James Anderson is currently the most skillful bowler in the world. Steyn may be more lethal, but he cannot do the things that Anderson does with the ball.
James Anderson
James Anderson
James Anderson
- Thread starter hawkeye
- Start date
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
Disagree.
Steyn bowls faster, can swing in and out and is a very good exponent of the fabled reverse swing. He also has the ability to bowl cutters and the slower ball. Anderson is a terrific bowler in certain conditions but his average of around 30 speaks volumes.
This comparison just goes to show you how great Steyn is compared to every other bowler on the planet. Even the second best fast bowler on the planet (Anderson) is miles behind Steyn.
Steyn bowls faster, can swing in and out and is a very good exponent of the fabled reverse swing. He also has the ability to bowl cutters and the slower ball. Anderson is a terrific bowler in certain conditions but his average of around 30 speaks volumes.
This comparison just goes to show you how great Steyn is compared to every other bowler on the planet. Even the second best fast bowler on the planet (Anderson) is miles behind Steyn.
Icon, look at Steyn again. He is the best, but I can't recall seeing him swinging the new ball in to the right hander. He swings it beautifully away, and late too but he doesnt swing it in.
He also hardly swings it (new ball) when bowling to left handers too and it is for that reason he much prefers bowling to right handers with the new ball. I have even seen Smith keep him away from the new ball when the openers are left handed.
He also hardly swings it (new ball) when bowling to left handers too and it is for that reason he much prefers bowling to right handers with the new ball. I have even seen Smith keep him away from the new ball when the openers are left handed.
I'm not sure who is more skillful in Anderson vs Steyn, but I do know I'd like to see more batsmen challenge Anderson's pace a bit more - the obvious difference between the two bowlers. I'm thinking specifically of batting outside the crease and/or occasionally advancing down the wicket at Anderson. It's a tactic that worked against Glenn McGrath at times - to disrupt his length, and to challenge his ego. You also get the advantage of giving the ball less time to swing and to negate any LBW shouts by being so far down the wicket. Maybe Prior has to come up to the stumps where his chances of missing an edge are much greater.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
I used to say he falls a little in to the bowling equivalent of a flat top bully (very good when the ball is swinging about, a bit toothless when it's not) but recently he's impressed me, he got wickets in all the sub-continent tours, and that wasn't easy as england were never completely out-matching anyone on those tours. he's certainly added something to his repertoire recently.
but lets not go nuts, steyn is at the verge of greatness, he's averaged over 30 once in a series in the last 5 years. that's ridiculously consistent and amazing. anderson just came back from new zealand having been spanked about by fulton, he still runs hot and cold. the only way you could consider anderson better is if you've become so blas? abot steyn running through teams that you don't really pay any attention to him taking 20 wickets over a series at 15 anymore.
that was pretty frenchy for a cricket post.
but lets not go nuts, steyn is at the verge of greatness, he's averaged over 30 once in a series in the last 5 years. that's ridiculously consistent and amazing. anderson just came back from new zealand having been spanked about by fulton, he still runs hot and cold. the only way you could consider anderson better is if you've become so blas? abot steyn running through teams that you don't really pay any attention to him taking 20 wickets over a series at 15 anymore.
that was pretty frenchy for a cricket post.
Last edited:
Anderson's average over the last 5 years or so since he's been back in the side as first choice, is probably around the mid-high 20s, which is about what you expect. For me, he swings it and moves the ball off the seam and does have that ability to find something when it's there and keep it relatively tight when it's not.
Steyn though, the guy swings it, he perhaps doesn't move it off the pitch as much, but the pace he does it at makes him almost impossible to play. As has been said, he really is going to be up there as one of the best of all time when he's finished.
Anderson is good and probably one of the best English bowlers ever, but Steyn is special. And the control between the two is probably pretty similar, but to be able to do that at 5 or so mph quicker, makes Steyn the better bowler.
Steyn though, the guy swings it, he perhaps doesn't move it off the pitch as much, but the pace he does it at makes him almost impossible to play. As has been said, he really is going to be up there as one of the best of all time when he's finished.
Anderson is good and probably one of the best English bowlers ever, but Steyn is special. And the control between the two is probably pretty similar, but to be able to do that at 5 or so mph quicker, makes Steyn the better bowler.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
I would personally take Steyn every day of the week.
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
That's just wrong, as recent as the home tour against Pakistan, he swung the ball into the right hander beautifully. his outswinger is the stock delivery but the in swing works just as well, especially when it comes as a surprise. It's true his swing to left handers isn't as pronounced as say Anderson but it's still there. Plus he doesn't always need to rely on swing alone, he has enough pace to unsettle the top batters on the planet.
He averages within one run of the 30 average in all formats, that would indicate he falls quite a bit short of the top bracket. I think when it works for him he looks like a world beater, other times he doesn't really pose a threat. If the ball isn't swinging does he have that variety necessary to compensate his lack of out and out genuine pace? I'd say not really, he's a worker and reaps rewards, but if he were top notch I'd suggest his average would have worked down to mid 20s. Swann by comparison averages a couple of runs per wicket less, but the same SR.
