Congratulations Jimmy

Thought it deserved its own thread... he's had plenty of stick on here over the years, and can't deny he's a bit of a qunt at times, but becoming England's all time top Test wicket taker takes some doing, an honour Botham held for some 30 years.

384 may seem fairly ordinary in global terms given the marks set by a certain pair of controversial spinners a decade or so back... but just consider the short list of bowlers with more Test wickets. Murali, Warne, Kumble, McGrath, Walsh, Kapil Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Wasim, Harbhajan, Ambrose, Steyn and Ntini. Not bad company to be in.

Yep. He's going to clear 400 Test wickets in spite of being spectacularly mediocre away from home.

He's on a par with Harbhajan on that list.

I'm glad you said that. I was going to point out that those two stood out from the pack of otherwise outstanding performers, but felt that might have been a bit churlish.

Part of me thinks that this is not the time to say such things, but it's not like he will read this so yeah, congratulations to him but I don't think he should even be in the conversation as one of England's greatest bowlers.

I really hope we produce a genuine world class bowler who overtakes Jimmy. It doesn't speak very highly of the bowlers we have produced in recent years to have him at the top. He is a very good bowler who would get in to most teams but he is not a "great" bowler.

lardbucket wrote:I'm glad you said that. I was going to point out that those two stood out from the pack of otherwise outstanding performers, but felt that might have been a bit churlish.

To be fair, Jimmy was very good in Australia 2011 (was it that long ago? 3-1 win). But I can't think of any other overseas tours where he's been much more than average.

Then again, that's still one more overseas tour than Harbhajan, so perhaps I've sold him short in suggesting they're on a par. Frankly, I was shocked to see Harbi's name on that list. He was f*cking useless.

The likelihood is that he'll get a few more than 400. Which'll help lower the embarrassment being the only top 8 team not to have a 400+er

Really? To take that many wickets you must have something extra.

Pity England sought to fark with his bowling in his early years.

Brass Monkey wrote:The likelihood is that he'll get a few more than 400. Which'll help lower the embarrassment being the only top 8 team not to have a 400+er

But they still won't be able to shake the stigma of being the only top 8 team currently selected by a chocolatier.

Dello wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I'm glad you said that. I was going to point out that those two stood out from the pack of otherwise outstanding performers, but felt that might have been a bit churlish.

To be fair, Jimmy was very good in Australia 2011 (was it that long ago? 3-1 win). But I can't think of any other overseas tours where he's been much more than average.

Then again, that's still one more overseas tour than Harbhajan, so perhaps I've sold him short in suggesting they're on a par. Frankly, I was shocked to see Harbi's name on that list. He was f*cking useless.

Yeah, agreed. But he was instrumental in two of our of most rrare of wins away. He also was outstanding in the most inhospitable of conditions in the UAE. I'll always remember that

taipan wrote:Really? To take that many wickets you must have something extra.

Seven home Tests per season.

Well played Jimmeh.

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:Really? To take that many wickets you must have something extra.

Seven home Tests per season.

Still have to put the figures on the broad.

The other England players play less?

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:Really? To take that many wickets you must have something extra.

Seven home Tests per season.

Still have to put the figures on the broad.

The other England players play less?

Being better than his recent English peers is great, but he doesn't compare to other great bowlers on the world stage.

vilkrang wrote:

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:Really? To take that many wickets you must have something extra.

Seven home Tests per season.

Still have to put the figures on the broad.

The other England players play less?

Being better than his recent English peers is great, but he doesn't compare to other great bowlers on the world stage.

Ntini?

taipan wrote:

Dello wrote:

taipan wrote:Really? To take that many wickets you must have something extra.

Seven home Tests per season.

Still have to put the figures on the broad.

The other England players play less?

Yes. He's played 25 Tests more than Stuart Broad who is on course for a similar number of wickets if he lasts until his 100th.

