McGrath had multiple years with an average under 20 and his best years average was better than Anderson's best years. I like Anderson and he's certainly England's best fat bowler but McGrath was a tier or two above in my opinion. He was an absolute machine and unplayable at times.
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
McGrath had multiple years with an average under 20 and his best years average was better than Anderson's best years. I like Anderson and he's certainly England's best fat bowler but McGrath was a tier or two above in my opinion. He was an absolute machine and unplayable at times.
As an England fan I totally agree with that statement,Anderson was world class and had some brilliant moments and longevity but mcgrath was definitely a level above with his line and length control which frustrated the best of them.
I mean Anderson is a great bowler, but he doesn't compare at all to McGrath. Anderson is a great of his generation, McGrath is an all time great.
Mcgrath and Ambrose were different class when they played. Their height combined with their line and length made them so hard to bat against. Ave of 21 and 20!
The only bowler from this generation I would put alongside McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim etc is Steyn (maybe even Bond had he not had those injuries). Cummins is looking great as well but needs a few more years of performances. That being said, bowlers have had it tougher now with the bigger bats, flatter pitches etc so it can be tough to judge across generations.
Naseem Shah is going to be a great as well
Last edited:
The only bowler from this generation I would put alongside McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim etc from the 90s is Steyn (maybe even Bond had he not had those injuries). Cummins is looking great as well but needs a few more years of performances.
Naseem Shah is going to be a great as well
I thought Cummins was odds-on to go into the all-time great list a couple of years ago. He's showing a bit of a dip recently though so I'm not so sure now.. He needs to come out of the other side of it pretty quickly as the standard is so high.
With Anderson he's an all-time great English bowler, but doesn't get on the list globally I agree. It's a bit odd with our 85-90 mph friendly conditions that we haven't produced one over the years thinking about it.
Sure, i don't dispute McGrath was better overall, I just think Anderson had a very brief, but slightly higher peak. That's disputable and I'm sure it's close and ultimately a matter of opinion with no definitive answer. Maybe it's bias or romanticism because it was insanely impressive that he reached new heights in his late 30s, and produced performances in away conditions that he'd never done during the years when you'd expect a bowler to peak. But also you've got to consider the advantage McGrath had with Warne and Co at the other end piling the pressure on, and the batsmen piling on runs. Remarkably, Anderson's best form came at the end of Root's dismal reign, (and followed through to the start of the Bazball era). Also just stylistically, Anderson being able to manoeuvre the ball either direction with remarkable control, he was my favourite bowler to watch.
Last edited:
The only bowler from this generation I would put alongside McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim etc is Steyn (maybe even Bond had he not had those injuries). Cummins is looking great as well but needs a few more years of performances. That being said, bowlers have had it tougher now with the bigger bats, flatter pitches etc so it can be though you just across generations.
Naseem Shah is going to be a great as well
Not to mention the batsmen now have DRS too which can help the bowlers also but I feel it helps the batters more
Steyn is great shout. What a bowler. Just was not tall like those two. If he somehow played 170 tests he would have about 900 wickets!The only bowler from this generation I would put alongside McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim etc is Steyn (maybe even Bond had he not had those injuries). Cummins is looking great as well but needs a few more years of performances. That being said, bowlers have had it tougher now with the bigger bats, flatter pitches etc so it can be though you just across generations.
Naseem Shah is going to be a great as well
I see the Aussie media are still moaning about the ball change at The Oval. Ricky Ponting is also whinging about it. Both have forgotten that the Aussie benefitted from a ball change at Headingley. Typical poor sportsmanship from the Aussies. They are more or less accussing the Umpires of fixing the game for England as it was the Umpires that chose replacement ball, not Stokes.
Conway has to be a contender for the worst hundred knock, we need 202 scores 15 off 16.
Apart from the rain the Hundred has been so good this year
I cant shift my hatred of it, such a waste of good cricket
Has any batting side started as bad as this so far? 36 balls 25 runs and lost 3 wickets.
Holy feck, Spencer Johnson only conceded 1 run off his 20 deliveries How is that even possible
How is that even possibleI feel like Anderson got drastically better a long time into his test career. Haven't consulted the stats on that. I think he did reach a level where he wasn't too far off a McGrath in terms of skill and ability. In fact he had more tools in terms of swing, if not the same relentless consistency.
But the difference is McGrath was ridiculous throughout. Did the same thing his whole career and there was nothing anyone could do about it. That's why I think he was a level above. He was always at the very top. Probably didn't hurt having Warne at the other end.
But the difference is McGrath was ridiculous throughout. Did the same thing his whole career and there was nothing anyone could do about it. That's why I think he was a level above. He was always at the very top. Probably didn't hurt having Warne at the other end.
