Reply With QuoteJust a shame he'll never get to beat Shane Warne, although not sure he should anyway.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Finishing his marvellous career in style
Currently 704 wickets @26.42 and has bowled 40,000 times
Just a shame he'll never get to beat Shane Warne, although not sure he should anyway.
It’ll be really strange to see an England side without Anderson in it, but, with 12 wickets on his debut, Atkinson looks a good replacement. Not sure about Anderson being the best pace bowler ever as is sometimes claimed, but the best England bowler ever? Yes, probably.
Frank Tyson, Fred Trueman, Glenn McGrath , Malcolm Marshall ‘Sydney Barnes , Jeff Thompson etc are probably betterOriginally Posted by the other bob wilson
If you'd told me in 2006, that 18 years later I'd consider him one of the best ever I'd have thought you were mad. But he turned into an absolutely fantastic bowler. Been absolutely unbelievable from the age of 26/27, and one of the very very best about from his mid 30s. That's 14/15 years of being absolutely elite, quite ridiculous for a pace bowler really.
In a way I think the way he has been treated over his career says a lot about England's selection policies. What I find a quite silly fetish England seem to have about young bowlers. Anderson in his early years really wasn't good enough on a lot of occasions, but he was young so he was in the team. He's currently one of, if not the best about. Has no plans to retire of his own, yet is being forced out. He may be 41 , but he's fit and he's bowling as well as ever.
Tyson came and went very quickly, he was apparently one of the quickest ever. Trueman, I can remember him getting his three hundredth test wicket, I don’t think he got many more so he ended with less than half Anderson did.Yes, they didn’t play as many games back then as they do now, but that’s partly offset by Anderson not playing on uncovered pitches which could be very bowler friendly. McGrath, I’d have as a contender for best pace bowler ever, Marshall had it all, he could be a tear away or an Anderson type craftsman (I’d rate him the best of the West Indies quicks from the 70s and 80s and he was easily the best batsman out of the ones you mention) . Barnes’ figures are extraordinary, but I’m not sure he would have been quick enough to be as good today. Jeff Thompson is probably the quickest in my lifetime and his unusual action made him hard to pick up.
Shane Warne is my pick for best bowler ever. As for pace bowlers, Marshall would be right up there, Wasim Abram was a superb cricketer and so skilful as a bowler, Bumrah seems an amazing bowler as well - they be my top three as of today, but I’d stick with Anderson as the best ever from England.
one of the fastest i have seen live is patrick patterson
I think Anderson's longevity has to be a big tick . One comparison I was just looking at. Dale Steyn is the same age as Jimmy, he was seriously special and I think anyone would have a 100% steyn ahead of a 100% Jimmy.
But Steyn was pretty much gone as a top bowler in his mid 30s, as most fast bowlers are. Nearly 10 years later and Jimmy is up there with the new(er) generation. Would I take him over Cummins or Bumrah? Probably not. But to still be performing at a level where you're on a par with these guys is quite extraordinary. He's not the greatest of all time, but I'd argue he's got a good claim at being the most exceptional.
To be fair they are targeting the Ashes tour. I suspect if this was an Ashes now and not a seriously desperate and sad West Indies outfit then Anderson would still be playing.
Makes perfect sense to give bowlers who will challenge for Ashes places game time.
Posting Permissions