Anderson: How I became a world-class fast bowler

[adi B]

Special K' date=' as a fellow England fan I advise you to shut the **** up.[/quote'] :hatsoff:

[special K]

Over the last 25-30 years, we've beaten you guys quite handily enough. Its 12-12 incase you didnt know, for the last 30 years. If you go back 50 years, it is 25-17 in England's favor. Yes, England has a winning record. In soccer according to FIFA, England leads Germany 11-10 in non-friendlies. Again, a close record & slightly in England's favor but definitely comparable. Clearly, your views are influenced by traditional english snootyness over realism or any facts. PS: We dont care for any further back, because of the namby pamby 'gentleman's game' concepts and most importantly, the backfoot no-ball rule, which made fast bowling in seaming conditions ridiculously easy PPS: As far as 'dominating' goes, we've held a 10-4 advantage against you Limeys from 1986-2008. That'd be for 20+ years, we've made a business out of 'crushing' you. hows that for a team and a nation that actually doesnt care as much about test cricket as LO cricket ? I dont think you'll have the gonads to address this post of mine, since as you very well know, Limey's have had gonad issues ever since the Germans and the Japs tooled you fools in WWII.

You don't care for going any further back then the last 50 years because your record is a joke to us in tests. Scrap your first world cup win also since that was played by different rules. Your record against us is 12-12, in an era when English cricket was at an all time low in the 90's. Yet we still never lost a test series to Zimbabwe.

[Muloghonto]

You don't care for going any further back then the last 50 years because your record is a joke to us in tests.

No, i dont care about going any further back because cricket 50 years ago was a joke and comparing the namby pamby unprofessional hacks like Hutton or Hammond to professionals like Tendulkar or Cook is like comparing a clownish 17th century pot bellied duke playing tennis with Roger Federer. Completely fecking ridiculous. Your Comptons, Huttons, Hobbs are nothing more than psuedo-cricketers who would be munched up alive in the modern professional world. To me they are nothing more than Wasim Jaffer or Greame Hick at the best. bashers of low quality unprofessional cricketers who did it for 'fun' and not for money. Its one thing to compete against people who are playing for fun, its another to compete against people who are professionals. This is why the few professionals from that era, like Bradman, Barnes had such ridiculous numbers, bashing up casual players.

Scrap your first world cup win also since that was played by different rules.

\ It is one thing to bowl a few more/less overs or more/less bouncers. By that accord, we should scrap every record then, since the ODI rules have changed this very tournament. What you ignorantly miss, is that the dynamics of the entire game was different 50 years ago. Once you start including uncovered pitches, backfoot noballs, etc. is is a completely different game. Not to mention, racist umpires. I will deduct 20 runs from every batsman and add 20 runs to every white english/aussie/saffie record from that era when playing India or West Indies because of racist favouritism.

Your record against us is 12-12, in an era when English cricket was at an all time low in the 90's. Yet we still never lost a test series to Zimbabwe.

Err no, when your team was at an alltime low, ie, 83-2005, we dominated you 10-4. Its 12-12 because of your team's late resurgance from being competetive with us from a position of being historical bunnies of India. Just face it, for 30+ years, we've dominated you at our home, while we won two series in England, you have won one series in India, dominated us at your home and overall, its very close. Not a runaway lead for England like you implied.

[Crookbond]

You don't care for going any further back then the last 50 years because your record is a joke to us in tests. Scrap your first world cup win also since that was played by different rules. Your record against us is 12-12, in an era when English cricket was at an all time low in the 90's. Yet we still never lost a test series to Zimbabwe.

You lost a Test series to New Zealand AT HOME. :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

[special K]

It will be a runaway for England from now on. India is a minnow at tests and will stay there. England had a bad time in the 80's and 90's, but now back to being one of the strongest countries in all formats. Yeah ODI cricket should only count from 92 onwards. Playing 60 overs each in whites is not ODI cricket. Therefore India has only ever won one WC.

[twww]

Jimmy did pretty well in 2011- 21 wickets at 25 against the Number 1 test team in the world. :hysterical:

[twww]

Hmm, India don't tamper with the ball. They just fix the IPL instead......:haha:

[twww]

How many Indians have been banned for match fixing over the years?

[Muloghonto]

]It will be a runaway for England from now on. India is a minnow at tests and will stay there. England had a bad time in the 80's and 90's, but now back to being one of the strongest countries in all formats. Yeah ODI cricket should only count from 92 onwards. Playing 60 overs each in whites is not ODI cricket. Therefore India has only ever won one WC.

