very best of the best pace bowlers. Steyn was the best bowler since Mcgrath, those guys could take wickets in all conditions too.
Such a lovely debate please upload full episodes
If anyone has to select a world XI team Anderson as a bowler won't even feature in it however yes he's been a good bowler for England
Where is this game being played? If it's in England he's definitely opening the bowling.
Doesn't matter where it is, he plays. Rabada, Bumrah and Anderson. If you want a 4th seamer, then Cummins
Yes, any rugby/soccer fan who hates cricket wouldn’t pick Jimmy in their world XI.
@@KevinSheedy10😂😂😂😂😂
@@geosleeds You pick Cummins over Anderson. Also depends on what era World XI you pick, because if you go back last 10 years you start to add guys like Steyn, Morkel, Philander etc. Anderson was hugely important for England, as he often had to drag them along single handedly, but his main strength was longevity and he also comes with some limitations. Basically, for a pure World XI where you have such talent, he ends up mixing the drinks for a team like this.
Good fair analysis. On paper Anderson's stats are amazing, but for impactfulness when compared to his competories like Steyn & McGrath, or England greats like Trueman or Botham he doesn't match up. Still a great bowler but greatest of all time - No
He never had an answer without swing or seam movement..we saw that in the last Ashes with a dumbed downed Dukes ball to negate movement and Bazball roads.
@@Alunticstalkedme4072 And yet he bowls extremely well in Asia. You seem to think you can only be a great bowler if you bowl exactly the same way in all conditions. It's nonsense.
@KevinSheedy10 he only bowls well in Asia with abrasive centres, which indices reverse swing.
@@Alunticstalkedme4072 🤣🤣🤣The straw clutching with Jimmy is something else.
@KevinSheedy10 Look at the matches he got wickets in India. Every single test was on abrasive pitches. The recent tour was the same.
John Snow should be in the conversation. Snow between 1968 and 1972 was with Mike Procter the best fast bowler in the world. Snow was instrumental in England winning the series one nil against the West Indies in 1968 (in the Caribbean) and then blew Australia away in 1970/71 in Australia. Snow great bowler and won England series overseas.
Where can i listen to the full discussion?
Jimmy is the best.
Jimmy to open
Willis on the other end
Trueman as the first change
Broad as the backup
And Botham as your allrounder
Good luck telling Fred he’s first change!
No one is placing Ashwin over Warne or Murali....Anderson in the same sense is not in the top 10
700 wickets legend what a career
@@andrewwright4195Warne McGrath best bowlers ever to grace cricket
@@rrao7963 talking about Jimmy not talking about anyone else
@@rrao7963 kumble or mcgill ?
@@danedward4255 macgill most underrated bowler should have played 2001 in India aus would have won the test series
If you just look at averages you don’t know cricket, look who he gets out. He has consistently got 1-6 out or been the main threat for 15 years 😂
GOAT
That's wrong. Law of Large numbers. He dismissed as many tails as top order/
@@russhouldin5774 that’s not even close to being right 😂
Well let’s forget the averages and compare his overall numbers to say, Sir Richard Hadlee. Jimmy has played well over double the Tests, an amazing achievement undoubtedly, but he has achieved less 5 fors and 3 ten wicket matches compared to Hadlee’s 9. Jimmy averages 3.7 wickets per Test and never above 4 compared to Hadlee’s 5.
IMO Sir Richard achieved the level that should be regarded as great and for all of Jimmy’s brilliance and longevity, he never reached that level. And for anyone screaming, I have chosen Hadlee as a singular example. Don’t get your knickers in a knot if you think there are others, I agree.
@@longjohn5322 you can’t compare really. Uncovered pitches but no drs, ball changes and rule changes to give a few examples why. Most of these changes have made it harder for bowlers so again comparing numbers is silly.
I watch and have watched a lot of cricket for over 20 years, my dad and grandad lived cricket and all agree he’s the goat.
