This entry is now closed for comments.
@141 Well put, it's a bit of a cliché but practice makes perfect, imagine what he'll be like in a couple of years time.@139 that makes no sense.
Anderson is a very good bowler but as his stats and this story suggest it is something that he has had to develop over the years and he's only really come into his own since about 2010. Before that he was distinctly ordinary and looked at as a whole it would be ridiculous to compare his career with that of any of the greats.
I like Anderson, he is consistently good, but nothing more. In the modern era, with the ammount of cricket played, it's easy to rack up the wickets. He is not exciting and will not be rememebered as a genuine great, but more as an accumulator. This is in itself an achievement. Unfortunately we never got to see what Mohammed Amir would have achieved. Stuart Hall got a more lenient sentence.
not a world class yet, only a local cricketer at national level
@135 I agree with most of that but there is an argument for Sangakarra or Trott. Not sure about Tremlett and Amir. I don't think they are good enough. Anyway, well done Jimmy. Best English bowler in my lifetime.
So, the great bowlers. Two criteria I'd put forward, along with stats and the like, are the DRAW - that buzz when he's going to play - and the REP - that ability to get/freak the batsman out before you've even bowled the ball.Few have/had this (forgive me for missing some, inevitably): Marshall, Holding, Warne, Donald, Imran, McGrath, Botham, Trueman, Steyn, Murali, Lillee. Maybe?
James Anderson a world class bowler... is that what the world has come to?
@125 My World XI at the moment would be:CookSmith (c)AmlaKallisClarkeDe VilliersPrior (w)SwannAndersonSteynPhilanderThat said, I reckon a match between that team and the following one might be close - assuming availability for the last two ;-)GayleTrottPujaraSangakkaraChanderpaulJayawardeneDhoni (w)AjmalMorkelTremlettAmir
This is why past bowlers got more wickets at a less average. They would never play a Test, ODI or T20 on this pitch!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPswz3Zqtvw
There is no definitive criteria for what constitutes a great of the game, I suspect that unanimous verdicts would be subject to cultural bias, especially on internet forums, home to the infamous troll.
He is a very good bowler. I think however that the criteria for being a "great" of the game is essentially a lack of any of the debate below. If people argue about whether someone was a "great" then they probably weren't. The "greats" are really self-evident.
Jimmy Anderson is not a 'Great' ...fullstop. He is good, very good even, but he is not a 'great'. There are but a handful of 'great' bowlers at this point in time, he is not one of them.
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments