Congratulations Jimmy

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

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

Aye taips.

The something extra that he had was the strength of character to become the bowler he is today following his treatment at the hands of the management between the end of summer 2003 and the tour away to NZ in spring 2008.

After a dream start to his test career against Zimbabwe, his lack of experience was at times cruelly exposed by Graeme Smith and his team. The series was by no means a disaster, but his confidence was dented, and IMO he played one test too many when he was obviously knackered. He then missed the chance to get his confidence back against Bangladesh due to injury. Having not bowled since the summer he was thrown into the fray mid December in Colombo, where S/L took 85 runs off him for no wicket.

Summer 2004 saw little competitive cricket for him (3 matches v WIndies) - but he was taken on tour to South Africa. Didn't actually play........ until the 4th Test where, as in S/L 12 months earlier - with bugger all bowling for months - he took 2/149 before promptly missing the last test.

Summer 2005 - no test cricket for him - maybe a few county games ..... then a tour of India where he played the final test taking 6 wickets @13 - an outstanding display overseas.

2006 saw them dicking about with his action to the point of a stress fracture keeping him out of action all summer. The brains trust then decided it would be a grand idea to have him face Langar, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, M Hussey, Clarke and Gilchrist. It paid off in spades, with a return of 5/413 in just three matches.

Now, his figures in Wisden are now a matter of record, and nobody can deny that in those 5 matches on three tours, figures of 7/647 are frankly beyond dreadful...... as bald stats. However, they put well over a point on his overall average.

Before anyone accuses me of "selective stats" - it's not my intention to use them as such. It's more to dispute (to a degree) the claims that he's no good overseas, that he's a home-track bully, and that he doesn't stand comparison with the bowlers ahead of him. Seeing the circumstances of his early years, can anyone honestly say that he should even have been selected for those three tours, let alone played ? To simply say Jimmy Anderson is an ineffective tourist is rather like watching Usain Bolt beaten into a distant 5th place in an Olympic final when suffering from a snotty cold then claiming he's no great shakes as a sprinter.

Great is an overused word, and Jimmys overall figures don't qualify him. His form 2008 onwards certainly merits him being mentioned in the same breath. I have spent 10 years arguing this point on here, and I'll allow myself a little smile at the fact that time has proved me right when various people have been calling for his head.

Enough to say I'm pleased to see him top the list. Most would have said the shit he endured between 2004-07 wasn't worth the conker and just plodded through the county game. Congratulations Jimmy.

Yeah, remember the early days of this forum, the "Anderson Cycle", "Jimmy Bage" and the likes... who would have imagined him reaching this position then?

In the second Hawaii which pom batsmen or forumers were thinking "Mitchell Johnson bowls to the left etc..."

I disregard the poor performances and look at Jimmy at his "average" and his best

Very Good Player and the Beefy record wasn't needed to know that ...just reinforced it

Well done Jimmy.

And Chef could take Gooch's record by the end of the year too.

Congratulations to him. Who'd have thought he'd be in this position around a decade ago?

JGK wrote:Well done Jimmy.

And Chef could take Gooch's record by the end of the year too.

Only just over 450 runs needed. That should take him, well, a couple of years on current form!

He should limp across that line some time during the Ashes, assuming he isn't dropped... but the 10,000 mark looks much less of a formality for him now than it once did.

Some statistical jiggery pokery that "proves" Jammy is only the second best England bowler ever... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32105879

Matthew Hoggard - England's best ever bowler? Piss off, just piss right off.

They did the math.

Don't care if they split the atom, it's bollocks.

Some time ago, I did a cut and past job some serious research into England's most successful bowlers and their strike rates - Trueman was a country mile ahead of the rest, Jimmy I think was mid-table. At least I think I did. It could of course be early onset dementia

I read that Hoggard thing earlier, it was so bat shit that I didn't quite know what to say.

The obvious flaw is that it doesn't take in to account the number of runs conceded. Hoggard may well get a high percentage of decent batsmen out but if they have already scored 100 off his bowling then at that point he has already lost the contest.

But if the article is true then it would seem that with an attack featuring 3 of England's 4 greatest bowlers of all time that they still managed to lose a test series 5-0.

It's like that series that accompanied Sky's World Cup coverage about so-called great players - no-one who lifted a bat or bowled a ball in anger before 1970, apart from Bradman, got a look-in.

vilkrang wrote:... it would seem that with an attack featuring 3 of England's 4 greatest bowlers of all time that they still managed to lose a test series 5-0

nice

Basil wrote:It's like that series that accompanied Sky's World Cup coverage about so-called great players - no-one who lifted a bat or bowled a ball in anger before 1970, apart from Bradman, got a look-in.

Well there's no TV footage, and hardly anyone around today saw them play live, so what would be the point?

There's only one pre-war player who can even be debated in terms of how he compares to modern day players, and that's because he averaged 40 runs more than anyone else in history...

Anyway, that article does prove something, even if not quite what was intended. How shit we are at getting tailenders out in recent years.

Oh he's England's second best bowler alright, possibly 1st I'd say. You just didn't get haircuts like that pre-2007. Haircut technology has improved out of sight. Hoggard for #1? Very doubtful. His haircut was like an Italian haystack crossed with an Alpaca. No no no...

vilkrang wrote:I read that Hoggard thing earlier, it was so bat shit that I didn't quite know what to say.

The obvious flaw is that it doesn't take in to account the number of runs conceded. Hoggard may well get a high percentage of decent batsmen out but if they have already scored 100 off his bowling then at that point he has already lost the contest.

But if the article is true then it would seem that with an attack featuring 3 of England's 4 greatest bowlers of all time that they still managed to lose a test series 5-0.

Thing is vilks - the batsman may have 100+ runs, but don't forget that they wouldn't all be off Hoggy. He may actually have only conceded 15-20 of them whilst the 3rd & 4th seamers were getting smeared all over the shop.

Like all these excercises, it's a bit of light-hearted number-crunching, but ultimately meaningless. So much has changed (pitches, bat weight/thickness, boundary distances, batting technique from 20/50 over cricket to call a few) just in your lifetime, let alone mine, and generations before. It always makes comparisons between eras subjective rather than objective.

Have to  at your last observation though.