Englands best cricketer of all time. Watch us try and replace him 😔
@@desertofthereal4062 Uncovered pitches don’t relate to Hadlee. I’m not sure what ball and rule changes you’re referring to, but even making these points is in itself making a comparison. I definitely wouldn’t argue with an Englishman as to Jimmy’s standing within English cricket but other than his average and his total wickets, he is clearly behind a number of cricket’s greatest bowlers.
Irrespective of the impact, Anderson's fast bowling was an art form. McGrath may have had more impact, but he wasn't a bowler i would love to watch for hours in a test match. His bowling was extremely boring, hitting the exact line and length for hours. That tested the patience of batsmen, and spectators. Every ball bowled by Anderson was an event in itself.
I'm nearly half way through the video and no mention of Ian Botham (at least up until his fitness problems). We forget how deadly he was when he arrived on the scene.
Jimmy is like Shearer. People refuse to accept how good he is because he's not 'cool'
Facts
He's totally cool in my eyes. Also a great athletic fielder.
Good analogy.
As a South African I am glad Jarrod compared him to Steyn. Steyn could do everything Anderson could but 10km/h faster. Shame his test career was cut short because he played all 3 formats for a long time and had to earn IPL money because South Africa don;t have central contracts
I dont think people realise just how good Marshall, Curtly, McGrath and Wasim were, there's literally no way you can put Anderson in the same class as those guys
Absolutely.
No question
Their generation are miles better. As boycott said accuracy is essential, anderson improved but nowhere near the levels of pollock and those others
I don’t think you realise how many people do remember how good so many of the bowlers of the past were.
100% agreed
Last 10 years he has bowled as well as anyone that I have seen.
@@KevinSheedy10 He’s taken more than 11 wickets in a test series once since the end of 2018.
In last conversation they don't take Sachin over Lara(saying Lara is best overcoming Longevity) and today saying due to Longevity.
I think in England we should go for a 80+ bowler who nips it around (Potts) a 85+ bowler to also takes the new ball (Atkinson), and a 90+ for first change (Archer). Then abroad you can replace Potts with tongue or mahmood.
Archer has a tiny little pea heart. Not cut out for test cricket
266 wickets overseas and almost 440 wickets in England. Great home tracker, average to good bowler elsewhere.
ANDERSON IS A GREAT BOWLER. HE CAN HOLD THAT LINE AND ALSO BECAME EXCELLENT WITH OLDER BALL. HE ALSO HIT 140 CONSISTENTLY. HIS FITNESS HAD NO EQUAL BARRING KAPIL DEV( NEVER MISSED A TEST)
If Anderson had outperformed Bumrah in India, Cummins in Australia, or Steyn in South Africa, the world would regard him as an all-time great. I can't imagine subcontinental teams ever discussing how to tackle Anderson in pre-match discussions unless they were playing in English conditions. In contrast, every team is wary of facing Wasim, Steyn, Walsh, Ambrose, McGrath, and now Bumrah, regardless of the conditions. Perhaps Jofra Archer is another bowler who commands similar respect in any conditions, still a far cry.
No bowler from any country in history will ever be ahead of SF Barnes. James Anderson is the 2nd best English bowler of all time.
Two of my greatest cricketers are Warne and Bradman and I do think Bumrah needs a shoutout, he has second better test average better then fab four from West Indies or any great Australian bowlers
Regarding the discussion about replacements, for all the incessant talk about modern training, nutrition etc why do so many contemporary quicks break down so often? Anderson obviously is the great counterexample. Statham and Trueman bowled longer spells, home and away and hardly ever missed a match. This despite a doctor telling Trueman that he had a congenital spine weakness!
There is a reason he wasn't picked for the sort format. Where other bowlers bowled all 3 formats at international level he only played test, he said it himself.
@@Stewart-yp7pq When Trueman played there was only County and Tests and for a very short period of his career the Gillette Cup. He didnt tour Inda or WI again because he was too much of an outspoken Northern "lout".
Less than 4 wickets per test all the true greats average at least 4 and average 25 or less (Ambrose, McGrath, Warne, Steyn, Wasim, Marshall, Donald, Cummins etc). His "improvement" in Asia has simply been bowling 10 overs getting 1/20 and then the spinners taking over and then maybe bowling at the tail. Very skilled and smart but if the ball doesn't swing he becomes pedestrian.
