A tribute to Jimmy

[sussexpob]

If I were ever to write my ten cricketing commandments in a list, "thou shall not covert an express pace bowler based on his pace alone" would be a strong candidate for rule number 1 on the list. Only a few weeks ago, the chief of English cricket bumbled on about express pace being the most important skill in bowling, a skill that invites us to forget about how a bowler actually performs or what else he brings to the table. Anyone who has posted here regularly will know how much I disagree with this insinuation as it has very little evidence - pace without accuracy or guile just means the ball hits the boundary quicker, nothing else. If Jimmy Anderson has left a legacy on the game, it should be the that his career is the perfect example of why this argument is true.

I remember the first time I heard Anderson's name. I received a free copy of the Times at University now over 20 years ago, and in it was an article proclaiming the emergence of an extraordinary fast bowling talent coming out of Lancashire. There were no mentions of control or accuracy - he could bowl 90 mph, loop it like a banana and bowl reverse swing - Duncan Fletcher was getting all warm and fuzzy inside, as was everyone. All the tools a bowler needs to be a legend.

We all know how it went. Anderson turned up in the CB series in Australia such an unknown quantity, he had no name on his shirt and no squad number, but a few overs into his debut he pulled out a few banana balls, tore some stumps out, and everyone went into hyperdrive. Sadly it didn't continue, and for obvious reasons. Back then Anderson had one default setting... Rock N Roll bowling. When the ball swung, he looped it at speed, when he didn't he had nothing else. The ball would get fired in fuller and fuller trying to allow the ball more time to swing, and with it the boundaries would wrack up as batsman feasted on half-volley's. Occasionally he'd throw in a magic ball, something that would swing later at pace, and he would get you out. But mostly it was a lot of filth. The series vs South Africa in 2003 is a good example of this. He did well at Trent Bridge in the friendliest of conditions, but went at a run a ball and became unusable as SA wracked up 600/5 in the first test.

At this point Anderson was like a boxer with a once in a generation skull crushing power punch, but who couldn't defend his own chin - the answer the England coaches came up with to stop him being knocked out was to get him to punch harder. His runup was elongated, he threw himself into his delivery stride violently, he tried to up his pace - under the strain, his body started to give way. By the time he was trudged out a few times in the annihilation by Australia during 06/07, he was a shadow of his former self; physically crooked, unthreatening and barely able to get through overs.

The irony of all this is, it was the magic ball proponents that turned on him first despite getting what they advocated - a player capable of killer balls at pace with zero control. Isnt that "THE" skill they wanted? After that series in Australia anywhere you turned, you found articles or threads on message boards saying Anderson was useless. A small core of defenders were left to wonder... "well, rather than teach the kid to punch harder, what would happen if we taught him to defend himself?" ....

In many ways, Anderson can consider himself a lucky man. The physical ruin of remodelled actions and the toll of bowling way over his natural capability forced him to change, whether anyone liked it or not. The change of coach from pace/reverse swing obsessed Fletcher to ruthlessly efficient Flower helped also. Somewhere between the turn of 2007 and the NZ series of 2008, Anderson changed. His action became rhythmical, his pace comfortable, he trusted his wrist and the ball to do the work and when the ball didn't zip around everywhere he fell back on the unsexy tactic of tying up batsman and using what small amounts of help were available. Slowly over time he get better, and the more he trusted himself and his new method, the more he got better.

Chester-le Street in May 2009 felt like the real turning point. He bowled superbly in that game with a real cut in pace and increased control. But it wasnt really until 2010 that Anderson emerged as a leading bowler - in that year he was flat out world class, and he never looked back by that point. He became consistently great... Some people might turn around and say his average of 26 wicket never represented a top level career; I would say that, from 2010 he averages 24 over a span of nearly 150 matches. And from 2014 to the end, he had a decade where he took 350 wickets at a decimal point under 22.... sustained genius at the top level, for years upon years. If you want to hold the early points against him, be my guest... but it wont change the fact for over a decade he produced 100s of wickets at all-time great levels of performance.

And who cares about stats? Some players capture the imagine for the artistry with which they go about their business.... its hard to find many players in the history of the game with the guile, intelligence and ability to control the ball's destiny like Anderson. McGrath did it in a different way, Ambrose did it in a different way, but Anderson's ability to swing the ball and control the position of a batsman was second to none I have witnessed play the game. In the history of the game, if you played on a dusty wicket in Asia, I'd pick Murali over anyone. If you played on a bouncy wicket offering pace and bounce, Id pick Ambrose. If you played on a normal wicket with a hint of seam around, I'd pick Mcgrath..... and if it was cloudy, humid and the ball is going to move in the air, I'd pick Anderson over any man I have seen play the game.

