Man of series for Pakistan, imo, is Rizwan. I’ve been very impressed with him. He keeps very well and has done pretty well with the bat - averaging 40. Yasir Shah has been the pick of the Pakistan bowlers.
As for England - errr? Broad or Woakes? Broad has been the most consistent bowler (though Anderson would have looked better if the slip cordon didn’t have hands like feet). Woakes also been pretty good with the ball and, along with Buttler, won the match that settled the series with the bat.
There’s a list posted on reddit of people who’s entire careers have been encapsulated by James Anderson’s. It includes Ian Bell, Andrew Strauss, Graeme Swann, MS Dhoni…
He’s been going a while!
Well, that’s that then - a pretty decent summer for England (in cricketing terms if not weather). They were good value for both series wins in my view and appear to be addressing, at the moment anyway, Cumbrian’s (absolutely correct) gripe about trying to win in a reproducible fashion rather than relying on one brilliant performance from Stokes, or someone else. Having said that, Broad is man of the series for me - this series essentially hinged on the first Test, and he played a major part in turning that around for England with both bat and ball, while also performing consistently well in the other 2 games.
1-0 is fair I think, although England were lucky in the First Test that the attack lacked experience, anyone else would have gone for the kill then rather then become defensive. Still fair play, and without inclement weather they would have won here.
How would you rate Jimmy on the all time list. Its pretty hard to think of him as top tier, like McGrath, Ambrose, Marshall, Garner, Lillee, Wasim, Steyn, Botham, IK, Hadlee, Waqar, Garner, Walsh, Donald. ay those names and its, but of course.
Maybe next tier down, with the Brett Lees, Ntini, Andy Roberts, Kapil Devs, Jeff Thompsons, and Bob Willis.
But 600 wickets and not top tier?
Quantity and longevity bestow their own quality.
Personally I don’t overly rate either Anderson or Broad because they have struggled to perform when I have been able to watch them here, being also in conditions they aren’t suited to. So I should recuse myself from any pantheon assessment.
But he’s been of Test class to unplayable when conditions are standard seamer, much less a green top. He belongs up there.
Bit like the Younis Khan of bowling. Stats stun people.
Of the long list of bowlers in the top tier of Test cricket that AK84 put up, I don’t think I’d take Anderson over any of them to be honest (unless the match is being played in great seam/swing conditions - then I’d consider dropping the odd one, but not many of them, for Anderson) - with one exception. Anderson is definitely a better bowler over the totality of his career than Botham was.
Botham’s career with the ball can be split into two: up to and including 1981 and post 1981. Prior to the start of 1982, Botham was a very fine bowler indeed - averaging 21.95 and taking 277 of his wickets. Post 1982, he averaged 36.9 until the end of his career. This earlier period also coincided with World Series of Cricket, so some of the sides were missing their best players, who were excommunicated from international cricket for siding with Packer, which may help his numbers. Basically Botham got injured, then slow and then out of condition, and played better opposition.*
So when it comes to a comparison with Anderson, I think I’d rather have the lengthy career (even post 30, Anderson’s numbers pass muster with Botham) than Botham’s figures. Obviously more to Botham than just the ball but still, as a bowler, I think even Botham would say Anderson was better than him.
I think Anderson is in that second tier - with the exception of his incredible longevity providing a long peak, which may make people weigh it differently - but if I needed someone to take a wicket for my life, unless the conditions suit, I’m looking at Marshall and some of the others in the top list. Don’t think I’d put Brett Lee in that second tier. Andy Roberts/Thommo might be in the class above it too but I’d have to bow to the people who saw them bowl I reckon.
*Due to cricket not being on for a while earlier this summer, many documentaries got trotted out to try and keep people entertained - one of which was about English cricket in the 1980s and they talked a bit about Botham’s record against Australia in particular. He took a 5-fer, bowling barely in the mid-70s mph, on one Ashes tour in the mid-80s and, watching the wickets, it beggars belief; he’s just dobbing it down. In the final episode of the doc, Mark Taylor talks about facing him and starting to lay into Botham - Border is at the other end and tries to tell Taylor to take it easy, that Botham is wily and laying a trap, and Taylor tells him that if he’s going to bowl this badly, he, Taylor, will flay him. Botham had some kind of weird hoodoo over the Aussies from the 80s (probably due to 1981) but no one else respected him like they did. Botham’s record against the Windies with the ball in the 1980s is particularly poor.