You are making the mistake of looking at the stats for his entire career rather than just the c. 10 year period when he was great.
@@KevinSheedy10 No it applies to all players, they have periods at the start and at the end of their careers where they aren't as affective as in their prime. McGrath for example averaged 30 with the ball over his first 30 tests. Warne post finger and shoulder surgery averaged 30 from 1999 -2003 and it was only after his suspension did he start playing great again.
@@thegoochinc5359Jimmy performed at an all-time great level for an equal period as all of the other greats. I don't understand what it is you're not getting about this argument. For example, if a footballer was very average until the age of 25 but was then world class for 15 years until the age of 40 why would you judge him to be less of a great player than a football who was world class for his entire career but who retired after 15 years? To really compare with Anderson we should make all of those other greats bowl late into their thirties and see how their stats stack up after that. I'm guessing not great. Would Ponting somehow have been a better player if he had retired early with an average of 60 before his powers started to wane and it slipped down closer to 50?
@@KevinSheedy10 He averaged mid 30's in both SA and Aus, He is called Clouderson for a reason a home track bully who was carried in his last 4 years by only playing in optimal conditions or by bowling 10 overs in India then not returning until the tail. McGrath was a star until he retired (at 37) winning player of the tournament at the 2007 World Cup. If you play after your powers have declined so will your reputation.
@@thegoochinc5359 Nah.
He’s overrated everywhere. Should have gone at least 10 years ago. He and Broad are the reason that England is a mediocre test team at best.
Weirdo
@@JY-ev5ms weirdo or not the fact is nobody plays a dibbly dobbler for donkey years. Remember the reverse lap of Rishab Pant, that should tell you how much he’s overrated.
@@SurenderKumar-zw3zo You don't get 700 test wickets being a dobbler.
@@JY-ev5ms sorry to hurt your sentiments. Did he ever win you a match even in England on a dark and cloudy day. He’s not a Botham or a Geoff Arnold or a Chris old or a John Snow. Cmon yaar you love him but 700 wickets doesn’t mean a thing. Even If I played I too would have got a few wickets because the batsmen would have got bored and gifted their wickets. I understand, don’t take it personally but his impact quotient is next to nothing. As an English man send him off graciously but don’t make him a Botham.
Going through the official ICC historical ratings I would rank the top 5 post war English pace bowlers in Test cricket as the following (with their peak rating):
1 - Fred Trueman (898) 307 wickets at 21.6
2 - James Anderson (903) 700 wickets at 26.5
3 - Stuart Broad (880) 604 wickets at 27.7
4 - John Snow (835) 202 wickets at 26.7
5 - Alec Bedser (903) 236 wickets at 24.9
What about Statham and Bob Willis? Both have better test averages. Wiilis is about the same in County, Statham much better. Larwood had a similar test average and a lower County. ICC ratings have the same drawback as any index-based method: the choice of variable, the assignment of values to qualitative variables and the weightings are all arbitrary. Averages dont lie.
@@russhouldin5774 Test averages are just a ratings method as well, a more simplistic one. But if we use averages then it is fair to only use that period when Anderson was bowling well as the start of his career was poor. From the start of 2014 til now Anderson has taken 360 wickets at 22.7. Willis in his career took 325 wickets at 25.2. Statham 252 wickets at 24.8. Larwood was pre war, so I had excluded him. I only considered performance at Test level as commitment to the county scene is largely impossible for the modern player whose figures would largely be based on times played when excluded from international cricket (eg too young, injured, resting)
If I exclude the last year from Anderson his average drops to 21.4 from 345 wickets.
Our fred was a class act
Truman had a much lower average and was faster, he is the best English bowler with Jimmy a very close no2.
Jimmy is possibly the best English bowler of all time but he's not in the top 10 fast bowlers of all time. He's not as good as Mcgrath, Ambrose, Holding, Lillee, Marshall, Garner, Wasim, Waqar, Pollock, Steyn, Donald. He's in the next level amongst Akhtar, Walsh, Hadlee.