As a player, I couldn't have liked him more, but as a person he remained somewhat of an enigma. After Matt Prior's "Big Cheese" public schoolboy arrogance vibe and Graeme Swann's inability to realise he isn't funny, Jimmy had a period particularly at the end of the Flower era where he was England's most unlikeable cricketer, for a side that were in the why they played and handled themselves already pretty unlikeable. I guess there were and still are sections of England fans that lapped up this combative, arrogant persona on the field, but as the dust fell at the end ofthe Flower era it felt like it was a major contributing factor in why England imploded spectacularly, and then declined sharply for the rest of the decade.

In what became Anderson's signature moment in this regard, Mitchell Johnson wound up by Anderson's chatter over the series finally loses his temper and fires a few insults at Anderson as he's turning back to his mark... Anderson responds by getting him out next ball and giving him the expected send off. The video was shared all over the internet and the fans laughed at Johnson for being foolish.... then a few months later, Johnson responded by sending a generation of England's best batsman into retirement, their most successful coach in decades left his post, and the team ended up rudderless for the best part of 10 years after..... and obviously by no accident, as it was occurring it was the video of Michael Clarke telling Anderson revenge is a dish best served cold that became the most "instagrammable" memory of the moment. Johnson didn't break Jimmy's arm, but he broke everything else in spirit.

I get the feeling if I ever met Jimmy in a bar, I wouldn't know what to expect in the slightest. Some who know him seem to say that he is shy, and that side of him came from Flower as a way to toughen him up. It represents an on field character he plays, while off the field he is mostly silent and unassuming.... then again, he married a pop-star/supermodel, once dyed his hair with a red flame streak through the centre (and blue, and peroxide blonde) and finished his career by downing a pint of Guinness unnecessarily Infront of the crowd. As I say, all I can come up with is "enigma"..... hes played for 20 plus years, and while I know the cricketer, I cant say I know the man at all.

Will 700 test wickets ever be surpassed by a test cricketer? I doubt it. The game itself is declining, I doubt even a fully fit 20 year old with no history of injury or form drops is going to play 188 test matches again. There simply isnt the desire for that much of it now, and I would imagine that trend will continue into the future. All in all, its a hell of an achievement... all the more because I reckon if England hadn't chosen to dump him from the side, he could have gone onto 800 possibility. I didn't get much of a sense during the last test he was near finished or slowing down badly. At well past 40, he was fit as a fiddle, still bowling with decent pace and still doing what he always does.

I guess even if test cricket survives the T20 Franchise era intact and someone does have a chance, will we ever see a bowler of such old fashioned guile and intellect in an era where cricket has become more of a blunt force trauma affair? I guess the sad thing about Jimmy's legacy if anything is, we have ignored it. We still have selectors who are suspicious of medium fast bowlers who are accurate. We strangely crave the Anderson of 2003, and dismiss the Anderson after 2010 in the county game.

All that's left is to say thank you Jimmy for the memories and the efforts. You deserve the applause and respect that has poured in.... but to echo ACs previous point, please please please.... don't become a commentator.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Good stuff. I think he's a great within the context of English cricket, but his average/SR stops him from being part of the global all time elite. He did well to transfer his game to conditions outside England, when that didn't come easily. Maybe giving up ODIs extended his test career, but I had a hunch he might have had a successful comeback in that format, if he- and the selectors- had wanted.

[bigfluffylemon]

Well said. And well done Jimmy. The greatest I've ever had the privilege to watch in an England shirt. Thanks for the memories.

[sussexpob]

I think he's a great within the context of English cricket, but his average/SR stops him from being part of the global all time elite

The problem with career averages is, they are all built unequal. As a good example, Murali averaged 80 in Australia and took 175 wickets vs Zimbabwe and BD. Like Murali, Anderson also had his worst performance vs Australia away, but Anderson had to play a total of 21 test matches in Australia, Murali only 5. Murali also didn't do well in India, but only played 7 tests there, Anderson 17.

In fact, when you look at it, in a career span that started against an Australia side considered the greatest ever and a batting line up considered the greatest ever in the highest scoring decade in cricket history, then moving on from that Australia having the highest statistical home batting average ever recorded over 5 year period in the 2010s, then being followed by an India team that beat that record....Anderson played the best part of 40 matches against those teams away, and a total of 80 overall..... Would Murali have a better average than Anderson if like Jimmy, we limited him to one test v Zimbabwe and a couple v BD(he took 175 wickets at nothing vs those), then forced him to play an extra 25 tests against teams he was subpar against? Ambrose was rubbish against India, but played over 30 matches less than Anderson against them. McGrath hardly played much in SL/Pak but struggled there and also never had to play his own side.