His last 7 years have brought him 310 wickets at 27. That's nothing to be sniffed at

And yet I'm sniffing.

Probably unconnected, but I do have a bit of a cold.

vilkrang wrote:Part of me thinks that this is not the time to say such things, but it's not like he will read this so yeah, congratulations to him but I don't think he should even be in the conversation as one of England's greatest bowlers.

I really hope we produce a genuine world class bowler who overtakes Jimmy. It doesn't speak very highly of the bowlers we have produced in recent years to have him at the top. He is a very good bowler who would get in to most teams but he is not a "great" bowler.

What defines "great" though, is it average, aggregates achieved through length of career, or just memorable match-winning and series-winning performances?

In live cricket terms I only saw the later years, injury and lifestyle ravaged version of Botham who was pretty crap, the young version was obviously world class but we haven't had anyone in that league since. Clearly in terms of stats the likes of Trueman, Willis etc. were on a higher plane in earlier eras, but you can only really judge the eras you've witnessed, and has there been a better England bowler than Anderson in the last 30 years? Probably not. Gough, Fraser, Caddick, Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, Swann and Broad have all had their moments but none were able to sustain it over a 300 wicket career for a variety of reasons.

We just don't seem to produce "great" players in the sense of those averaging under 25 with the ball or over 50 with the bat... perhaps a product of the county system and English mentality, but I suppose we have to celebrate the achievements of the best we have got... will be the same when Cook (or failing that, Bell) presumably overtakes Gooch's record.

Dello wrote:And yet I'm sniffing.

Probably unconnected, but I do have a bit of a cold.

Take some Vic's. Then check 'em

Well done Jimmy

Great achievement, of longevity at the hardest task in the game apart from anything else. Admittedly he's not up with the fastest, but the sheer pounding of joints again and again ... and to keep going for that many wickets.

Fred Trueman, when asked about the likelihood of anyone beating his 300 Test wicket haul (did he end up with 307? - or is that just me mekkin it up?), replied that he knew one thing, he'd be "bloody tired".

Well, Tests are much more frequent these days, with more countries taking part, and international schedules usually quite a bit fuller. (By no means all Tests, obviously.) And yet, it's the same consistent slog, just a bit more concentrated.

The "sniff" part Jay mentions is the question of consistency of quality, and particularly number of match-winning performances. As in the Test just ended. The fuller accolades come when you don't just take 4 wickets a match, but make decisive inroads. That's been a bit less consistent in Jimmy's case.

Whatever else though, I'm glad we've had him. And shudder to think how much lower we'd probably have sunk without his important contributions.

So three cheers, if not roof-cracking ones perhaps, then heartfelt all the same.

PeterCS wrote:Whatever else though, I'm glad we've had him. And shudder to think how much lower we'd probably have sunk without his important contributions.  

praise. damn. faint.

Does it read that way? Not intended that way. Attenuated rather than faint praise (did you not see the three heartfelt cheers? and the gratitude for JA's contribution to keeping England someway competitive?). And no damnation whatsoever.

But you may be on to the fact that I'm again underwhelmed England rarely have enough in and about them to win a Test match. That's more a comment on the rest of the bowling, I think.

And then that's faint praise to the West Indian batting and resolve, perhaps not part of this thread, but ... well, ETG, maybe try (hard as it may be) to put yourself in the shoes of a stonkingly long-suffering England supporter before you put the label of a damningly faint praiser on me!

Your imagination will have to start from a very low base, mind .....

beamer wrote:Fark me, 28 months without an away Test win.

Dello wrote:And that's all she wrote. Thanks for coming, folks.

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:best possible result
but heres hoping the west indies can better it next time out

PeterCS wrote: ... well, ETG, maybe try (hard as it may be) to put yourself in the shoes of a stonkingly long-suffering England supporter ...

no thanks. been there done that in the 80s and it wasnt fun. id rather soak up the good stuff for the little while its going to last cos noones immune to cycles