Jimmy Anderson and Anil Kumble- are they the most ignored ATG’s in cricket history?

[maniac]

Anil Kumble is the 3rd highest wicket in test history and Anderson is 4th.

 

Anderson has the highest number of wickets for a fast bowler.

 

Kumble carried the bowling attack of India for 2 decades.

 

Now the criticism against them is that they were HTB’s but they have played a huge part in some of the overseas victories for their side as well.

 

Cricket fans are obsessed with stats but what better number than 600 wickets in tests or in Anderson’s case 580+?

 

People bring out these names from the past and usually they move ahead of the pecking order of these guys but these players have also played and performed in very limited conditions and opposition for example: Bradman and other English and Aussie greats of the olden days.

 

Also keep in mind that these 2 did not have big names to support them in fact there is a case of their support bowlers being underrated. I mean guys like Broad, Srinath etc are also often left out who are very good bowlers in their own right.

 

Do these 2 have a case for being hands down the most under rated cricketers ever in the history of cricket?

Edited April 22, 2020 by maniac

[Jimmy Cliff]

They are "home ATGs" which is kind of a pariah among cricketing snobs. They might have won loads of matches/series in real life but in ATG contests played between fantasy XIs they will always be ignored in favour of other bowlers with more "balanced" records even if they might have 1/3rd of the wickets taken by these guys.  The likes of Sehwag and Mahila also suffer from the same problem. 

[maniac]

38 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

They are "home ATGs" which is kind of a pariah among cricketing snobs. They might have won loads of matches/series in real life but in ATG contests played between fantasy XIs they will always be ignored in favour of other bowlers with more "balanced" records even if they might have 1/3rd of the wickets taken by these guys.  The likes of Sehwag and Mahila also suffer from the same problem. 

I think Sehwag doesn’t get underrated, he is often talked about. 

 

Mahela I agree but then again Mahela is down the pecking order even in the volume of runs scored even though he might have been as good as some yesteryear oldies in terms of performances.

 

These 2 stand out to me as they are in the Top 5 bowlers ever in terms of wickets.

 

I think Alan Border is probably the batting equivalent of them.

 

 

[zen]

Having more wkts and/or runs is proportional to the number of games played. What is important is how those runs and wickets were picked.  
 

Vaas, Zaheer, etc.,  have 300+ wkts. Many will not consider them as bowlers over Roberts,  Holding,  etc., who have 200-250 wkts. Or Shane Bond, who has less than 100 wkts.
 

As for Kumble, I do not recall him giving any game changing performances in SENA. On the other hand, the bowlers that he is compared to such as Warne, Murali, and Chandra have done that. If not playing for India, I am not sure if he would have played these many games. On the other hand, he was good in India on those tracks. 
 

Talking about stats, usually, folks who only look at most runs and wkts column will rate these cricketers higher than their competition. 

[zen]

21 minutes ago, maniac said:

I think Alan Border is probably the batting equivalent of them.

He is rated esp. as a gusty cricket and for his captaincy. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

24 minutes ago, maniac said:

I think Sehwag doesn’t get underrated, he is often talked about. 

 

Mahela I agree but then again Mahela is down the pecking order even in the volume of runs scored even though he might have been as good as some yesteryear oldies in terms of performances.

 

These 2 stand out to me as they are in the Top 5 bowlers ever in terms of wickets.

 

I think Alan Border is probably the batting equivalent of them.

 

 

In certain cricketing circles, Sehwag is defined by his numbers in RSA/ENG/NZ and it's as if his performances in the sub-continent/AUS/WI don't matter at all. Border on the other hand is considered an ATG but always loses out to players with more flair.

[maniac]

26 minutes ago, zen said:

Having more wkts and/or runs is proportional to the number of games played. What is important is how those runs and wickets were picked.  
 

Vaas, Zaheer, etc.,  have 300+ wkts. Many will not consider them as bowlers over Roberts,  Holding,  etc., who have 200-250 wkts. Or Shane Bond, who has less than 100 wkts.
 

As for Kumble, I do not recall him giving any game changing performances in SENA. On the other hand, the bowlers that he is compared to such as Warne, Murali, and Chandra have done that. If not playing for India, I am not sure if he would have played these many games. On the other hand, he was good in India on those tracks. 
 

Talking about stats, usually, folks who only look at most runs and wkts column will rate these cricketers higher than their competition. 

Number of games is not a negative criteria. It means that these players have evolved with changing times, kept themselves injury free for the most part despite being the strike bowlers and have been indispensable for their teams over such a long period of time.

 

Also talking about guys like Kumble or Anderson who played for big teams so it is not really a T.I.N.A factor either for their long careers.

[zen]

10 minutes ago, maniac said:

Number of games is not a negative criteria. It means that these players have evolved with changing times, kept themselves injury free for the most part despite being the strike bowlers and have been indispensable for their teams over such a long period of time.

 

Also talking about guys like Kumble or Anderson who played for big teams so it is not really a T.I.N.A factor either for their long careers.

And other bowlers haven’t? 

[maniac]

47 minutes ago, zen said:

And other bowlers haven’t? 

If they have played for 2 decades and have similar volume of records then absolutely.