Akhtar 😂😂😂😂
You 🤡,700 test wickets into his 40s and you dare call him a second level bowler🤭🙄🤦♂️Its people like you who give TH-cam a bad name,akhtar you dare to put anywhere near Anderson says it all about you and your lack of knowledge.Listen to what Lara says about Anderson,second tier he says🙄Akhtar he says is Anderson level 🤮
He is the Ravi Ashwin of England . Takes 5for at will in home condtions , but becomes at part timer outside who takes couple of wickets here and there.
He has never taken 5fers at will anywhere.
@@longjohn5322
24 5fors at home magically happened on flat tracks?
Better then Ashwin for sure
Found this great channel
Subbed
It's simple logic ..
What is the most important series to the English ?
It's the Ashes ..
Anderson has an extremely poor record in the Ashes therefore cannot be in the same league as Trueman, McGrath, Warne etc .
Extremely poor in the Ashes? Jimmy led the attack very well during the 2010-11 win, the only one of its kind in four decades! He bowled very well in the last 2 Ashes down under as well, only in 2014-15 was he poor, and I'm not even counting 2006-07 as he wasn't the first choice back then and still had technical issues
And he's obviously done very well in all the home Ashes, except for the last one in 2023. It's not so easy to win overseas - the Aussies themselves haven't won in England since two decades!
@asb7841 he averages 36 in the Ashes ..Amongst the top 50 wicket takers in Ashes history that is the worst bowling average in that list, if you are comparing him to the greatest of all time that ain't good enough to be in the top tier.
@@asb7841 Anderson has had 2 decent Ashes series. One at home and one in Australia. Nothing else worth mentioning from an individual perspective. His overall Ashes performances, both in England and Australia, barely warrant a mention compared to many many other bowlers from both countries.
For Jimmy to still be playing after such a poor Ashes, whilst his mate Broad went out on a high was sad to watch. You could have made a strong case then for saying the wrong man retired. He hasn’t had a 5-fer since July ‘22 and in his last 15 matches took 43 wickets compared to Broads 67. I hope he really rolls back the years and gives us a swan song to remember all his achievements by.
The point about Steyn and Anderson being different bowlers is so true. You just can't compare 2 bowlers with different roles, skillset etc
They might have different skillsets but they're both opening strike bowlers
Look, if a bowler has got 700 wickets any sort of “overrated” talk should stop. Jimmy is a legend, loved watching him bowl.
Interesting how Denis Lillee got named dropped as an all time great..
Played 65 of his 70 Tests in Aus, Eng or NZ.
3 wickets @ 101 in Pakistan
Played 1 Test in the West Indies and got 0-132.
Never played a Test in India.
Would be interested to see his stats if he had played a lot more around the world.
I'm Australian and I would say both Anderson and Peterson were, imo two that I really rated. Fierce competitors, sometimes a bit controversial, but Always gave 100%.
Broad was a better all round bowler. 1. Larwood (greatest action) 2. Bedser 3. Trueman
A typical English bully, that's what he is...the best bowler in English conditions, but not even worth mentioning in the same sentence as McGrath and Steyn away from home
Quick?......medium pace non threatening is why Aussies dont rate Jimmy. Good swing bowler in UK sure...but most Australians dont know why England dont pick quicker bowlers esp when England Tours Australia
Jimmy Anderson is overrated everywhere!!!, man who needs clouds
Cringe comment
Anderson is to tests what Afridi is to ODIs. Both became top 5 highest wicket takers through quantity rather than quality.😂
Not entirely correct! Anderson was an incredibly consistent bowler over a long period of time, more like a Tendulkar (Tests) or Kohli (ODIs).
Afridi was relevant over a long period of time in white-ball cricket, but is remembered more for his impact. Even Jayasuriya was like that, albeit more consistent & reliable. I feel their bowling equivalents are guys like Shane Bond and possibly Bumrah in a few years!
Averages 22 in the last 10 years you absolute clown
Tests are the statistics that matter.