1. Hold on to your hopes, limey. You've only started to get out from under our boots 2 years ago. We ran away with dominating you guys with a 10-4 record spread over 2 decades. You guys need to dominate us for atleast a quarter of that time to shed the term of being 'India's bunnies'. 2. Even with your arbitary '92 onwards' - btw, 50 overs became a rule in the mid 80s, with 87 world cup being 50 overs contest- you limeys are still yet to win one. 3. Playing 60 overs in whites is still more comprable to ODIs today than the amatuer nonsense that passed for tests from 50 years ago compare to today's tests.

[special K]

I think whitewashing you again will be enough to prove our domination.

[someone]

Of course he can be. If Kumble with that kind of averages can be considered "world class", then surely he is also.

[Muloghonto]

I think whitewashing you again will be enough to prove our domination.

:haha::haha: we dominated you for 22 years. Like i said, maybe 5 years of domination would prove you guys are atleast comparable to us, till then, you guys are still the upstarts causing upsets over your traditional masters.

[Muloghonto]

Of course he can be. If Kumble with that kind of averages can be considered "world class", then surely he is also.

Kumble is a spinner. Execpt for Murali, no spinner in the last 50 years averages under 25. Anderson has the 2nd worse average of any pacer to take 300 wickets. Jimmy = overrated trundler.

[someone]

Kumble is a spinner. Execpt for Murali, no spinner in the last 50 years averages under 25. Anderson has the 2nd worse average of any pacer to take 300 wickets. Jimmy = overrated trundler.

Kumble doesn't average anywhere near 25. He is on the thirties. It's not a debate but it's a matter of consistency. I absolutely cannot see anything wrong if English believe Jimmy is world class given we do the same with our players.

[Muloghonto]

Kumble doesn't average anywhere near 25. He is on the thirties.

Err not 30s, he averages sub-30. As in 29+ change. As in better than Jimmy, despite being in a group that is supposed to average 20-25% higher (that is the difference between top fast bowlers and top spinners averages).

It's not a debate but it's a matter of consistency. I absolutely cannot see anything wrong if English believe Jimmy is world class given we do the same with our players.

There is nothing consistent in considering an English pacer who has played 90% of his career in the most favourable pace conditions of all, ie,England, NZ, Australia, RSA and WI, who averages 30+ to be worldclass. Brett lee wasnt worldclass in tests by any stretch, Jimmy averages just a few decimals below him and still has less wickets/match than Lee. Jimmy = overrated.

[someone]

Err not 30s, he averages sub-30. As in 29+ change. As in better than Jimmy, despite being in a group that is supposed to average 20-25% higher (that is the difference between top fast bowlers and top spinners averages). There is nothing consistent in considering an English pacer who has played 90% of his career in the most favourable pace conditions of all, ie,England, NZ, Australia, RSA and WI, who averages 30+ to be worldclass. Brett lee wasnt worldclass in tests by any stretch, Jimmy averages just a few decimals below him and still has less wickets/match than Lee. Jimmy = overrated.

I am not too sure why there is still debate. If anything, Anderson is underrated, not overrated. Just check all non-English fans, they simply do not rate him but yet he has done well. Favorable conditions can go for all players include spinners (eg. Kumble), I think you need to give him some credit at least. Being world class or not, depends on your own perception. But if I have to consistent then surely Jimmy would be in that list.

[Muloghonto]

I am not too sure why there is still debate. If anything' date=' Anderson is underrated, not overrated. Just check all non-English fans, they simply do not rate him but yet he has done well. [/quote'] being the second-most expensive fast bowler of alltime to make it to 300 wickets and *the* most expensive leader of the attack (which Lee never was) is 'done well' ?! Well, with favourable and non-favourable conditions, Kumble is within a point or two of several ATG spinners, while only having Warney and Murali who have clearly better averages. Anderson's average of 30 is nowhere close to being in the top 50 averages for a pacer... I will give him some credit: he, at the moment, is bowling worldclass. But he is still an overrated trundler, going through a typical 3-5 year purple patch that many trundlers do.

[Muloghonto]

Anderson!!!!

My name...is NEO!

[someone]

being the second-most expensive fast bowler of alltime to make it to 300 wickets and *the* most expensive leader of the attack (which Lee never was) is 'done well' ?! Well, with favourable and non-favourable conditions, Kumble is within a point or two of several ATG spinners, while only having Warney and Murali who have clearly better averages. Anderson's average of 30 is nowhere close to being in the top 50 averages for a pacer... I will give him some credit: he, at the moment, is bowling worldclass. But he is still an overrated trundler, going through a typical 3-5 year purple patch that many trundlers do.

How can he be over rated when majority do not rate him? He has improved a lot and has surprised a lot. That implies that he is under rated. In current form, can he be considered world-class? Yes. Will he be regarded as world class? The answer to that question can only be done when he retires.

[special K]

Kumble is overrated, he's an Indian version of Ashley Giles, only able to be a threat on Indian dust bowls or rank turners. Graeme Swann and James Tredwell are far more talented.