Broad- Underrated? Anderson- Overrated?

Broad currently has a better test bowling average and strike rate than the much more lauded Anderson. I know Broad is much maligned, especially on here, but his record suggests we are a bit harsh on him, and I think the media tends to give Anderson a little bit more praise than what he deserves.

Thoughts?

Jimmy has recently needed things to go his way a bit to get fired up. True for many confidence pacemen. He has forsworn the truculence, so needs a bit of blood to get his dander up. Didn't Steyn say something last year about needing to be angry/nasty to really bowl well?

I daresay Jim will find his mojo again though. A first wicket always helps him.

As for Broad - well, he's finally discovered the rewards of not striving to be Mr Enforcer, and instead of banging it in on the delusion he's fast, is tending more to pitch it up, and use the short ball as the exception, the surprise. Took long enough. Before injuries etc, he was faster, so could benefit from that. Without that edge of pace, the policy he's finally cottoned on to makes all sorts of more sense.

Provided they stay fit (get out of the exaggerated bulging-fitness regimes and keep bowling!), and know what they're doing, I wouldn't choose between them.

interesting - and I'm not entirely sure.

Perhaps they're both a bit over-rated?

What do they average in tests - 29-30 runs per wicket.

That's not really up there with the ATG fast bowlers.

I guess the media purr about Jimmy as when he's on it his bowling is beautiful to watch and he can make class batsmen look very ordinary indeed. Perhaps (and this is a claim made not on stats but on perception/memory) he also tends to take wickets against batsmen who are just trying to defend or keep him at bay whereas maybe Broad picks up more when people are looking to attack him. Like I said, I can't back that up with fact - more of a feeling.