How in the world can you compare a legend like Anderson to a headless slogger like Afridi? I don’t what’s wrong with you people
@@asb7841 Anderson has been very consistent but has never reached the level of Tendulkar or Kohli.
I do want to know something. Australian genes is same as English, how come they can produce Brett Lee and England have Curran
I'm with Big Bob!
He is not overrated . He is top 5 in history. Just steyn,marshall, Wasim and McGrath are little bit better and more rounded
Anderson better than Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Hadlee, Waqar, Pollock, Imran, Lillee? Not a chance. Even Mitchell Johnson and Flintoff have higher peak levels (Ashes 05 and 2013).
@@gts8919shut up hahahaha.
What is your reasoning for him being top 5? You’ve mentioned 4 guys who you think are better than him, is he better than Warne? Is he better than Lillee or Hadlee or Ambrose or Waqar or Imran or Holding? He’s not even as good as Pat Cummins, who’s stock may still be on the rise.
Great bowler? Yes. Greatest fast bowler ever? No. The likes of Hadlee, McGrath, Marshall, Steyn, and a few others are better than Anderson. I would rank him in the top 20 fast bowlers of all-time.
So Anderson is the best bowler because of his longevity whereas as Sachin Tendulkars longevity dosen't matter in comparison with Brian Lara...such blatent double standards!
Anderson (and even Broad's) achievements of sheer consistency and longevity have been monumental for English cricket, as there have been literally countless talented county pacers over many decades, who only played for a few years internationally and then faded away quickly. Even the likes of Harmison, Hoggard, Gough & Caddick barely lasted a decade. And don't even get started on the spinners!
There is literally no major fast-bowling skill-set or achievement that Jimmy hasn't ticked over the course of his phenomenal career. Many comments here are regarding his lack of impact or perhaps even pace. Sorry, but you need to do more research, as there are genuine arguments that he ticked these too at some point over his career.
Anderson and Broad hold the record for most runs conceded in a test over. Clown bowlers 🤡
There definitely are metrics that Jimmy has never reached that the truly great bowlers have. He hasn’t ever reached the standard of a guy like Pat Cummins already has.
mcgrath is way ahead and pollock and quite few others
If you find yourselves losing followers in their droves, just think back to the title of this video.
Quite aside from the topic, I'd listen to these three debate on for hours
I think of him as the ''Ironman'' of cricket. Has a body made of iron and so is his body. Not the most talented but his endurance stands out.
Very good debate I’m a Englishman but for me steyn was on a different level to Anderson in his prime and he didn’t play no way near as many tests as Anderson and look at his wickets and average
Anderson was absolutely unplayable when ball was swinging but struggle when it's not ...yet his fitness and longevity is remarkable....I will compare him to Indian spinner like Anil kumble who would win more matches than anybody in home condition..not in ranks of McGrath styein Wasim Akram or ambrose ...all of these people would take wickets irrespective of condition....but just below that ...
Where does John Snow rate? Not sure I would of liked to face him.
Anderson is an overrated bowler. He is a very good bowler but does not comes in the category of greats. Had Murali, Warne, Kumble, Steyn, Akram , McGrath, Ambrose, Ashwin, Marshall etc played as many as test Anderson played even they would have might might gone 800 or 900+ test wickets..
Yeah but they didn't, stupid argument.
Those who say Anderdon is England's greatest bowler have a total disregard for the history of cricket. Like saying Tendulkar is the greatest batter. An accumulator, great but not the greatest, not close
Tendulkar batting average is elite 53+. Anderson has the same bowling average as Tim Southee.
@@gts8919 Anderson’s post 2009 average is 22, that’s less than Steyn.
@@fcfcfcfc7813 Because Gilchrist, Hayden, Lara, Yousuf, Langer, etc. were no longer around to kick his ass. Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis retired a couple of years later.
@@gts8919 No, he just got much much better. He has troubled all of the top batsmen in the world.
Tendulkar is definitely considered as if not the greatest but one of the greatest. His average after that many games was insane
Rather surprised that Bob Willis hasn’t featured more in the comments?
