Anderson's figures of 30-13-46-5 are remarkable. To have that control not to concede and skill to take 5 wickets, at the age of 36, is an example of why he is our greatest ever fast bowler of all time by a country mile.
Anderson's figures of 30-13-46-5 are remarkable. To have that control not to concede and skill to take 5 wickets, at the age of 36, is an example of why he is our greatest ever fast bowler of all time by a country mile.
That's a big and I feel inaccurate statement
I feel in terms of longevity at the top it's not on either count
Anderson's figures of 30-13-46-5 are remarkable. To have that control not to concede and skill to take 5 wickets, at the age of 36, is an example of why he is our greatest ever fast bowler of all time by a country mile.
That's a big and I feel inaccurate statement
I feel in terms of longevity at the top it's not on either count
Would you say Courtney Walsh was better than Ambrose or Marshall?
I mean, maybe Anderson is the best, but the likes of Trueman, Statham, Barnes and Larwood (to name but four) should figure in the argument
They can figure but one has to factor in how many wickets AND how long a fast bowler has been at the top - in Anderson's case it's almost 16 years. To stay fit and adapt to a loss of a few mph over that length of time is truly incredible.
Anderson's figures of 30-13-46-5 are remarkable. To have that control not to concede and skill to take 5 wickets, at the age of 36, is an example of why he is our greatest ever fast bowler of all time by a country mile.
That's a big and I feel inaccurate statement
I feel in terms of longevity at the top it's not on either count
Would you say Courtney Walsh was better than Ambrose or Marshall?
No because, as much as I admire all of those bowlers, I have no particular view - although if you pinned me to an electric chair for an answer I would say my favourite, if not THE best, would be "Whispering Death" if only for his sheer elegance.
Anderson's figures of 30-13-46-5 are remarkable. To have that control not to concede and skill to take 5 wickets, at the age of 36, is an example of why he is our greatest ever fast bowler of all time by a country mile.
That's a big and I feel inaccurate statement
I feel in terms of longevity at the top it's not on either count
It's the word fast that lets it down. Anderson is a superb exponent of seam and swing bowling. His skills have improved as he's got older. He is not a fast bowler though. You couldn't do with the ball what he does if you bowled fast. He is the best we have had at fast-medium seam bowling in the last 30 years without doubt. Sweeping statements about best ever are ridiculous. You cannot compare eras.
Anderson's figures of 30-13-46-5 are remarkable. To have that control not to concede and skill to take 5 wickets, at the age of 36, is an example of why he is our greatest ever fast bowler of all time by a country mile.
That's a big and I feel inaccurate statement
I feel in terms of longevity at the top it's not on either count
It's the word fast that lets it down. Anderson is a superb exponent of seam and swing bowling. His skills have improved as he's got older. He is not a fast bowler though. You couldn't do with the ball what he does if you bowled fast. He is the best we have had at fast-medium seam bowling in the last 30 years without doubt. Sweeping statements about best ever are ridiculous. You cannot compare eras.
Well you would hardly describe him as a "slow" bowler - not someone who has bowled at 90mph plus anyway. Craig White once bowled 97mph but you wouldn't describe him as a "fast" bowler by your definition. So "fast" is a category rather than a description of what a bowler bowls.
Anderson's figures of 30-13-46-5 are remarkable. To have that control not to concede and skill to take 5 wickets, at the age of 36, is an example of why he is our greatest ever fast bowler of all time by a country mile.
That's a big and I feel inaccurate statement
I feel in terms of longevity at the top it's not on either count
It's the word fast that lets it down. Anderson is a superb exponent of seam and swing bowling. His skills have improved as he's got older. He is not a fast bowler though. You couldn't do with the ball what he does if you bowled fast. He is the best we have had at fast-medium seam bowling in the last 30 years without doubt. Sweeping statements about best ever are ridiculous. You cannot compare eras.
Well you would hardly describe him as a "slow" bowler - not someone who has bowled at 90mph plus anyway. Craig White once bowled 97mph but you wouldn't describe him as a "fast" bowler by your definition. So "fast" is a category rather than a description of what a bowler bowls.
Exactly, and Jimmy is not in it. Not many are these days.
Anderson's figures of 30-13-46-5 are remarkable. To have that control not to concede and skill to take 5 wickets, at the age of 36, is an example of why he is our greatest ever fast bowler of all time by a country mile.
That's a big and I feel inaccurate statement
I feel in terms of longevity at the top it's not on either count
It's the word fast that lets it down. Anderson is a superb exponent of seam and swing bowling. His skills have improved as he's got older. He is not a fast bowler though. You couldn't do with the ball what he does if you bowled fast. He is the best we have had at fast-medium seam bowling in the last 30 years without doubt. Sweeping statements about best ever are ridiculous. You cannot compare eras.
Well you would hardly describe him as a "slow" bowler - not someone who has bowled at 90mph plus anyway. Craig White once bowled 97mph but you wouldn't describe him as a "fast" bowler by your definition. So "fast" is a category rather than a description of what a bowler bowls.
Exactly, and Jimmy is not in it. Not many are these days.
He is - because as far as I'm concerned categories namely "slow" and "fast" and by default, as Anderson cannot be in the first one, he is in the second. And 16 years of playing at the very top level with the most number of wickets makes him the best overall fast bowler of all time because no one can match that.
Comments
Happy to eat plenty of humble pie!
A very small slice of pie......
44-4