You have to commend Anderson for his longevity and sheer ability to take wickets at a consistent rate. But McGrath was a different level completely. Anderson has been quite average away from home whereas McGrath, statistically speaking, was better away than at home.
Without taking anything away from an excellent innings, it just highlights how much of a farce the ECB have made this competition. You have some teams with maybe 1 or 2 missing and quality overseas players, then others who can barely scrape together a side. I know Shaw has been out of form a while (and it's nice to see him get a score because he's an incredible talent) but he's a quality international up against basically a 2nd team. Somerset have 9 players at the hundred plus 3 bowlers who'd be in the side are injured so they have to sign randoms just to try and make a competitive team.
Anderson had a shit series against Australia but there's no need to retrospectively demote him from the all time greats. He's right up there on merit. He's managed a low 20s average in 10 years, which is fair old length of time for any test great to play, especially a bowler. The only reason that his average is skewed is that he had an incredibly erratic start to his test career.
The bloke is bowling into his forties by which stage most fast bowlers have called it quits. That in itself is an astonishing achievement.
I'm happy to admit that Anderson was very poor in the Ashes but there's no need to start piling on the bloke with selective amnesia/kneejerk crap. He's an incredible bowler and his record is staggering.
I feel that in general Jimmy was lacking a bit of nip off the pitch in this series. He was generally bowling just too short and wide throughout the first three tests, and in the final one he began pitching it up a bit more but he was drifting down leg. Contrast that to Chris Woakes who was bowling metronomically on a fullish length and still getting a bit of bounce and managing to cramp the batsmen.
Could it be time? Possibly. But let's not judge him on one series.
The bloke is bowling into his forties by which stage most fast bowlers have called it quits. That in itself is an astonishing achievement.
I'm happy to admit that Anderson was very poor in the Ashes but there's no need to start piling on the bloke with selective amnesia/kneejerk crap. He's an incredible bowler and his record is staggering.
I feel that in general Jimmy was lacking a bit of nip off the pitch in this series. He was generally bowling just too short and wide throughout the first three tests, and in the final one he began pitching it up a bit more but he was drifting down leg. Contrast that to Chris Woakes who was bowling metronomically on a fullish length and still getting a bit of bounce and managing to cramp the batsmen.
Could it be time? Possibly. But let's not judge him on one series.
Last edited:
Class game live on BBC today. This tournament has been great fun this year
That game deserved an even closer finish, despite the bowler doing his best with wides and no balls
Banton’s innings was quality.
Big win for the Brave, won with over 40 balls remaining
I'd rather Stokes had the break to try and get his knee sorted. The ECB clearly couldn't care less about 50-over cricket so why should he bother anyway?
Isn't Stokes retired from ODIs?
Yeah, and he specifically said after the ashes that he wasn’t going to come back and play the World Cup. Weird priorities from the ECB, let him recover for the test team, we’ve got plenty of batters for ODI’s. We need him bowling in tests otherwise there is always going to be a selection sacrifice.
Not weird at all. They are prioritising all formats. The World Cup is a big event and if Stokes gives them a good chance of winning then why not
Is it even possible to prioritise everything, isn’t that just not prioritising anything?
I just don’t think it’s what is best for English cricket. He would give far more over the coming few years if he was able to bowl in the test team, rather than just a batter at a WC as a one off.
Yeah I meant putting equal focus on all formats. For years ECB neglected white ball cricket but now that they are good at it so why not give a full push. Telegraph today saying that stokes is going to miss IPL if needed to sort things out
Yeah I just read that. Changes my opinion on it then
I don’t get why they need Stokes for ODI’s.
He's one of the most destructive batsman in world cricket on his day.
So is Liam Livingstone on his day. And he can actually give you some bowling right now.
Stokes is a far superior cricketer to Livingstone right now. Livingstone bar the odd innings has shown no ability to bat against good attacks and also has one gear which isn’t very useful in ODI cricket. Add to that the fact that Livingstone himself has been injured a lot
Stokes basically has two gears now too (easy singles and boundaries), he can’t run 2s!
So you'd rather have Liam Livingstone over stokes ok but imo you have both it's 50 overs stokes is more solid aswell we should be stacking that batting and chasing down any totals.
Between Malan/Root/Buttler I think England are well covered with anchors and guys that can marshal a chase. They don’t need Stokes, especially if slotting him in means you lose a bowling option. His inability to run hard at the moment makes him a bit one track for big ODI chases. If you want someone to hit bombs lower down I think Livingstone is a better fit and match up vs pace and you can also use Ali and Curran as good match ups vs spin that also give you some overs of bowling. This isn’t even factoring in that Stokes would also be a risk in the field. Unless the plan is to sub field in Chris Jordan every time
.Every other team would have stokes their line up for his batting alone it's mental to argue otherwise I was literally watching his lords ashes innings earlier leaving him out is a mistake sorry he can take the game away from you very fast.