If Anderson is the GOAT of England bowling then England haven't had a great line of fast bowlers.
Jimmy is a great English bowler but a good international bowler
He has 700 wickets brother
@@TomA-vl8cein the context of playing for England. He is not sub 23 average
I'm pretty sure England play international cricket and I'm also pretty sure Jimmy Anderson has 700 International test wickets , the highest from a seamer , that makes him a great international bowler .
Exactly. As everyone knows, yes, he has 700 wickets and that is an amazing achievement. But the question was is he the BEST English bowler EVER. These days England play lots of tests, sometimes against very ordinary teams. Players like Sid Barnes, Fred Trueman etc. never had the opportunity to play so many games and definitely didn't play against teams like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka like Anderson did. They played most of their cricket against Australia, India, South Africa etc. Larwood played against Bradman at his peak at still averaged 28. If a bowler with an average of 35.97 against Australia after 39 matches and 30.07 against SA from 29 games is the best English bowler ever then I know nothing about cricket.
You may be right, but South Africa and India were certainly not good (compared to where they are today) back then. They were the minnows of yesteryear, so saying that they only played against those countries doesn’t mean that Trueman et al didn’t play against minnows. I do understand what you mean, but I think choosing one England seamer as the best would be quite hard, as they have such a long history of playing cricket (different conditions etc)
Lloyd talking about our great fast bowlers of his lifetime and no mention of john snow, from 67-72 the best in the world, willis couldn’t even keep a regular place in the England team then
Meanwhile Indian cricket still looking for Dev's replacement.
He was excellent in swinging conditions, decent in seaming conditions and quite mediocre otherwise. He was great at the line and length economical role that philander did very well. As an out and out strike bowler he was underwhelming even in England. Have to look beyond the stats, since he has had a longer career being a tight line and length bowler hence he has a better average. He has an underwhelming ashes record even in England.. probably because.batsmen usually sat him out and not attack I think.
Answer: yes he is overrated as a strike bowler but great as a holding bowler
Jimmy Anderson is overrated. Full stop 😂
I would say your dumb fintoff was only 1 overrated Jimmy been going for 20 years great as he got older
@@andrewwright4195 Oh hi destroyer
No
Taking sandpaper out of the equation he was the best.
I would take Lord Ian Terence Botham over Anderson every day of the week.
Anderson is a great bowler but greatest ever? Unfortunately not....... Mcgrath, Marshall, Akram, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose, Lilly, Akhtar, Dale, Trueman, Thompson, Walsh, Waqar, Donald etc all will make most peoples first 11 before Jimmy.
He is basically rashwin
Lets sherlock holmes, take out the impossibles, so the 2 impossibles; number 1 hes the greatest seamer of all time and number 2 hes the least skilled seamer of all time. So theyre the impossibles so im afraid anyone if either opinion is not nuanced enough to give debate on this. As for clouderson advocates, you all have a point to an extent but any there are amazing series in there, and very few statistsclly very poor ones, just not cutting edge enough. The basic skills of his bowling were immense, but youre right he could occasionally struggle with no help. He got better for a very long time however, snd reached the stage that many opposition players would sit in him and try to score at other rnd, which i think shows what esteem he was held in by opponents, an important cog i feel in a debate about his class, anyway i just urge people to look at the minutiae of peoples careers rather than overarching numbers. Essay over!!
Proper title
Is Jimmy Anderson a legend at home but mediocre away.
Average Indian myth
Anderson would have had a 100 wickets more had they not messed with his action when he had a few tests . He lost 20 or more tests .
Best are you kidding
He has abysmal record in india and in australia two top nations
0 fifer in india and after playing gazillion tests in australia 1 fifer
Not even in top 10
Yes
Yeah but India also have bumrah,also ash and jadeja are all rounders
Anderson is like ashwin. Great in favourable conditions and ordinary otherwise. Although i must say hes better than ashwin because he has taken wkts in india and Australia as well. Ashwin is ineffective in India as well when they make decent pitchee
Anderson is to tests what Afridi is to ODIs. Both became top 5 highest wicket takers through quantity rather than quality.😂
@@gts8919same for Ashwin. He became a great by doctoring pitches
Same for Ashwin. Became a great because of raging turners @@gts8919
Best English fast bowler ever
But Curtly Ambrose Malcolm Marshall Joel Garner and Dale Steyn all better
Most wickets by a pace bowler of any country. that says enough itself.