Imran Khans opinion was that Botham had of the greatest outswingers ever and when injuries forced him to remodel his action, he lost it. Considering IK loathes Botham, enough that he probably would order a nuclear strike on Botham’s position, if Botham ended up on some sparsely populated island for some odd reason, its an opinion worth listening to,
Andy Roberts 47 Tests, 202 wickets @25.6
Jeff Thomson 51 Tests, 200 wickets @28
Brett Lee 76 Tests, 310 wickets @30.80
But Lee does have a great ODI record: 221 games, 380 wickets @23.40
Andy Roberts 56 games 87 wickets @35.89
Jeff Thompson 50 games, 55 wickets @35
Its interesting to compare them with another speedster, Shoaib Akhtar whose stats are
46 matches, 178 wickets @25.70
ODI 163 matches, 247 wickets @25.0
He actually has a better strike rate than Roberts in tests, he played one less test but bowled almost 3000 fewer balls.
It’s hard enough comparing Test stats over eras, comparing Lee’s ODI stats to Roberts and Thommos is almost impossible, they were playing different games.
Anderson’s an all-time-great for me. Not the best of all time, but his figures for the past few years speak for themselves. He hasn’t sustained all-time-greatness for his whole career - who does? - but he got in and stuck at it and has been at the top of his game over the past few years. As I think I’ve said here in this thread before, I prefer him over Dale Steyn, because Anderson shows up to every game.
He was never great in the subcontinent, but then Ambrose averaged 38 vs India and no one seems to hold that against him.
It’s possible Broad will also get to 600 wickets - he’s younger than Anderson, plays as many games, and is already over 500.
Ambrose never played a Test in India, his career started just after and ended just before a tour of India and the one which occurred during his playing days he missed through injury.
These kind of stats do hide a lot. Waqar Younis had a poor record in Australia, averaged 40, but the context is that the first was his debut overseas series, where he was used sparingly, the second one was one where he returned after a year out through injury and the last he genuinely didn’t play well.
He had two ODI tours of Australia, in which he did very well.
It’s true, the 9 matches he played against India, including 5 games in 1997 when he was at his best, were all at home. It wasn’t a direct comparison to Anderson (whose record in India, as George Dobell pointed out, is better than Zaheer Kahn’s). but just a point that even Great bowlers tend to have these little niggles and exceptions.
If Anderson had retired at 35, he probably wouldn’t be counted among the greats. But he’s kept going, he’s still going, and certainly intends to at least overtake Kumble in wickets. Why not 700? They will have to drop him, he won’t retire.
He is like, from another sport, Roy Emerson. A man who before Sampras had the most Grand Slams of any man, but who has never been counted on the top tier.
Oh he is great no doubt, but stats don’t tell the whole story.
So, onto the T20 stuff. It doesn’t start for another few hours, but I’m not sure what the weather is going to do. At least they won’t come off for bad light.
Root, Stokes, Archer and Buttler are all out of contention because of their time in the other bubble (although Root hasn’t been playing much T20 recently anyway). Roy is also out with a side strain, so it’ll be quite a different England side that plays, but even with all those stalwarts missing, I don’t think we’ll need to blood anyone new. Cricinfo suggests Ali, Rashid and Saqib Mahmood will all play, but a top order of Tom Banton, Bairstow, Malan, Morgan and Billings does actually look a little light on the batting.
Let’s hope not, because Pakistan have set a fairly monstrous 196 for them to chase. Some great hitting, especially Hafeez who saw England coming and carted them about gleefully.
I must say, I’m enjoying the lack of adverts!
England walking it thanks to a couple of strong patterships, and a bruising half century from Morgan.
Pretty poor bowling and even more inexplicable bowling change helped.
This England side is legit scary.
Pakistan have got to 190 this time. They’ve actually got a very strong batting line-up themselves, the question is now, with England 1/1, have they got enough?
Pakistan winning this but you can never write this England batting line up off
As I write this Ali scores 18 off four balls. ANYTHING can happen…
Pakistan’s to lose, but with Ali set… 18 off 10 needed!