Even going back to the greatest bowlers ever, I am pretty sure no one in the West Indies had a good record in NZ in the 1980s, I am sure they all averaged over 30 and IIRC Holding was nearer 40. Would they have career averages at 20-23 if they had to go there 40 times and not for a couple of series?

I think thats what people forget. Anderson's record starts in the hardest era ever to bowl, and then moves on into an era where hardly anyone does well away, with India and Australia becoming the hardest places to bowl ever...... in an era where the big three play each other more than ever, and with more matches in the series when they do. If England scheduled matches like any other team, or Anderson had the pleasure of bowling to England rather than Australia in Ashes series, his average would be noticeably better.

[sussexpob]

I think you could make a case that Jimmy's body of work represents the hardest of anyone in the history of the game.

Very high proportion and frequency of games against tough opponents in conditions that break batting records. Back to back games, high frequency of matches, three formats in full flow, the most test nations to travel to and adapt to, a big three era where England play a high proportion of money spinning games against tougher opponents, and at his peak he was bowling for a side who posted some of their worst historical batting performances, so unlike some of the best bowlers from history, did not dodge his own world class batting line ups..

I guess you could argue that some of these metrics boost his home average also.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Dale Steyn is an ATG. Started at the same time, mostly played against strong sides, hardly v minnows at all. Averages 21 in India, much better record in Australia and his SR is off the charts. And he's just a more impressive bowler. Everyone has a record with weak spots, and Anderson would be on my team sheet on a green wicket on an overcast day in England- though his average and SR is only ok overall at home...

I don't really mean to be putting him down though...! I called him the best England bowler of my cricket watching era. His longevity is a big plus.

[sussexpob]

Dale Steyn is an ATG. Started at the same time, mostly played against strong sides, hardly v minnows at all. Averages 21 in India, much better record in Australia and his SR is off the charts. And he's just a more impressive bowler

Comparing Anderson to Steyn is a really good example to demonstrate my above point.

Steyn's average away to England was a weak spot, as was Anderson's against South Africa away. One could say Steyn was better than Anderson though (average 31.6 to 34.6), but actually when you compare those to relative to the opposition they faced, they both fall the same portion under the average wicket average. Anderson performed just as well as Steyn did compared to others in pure figures, but as a percentage he performed better. He bowled to batsman who made more runs, and restricted them to less than they normally would. But in career average terms, Steyn wins.... which takes away all the context. Anderson also, when factored to both playing the same tests, played in these games more than Steyn (about 4 tests more spread over 188 tests). You also have to consider the fact Steyn played on wickets that produced about 1.5 runs less per wicket than Anderson. South Africa reminded the lowest scoring venue across both career spans. These all play parts in seperating numbers. Steyn played more home games than Anderson in proprtion, played far less against the top sides in proportion.

You end with one career average of 23 and another of 25.5... factoring in that difference of pitches at home, you take away 1 run difference. Factoring in the fact Steyn never bowled to his own side which was superior performing, you take away a little more. You are ending up with very similar figures.

I guess you also have factor in age here. Both players took a few years to come up to speed, as both were picked as raw talents. Jimmy Anderson played more in that developmental stage, so his average suffers more. Steyn was dropped after a few tests and came back later. At the same age, they had played vastly different numbers of games. And Anderson also played well past Steyn's retirement. Its important, because if you want to boil down stats, as I said... Anderson's record is bad vs Australia, but it includes one series where was 23 and not fit, and another over the age of 40 ... without these series, his record against them is good.

[sussexpob]

I mean, if I were to take exactly 10 years ago as my point, Jimmy has played since that 17/07/14 exactly the same amount of tests as Steyn's whole test career.

In that time he took 345 @ 22.2... that is a better career average than Steyn.

