Aside on Cricket

[clarion]

I saw an advert the other day for Wellman supplements.  It had a picture of a young chap I didn't recognise, but the text informed me that it was James Anderson, and that he is, apparently, the most successful England bowler of all time.

OK, so I don't watch TV, and don't read the sports pages avidly.  But I've heard of a lot of sportsmen & women in a number of disciplines, and I was surprised not to have heard about the rise of such a talent.

Is this the case?  If so, then much congratulations to the guy, and I'm surprised he isn't feted in the media as much as some rather mediocre foopballers, and cricketers from times of yore.  There have been some great bowlers over the years, and to get among those, let alone top the list, is a heck of an achievement.

[Wowbagger]

It could be some genetic thing, Clarion. He's Lancastrian. 

To be fair, the boy Anderson's done great. He was considered to be the possible weak link in the England bowling attack about 6 years ago, promising rather than proficient. The other guys have all disappeared and only our Jimmy is left. He's considered to be one of the best fast bowlers in the world as well.

[clarion]

Excellent.  Thanks for enlightening me.  I'm sorry to hear of his unfortunate accident of birth, but he seems to have overcome that natural disadvantage

So is he the best ever?

[Greenbank]

So is he the best ever?

In terms of a few choice statistics, maybe so. Not many fast bowlers have mastered reverse swing as well as he.

[bobb]

He isn't the most successful England bowler of all time. Well he is if you include all the silly formats of the game.

He still has a way to go to surpass the record of Sir Ian Terrance Botham in test matches. Which is the only format that counts....

[clarion]

Oh.  OK, that's what I thought might be the case. 

I suppose you could measure it by number of Test wickets, number of runs taken off them, or average number of wickets per Test (probably fairer on those who played in the days of fewer Test series).

[Deano]

Michael Vaughan (aka Vaughny) reckons Jimmy is England's Best Ever.

Therefore he isn't. He is bloody good, though. If he stays fit he'll overtake Botham in Tests and probably reach 400 wickets. I doubt he'll get to 500, though (which I heard/read somebody speculating about the other day).

[Peter]

I wonder about wickets taken versus number of matches played.  They play so many matches these days.  That said, they have to stay fit under a heavier load.  James Anderson is very good but I would always rather have watched Trueman.  (That's not partisan - I'm from Durham.)

[Wowbagger]

I wonder about wickets taken versus number of matches played.  They play so many matches these days.  That said, they have to stay fit under a heavier load.  James Anderson is very good but I would always rather have watched Trueman.  (That's not partisan - I'm from Durham.)

Hedley Verity.

[Jaded]

He did also hold a record for the most number of innings without a duck.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I thought this was going to be about asides on cricket commentary. When they stop commenting on the playing-field action (because there isn't any or whyever) and start describing the scenery, the antics of the crowd, the cake they're eating or a letter from Mrs Trellis. That's what makes cricket so cricketing, isn't it? 

[clarion]

I dunno; ask CLR James

[Deano]

Henry Blofeld still spends a lot of time talking about pigeons, and the buses going down the King's Road.

[Polar Bear]

Excellent.  Thanks for enlightening me.  I'm sorry to hear of his unfortunate accident of birth, but he seems to have overcome that natural disadvantage

So is he the best ever?

Apparently better than some bloke called Fred who was an England bowler in the seventies and was the first bowler to bag 300 test wickets...