Bumrah is way ahead of him
Nice to see south Asian cricket fans are still massive Anderson fans 🤥
Great bowler, but McGrath is superior imo .
Imagine Anderson's stats if he had Warne bowling at the other end to a total in excess of 500 virtually every game.
@@KevinSheedy10 Well he did bowl with Broad so that's at least half of what you're suggesting.
@@ethancoster1324 McGrath also had Gillespie and Brett Lee.
@@ethancoster1324 Did you just compare Broad to Warne 😂😂😂😂
@@KevinSheedy10 In terms of wickets taken, yes and his average is similar.
Warne was the greater bowler/had more of an impact because of his style of bowling, but Broad's abilities especially in the Ashes have been great.
On another note;
subjectively McGrath is superior because of his better average and ability to bag lots of wickets in all conditions. Anderson is certainly an English legend and a great, but McGrath's importance as seen by his absence in the 2005 Ashes, puts him ahead.
sam curran???
Best ever? He has obviously had a long and successful career. However, leaving aside recency bias, people seem to confuse longevity with other qualities. His average and strike rate aren't as good as many other bowlers. It's impossible to compare eras, but is he really a better bowler than Trueman, Tyson, Larwood et al? I won't mention superior non-English bowlers. It's easy to Google them.
It depends on what you emphasise as most important. The overall longevity and total wickets, or whether you prioritise impact in a one off game which might not be in favourable conditions.
As you say, comparing players from different eras is guesswork, it boils down to who's your favourite.
@@jimb9063 Most cricketers emphasise average and strike rate across all conditions, which is why bowlers like Malcolm Marshall, Curtley Ambrose, and Wasim Akram are considered among the very best.
Give me Darren Gough and Andrew Caddick over James Anderson 😂
While there is merit in your argument, Larwood's average as well as strike rate were significantly worse than those of Anderson's.
@@khantk2732 Larwood's average is 28.35, Anderson's 26.5 which are fairly comparable, especially when Larwood bowled in four Ashes series against Bradman in his prime .
Devon Malcom
The only reason that India n Australia are yet to win test series in England is because of Jimmy Anderson but outside England he is rubbish.
Very Good not great
Just overrated in general. Nothing special about him besides his insane ability to never get injured
Truman and Willis > Jimmy
No he is overated at home and overated over seas
Overrated?? He’s the best pace England has ever had and you can take that to the bank!
700 Test wickets! Jimmy is the greatest fast bowler ever! All the rest are part timers compared with him. The others are good, but he is by far the greatest.
He's the greatest for longevity in the game maybe. Not the greatest. If you look at the average for the others and the time it took to accumulate their wickets he's not up there
Which of them has got 700 wickets as a fast bowler?None anywhere near him!@@TB-su4bz
@@mervynriley3531which of them has played the same amount of test cricket as Anderson
Yes you've put your finger on it! The greatest and the fittest of them all!Super Jimmy!@@lomar0058
Finally someone on here with a modicum of common sense
He's not even better than Courtney Walsh who himself was better than Ambrose on pace and skill.
Mediocre at best
Average Indian cricket knowledge
@@JY-ev5ms average 35 in Australia and 31 in india medicore
@@jeevankikahaniya6339 Shane Warner averaged 41 in India, is he mediocre?
@@JY-ev5ms Indian are better player of spin not pace bowling
McGrath 21
Dale Steyn 21
Allan Donald 16
in india
@@jeevankikahaniya6339 Dale Steyn average in England 31
All time great pace bowling would probably average 24 and under. Across formats, across geographies. There are many pacers in the modern era above and beyond him. Jimmy is a great player, definitely the best bowler england's ever had but he's not a goat.