 

Let’s see the top 10 bowlers in terms of wickets. Accidentally picked 11 but still let’s see

Warne- undisputed ATG

Murali- undisputed ATG

Kumble-???

Anderson-???

McGrath-undisputed ATG

Walsh- ???

Broad-???

Steyn- Accepted as an ATG in the current gen

Kapil Dev- acknowledged as one of the

greatest allrounders

Herat-???

Hadlee- undisputed ATG

 

Those are 5 names that are not brought up. Herat is another guy being the most successful left arm spinner ever. Won a test for a weak test team like Srilanka in SA. Left arm spinners not being as glamorous as offspinners and leg spinners.

 

Broad is viewed as a supporting act but despite also being in the top 7 and having a career ahead of him and his bowling partner being in the top 5 why is he ignored especially since his debut England had been in the top 3-4 sides in the world consistently?

 

Same thing for Walsh, him having Ambrose at the other end might have helped but then that argument goes both ways.

 

However Kumble and Anderson stick out for being in the Top 4 and being the strike bowlers for their sides for 2 decades and not getting enough credit.

 

[zen]

18 minutes ago, maniac said:

However Kumble and Anderson stick out for being in the Top 4 and being the strike bowlers for their sides for 2 decades and not getting enough credit.

Because their output is not seen to be in the same league as those they are being compared with.

Are these acknowledged as being good bowlers? ->  Yes

Will they be picked over Warne, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, etc.,? -> No

 

[Stan AF]

Kumble and Anderson are true workhorse bowlers. Respect to them.

[Sandeep99]

Anderson is not at all ignored. He is in fact given his due and always often propped up by English pundits. Kumble is ignored even in India. The man gave it his all but doesn't get his due for the fighter he was.

[maniac]

Ajanta Mendis has 150 wickets at an average of 21 in odis. In tests before he got exposed he reached to 50-60 wickets in no time.

 

Years from now people will start picking his stats and call him an ATG ?

 

No because longevity is very important. Everyone can have 1-2 great seasons. Wasn’t Moyo scoring runs for fun in 2006-2007 ? 
 

I would rate someone having a long term returns on their career much higher than someone who have decent stats after a few years but not the volume of runs/wickets.

[maniac]

4 hours ago, Sandeep99 said:

Anderson is not at all ignored. He is in fact given his due and always often propped up by English pundits. Kumble is ignored even in India. The man gave it his all but doesn't get his due for the fighter he was.

English pundits will call someone like Simon Jones and other random county cricketers as ATG’s so Anderson is a pretty big upgrade.

 

However I am talking about cricket fans who don’t seem to even consider Anderson worthy for any great fast bowlers list.

[Real McCoy]

These bowlers are damn near unplayable in their favorite conditions but not so if its not in their favor. Compare with someone like Marshall he was good everywhere. Mcgrath and Warne are too but their playing style is different. I would rate Steyn over Anderson anytime even though Andy has more wickets.

[maniac]

2 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

These bowlers are damn near unplayable in their favorite conditions but not so if its not in their favor. Compare with someone like Marshall he was good everywhere. Mcgrath and Warne are too but their playing style is different. I would rate Steyn over Anderson anytime even though Andy has more wickets.

Steyn I agree, I am not saying Anderson is better than Mcgrath or Steyn which is obvious.

 

However for example someone like Bond gets pulled into a lot of great lists where as he hardly had 2-3 good seasons at best.

 

Maybe Bond is a very nitpicky example but isn’t Anderson a greater bowler than Lee,Akthar, MJ etc etc a lot of names?

 

Also Warne was a failure in India no one brings that up  not saying Kumble was better than Warne but he should automatically be the 3rd option behind Warne and Murali and not some spinner who played during WW1 or 2.

[maniac]

Simple philosophy average, strike rate etc etc should be add on stats. Volume of wickets should be the prime criteria.

 

Would you prefer an investment plan that doubles your money say 100k to 200k in a year and stops or something that turns your 100k to say a million over 15 years?

[maniac]

@zen would you consider Ponting an ATG or atleast top 10 batsmen ever to play the game?

 

If you have to nitpick he averages 26 in India over 14 tests and 40 vs England, 2 big teams of his generation that he played more frequently .

 

But no Ponting is Ponting for his longevity and his overall numbers.
 

I would rate Ponting way above all these Barry Richards and other random names that just pop

up for the sake of it.

[zen]

37 minutes ago, maniac said:

Simple philosophy average, strike rate etc etc should be add on stats. Volume of wickets should be the prime criteria.

 

Would you prefer an investment plan that doubles your money say 100k to 200k in a year and stops or something that turns your 100k to say a million over 15 years?

People do not rate a Vaas or Kapil over Roberts or Donald as bowlers for e.g.

Edited April 23, 2020 by zen

[zen]

12 minutes ago, maniac said:

@zen would you consider Ponting an ATG or atleast top 10 batsmen ever to play the game?

 

If you have to nitpick he averages 26 in India over 14 tests and 40 vs England, 2 big teams of his generation that he played more frequently .

 

But no Ponting is Ponting for his longevity and his overall numbers.
 

I would rate Ponting way above all these Barry Richards and other random names that just pop

up for the sake of it.

 

Both Ponting and Richards are ATGs for their respective side. So are Vijay Merchant and Vinoo Mankad for India