Anderson played 1 more test v Australia, and one more away than Steyn
Steyn played 6 more games v Bangladesh
Equal games against each others team
Equal v Pakistan (Anderson 1 more game in Pakistan)
Steyn plays 2 more games vs NZ, Anderson plays one more away in NZ....there is however a huge imbalance between quality of side here, as NZ were terrible when Steyn played them
Anderson played 10 more matches v India 4 of which were in India
Steyn played 5 more v Sri Lanka, with 3 more away
Anderson has 3 more West Indies test away
Steyn has 1 test v Zimbabwe

During this ten year stretch, the average wicket average in games Jimmy played in was 30.1... During all tests Steyn played in it was 27.84

For a length equivalent to the whole of Steyn's career, Jimmy was a better bowler than Steyn against tough teams, higher scoring bats and pitches which produced more runs.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I score Anderson above Steyn on one factor- sustaining his career. Steyn tailed off a bit, but Anderson never did and he played for longer too. Though the SAn still had a long career. Tended to be injured more than Anderson towards the end.

To an extent, it's what you are looking for. JA has a much better econ, and DS has a much better SR (as well as a significantly better rpw average). Maybe the SR matters more because getting the wicket protects you from the runs scored at the other end, which a good econ doesn't. Perhaps you could argue that bowling dry creates pressure for the other bowlers...

DS played 17% of games v BD/Zim/WI and JA played 14%. So not much difference.

For most of his career, Steyn's SR was a huge outlier for his era. It looked like something out of the C19th.

Steyn was a more effective limited overs bowler, though that's of lesser interest to me.

And let's face it... Dale had a lot more x factor.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Top ten great pace bowlers of my lifetime... RANKED. Without looking at stats... So a subjective view.

1. Marshall
2. Garner.
3. Hadlee
4. Lillee
5. Ambrose
6. Steyn
7. Imran Khan
8. Waqar
9. Holding
10. McGrath.

Just can't see a way in for Anderson at that level. I've not even included Wasim Akram or Donald.

But for England...

1. Anderson
2. Willis
3. Fraser
4. Gough
5. Broad
6. Caddick
7. Flintoff
8. Botham

and then fill out with the half careers of Tremlett and S. Jones.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Vaughany called JA the greatest ever though, so maybe I'm wrong...

[sussexpob]

I would guess that list of your top bowlers includes only one player who played in 50% of Anderson's matches (McGrath). If memory serves, the great Windies quartet played only a small number of matches (50 odd for most of them) with Marshall playing more. The reason I mention that is not for longevity or to tear those bowlers down.... its the fact that if Holding can be considered a genius in a 50 match career for what he did, then if Anderson averaged the same for 100 tests at some point in his career, then why do we hold those years when he was a young buck against him? To have peaked at an elite level for as long as he did is surely the same thing?

We have to account for the game changing. In the 2000s and 2010s there were periods England played 14 tests in a year. You could have younger players learning their craft play equivalent of half Holding's test career at 22 or 23. This obviously affects the output on the stats, because players still need time to develop. By the time Anderson got to 25 ish, most of what holds him back from consideration had past. Not many bowlers play 50 tests, let alone in their lower 20s. Not really saying Anderson is the best, but his name deserves to be mentioned alongside all of those you listed.

And lets face it.... in the absence of hardly any matches vs Zim/BD in his career, the average score in games he played was much higher than in the 70-90s. There is no great surprise all the golden age of fast bowling occurred when pitches helped them. Waqar's average of near 24 is 29 in Anderson/Steyn's era.

I also remain dubious as to some on that list.... amazing how reverse swing disappeared when Tv camera's in grounds increased.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Holding also played a full CC season for Derbys every year including the Sunday League! So those players did the hard yakka too. More than now. WI tended not to play much in India back then, so their records are a bit lop sided.

Maybe I've undervalued Cummins and Rabada and some other bowlers of the noughties. But I don't think so.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Feel a bit guilty having Willis only second given he played the second half of his career permanently injured, and actually has a better average. But it's fair enough, I think. Bob had the benefit of bowling at lineups with the Packer players removed for a few years.

[sussexpob]

Holding also played a full CC season for Derbys every year including the Sunday League! So those players did the hard yakka too. More than now. WI tended not to play much in India back then, so their records are a bit lop sided.

The point on matches was completed limited to the examples used, and as I said, was not an insult to those players.

To say it another way, it a manager throws on a young talent at 16 as they do a lot now, and he's way below standard till 23, then for 10 years he's Lionel Messi level but fades into retirement...is he not a legend?

Ok, there will be 20-21 year olds who come into a team and have the same 1-2 year learning curve and kick on to be great. But you would say that period of 16-21 while another plays makes them a worse player.

I guess that's a strange kink of cricket due to averages being used.. there is no room to account for that rise to your peak.

Of course I argue the same against other players. But Anderson was world class for over 10 years. Not many players, even the very best, lasted at their peak for that long.