I think comparing him with Steyn is crazy crazy crazy. Anderson may be top 10, I'm not sure he's definite top 10, but his name comes up as the English record aggregates fall to him - most wickets in this, that and the other. Fact that he's gone on 10+ years and we play more cricket and against a weak windies, zimmers, aussie etc side, in fact few sides are anywhere near what they were in years gone by. West Indies would have ripped him a new one as he limped off with 0/100, bar the odd seamer friendly pitch in which they'd have sent him off with something like 2/70
sami ullah khan
Panel of Selectors
Steyn is the best fast bowler in world cricket at the moment. He has got pace, swing and best of all, good brains. When I rate a fast bowler, I want to know much I relish watching him bowl. Steyn is a treat to watch in full flow. He reminds me a lot of Waqar Younis but he is more intelligent than Waqar. Perhaps Waqar was more talented but Steyn is fitter and more intelligent. Anderson is good but not comparable to Steyn.
As "most" whatever seems to (ironically and predictably) be the most common record breaking event, here's a comparison as Anderson takes the most wickets for England in ODIs
And now Anderson has passed Gough's wicket total, here's the comparison :
Anderson (170 ODIs) : 237 wkts @ 29.58 (BB 5/23, SR 35.64, ER 4.98)
Gough (159 ODIs) : 235 wkts @ 26.42 (BB 5/44, SR 36.04, ER 4.40)
11 extra ODIs to take 2 extra wickets and at 3 runs per wicket more apiece. Otherwise the records are fairly comparable, although naturally with a lower average the ER was always going to be lower for Gough. Anderson has more wickets, Gough for me was the better bowler.
Just shows how many more games you play these days, Anderson's been going what, 10 years or so? Gough played from 94 to 06, Anderson has been playing since 02 so into his 11th year.
And now Anderson has passed Gough's wicket total, here's the comparison :
Anderson (170 ODIs) : 237 wkts @ 29.58 (BB 5/23, SR 35.64, ER 4.98)
Gough (159 ODIs) : 235 wkts @ 26.42 (BB 5/44, SR 36.04, ER 4.40)
11 extra ODIs to take 2 extra wickets and at 3 runs per wicket more apiece. Otherwise the records are fairly comparable, although naturally with a lower average the ER was always going to be lower for Gough. Anderson has more wickets, Gough for me was the better bowler.
Just shows how many more games you play these days, Anderson's been going what, 10 years or so? Gough played from 94 to 06, Anderson has been playing since 02 so into his 11th year.
zeustrojanstark
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Steyn is a brilliant bowler and the best bowler in the world currently as the ratings say.But my pick is Jimmy Anderson over Steyn anyday.Its been a while Steyn played tests in the sub continent.Just look at the way Anderson bowled when England toured India.Even in the square turners that India produced,Anderson bent his back so much and bowled really well after a bad first test.For me,James Anderson is a quality bowler who can pick up wickets even when there is zero assistance.Steyn is really fearsome.This is like comparing Glen McGrath and Brett Lee.Both are amazing but one prefers McGrath anyday over Lee.
Although he obviously took longer in terms of matches, looking at those S/Rs and then looking at the records show that as of today, Gough bowled more balls in his ODI career, than Anderson has so far in his, so a bit harsh to be critical of Anderson taking more games. I'd say the main difference between them is that Gough seemed so much more better at the end of the innings, whereas Anderson really seems to struggle there. But then for me, Anderson looks better at the start of an innings, so probably not a massive difference, as their records show.
Well now Anderson has moved into the top 10 and the media/pundits have pitched tents in their trousers over him, I think the stats need to come out.
England's 200 club
1. 383 I.Botham (102 Tests, 3.75 wkts/Test)
383 wkts @ 28.40 (SR 56.96, ER 2.99, BB 8/34)
5wi x27, 10wm x4
2. 325 B.Willis (90 Tests, 3.61 wkts/Test)
325 wkts @ 25.20 (SR 2.83, ER 53.41, BB 8/43)
5wi x16, 10wm x0
3. 318 J.Anderson (84 Tests, 3.79 wkts/Test)
318 wkts @ 29.68 (SR 57.84, ER 3.08, BB 7/43)
5wi x15, 10wm x2
4. 307 F.Trueman (67 Tests, 4.58 wkts/Test)
307 wkts @ 21.58 (SR 49.44, ER 2.62, BB 8/31)
5wi x17, 10wm x3
5. 297 D.Underwood (86 Tests, 3.45 wkts/Test)
297 wkts @ 25.84 (SR 73.61, ER 2.11, BB 8/51)
5wi x17, 10wm x6
6. 252 B.Statham (70 Tests, 3.60 wkts/Test)
252 wkts @ 24.85 (SR 63.71, ER 2.34, BB 7/39)
5wi x9, 10wm x1
7. 248 M.Hoggard (67 Tests, 3.70 wkts/Test)
248 wkts @ 30.50 (SR 56.08, ER 3.26, BB 7/61)
5wi x7, 10wm x1
8. 236 A.Bedser (51 Tests, 4.63 wkts/Test)
236 wkts @ 24.90 (SR 67.45, ER 2.21, BB 7/44)
5wi x15, 10wm x5
9. 234 A.Caddick (62 Tests, 3.77 wkts/Test)
234 wkts @ 29.91 (SR 57.94, ER 3.10, BB 7/46)
5wi x13, 10wm x1
10. 231 G.Swann (54 Tests, 4.28 wkts/Test)
231 wkts @ 28.29 (SR 58.48, ER 2.90, BB 6/65)
5wi x16, 10wm x3
11. 229 D.Gough (58 Tests, 3.95 wkts/Test)
229 wkts @ 28.40 (SR 51.61, ER 3.30, BB 6/42)
5wi x9, 10wm x0
12. 226 S.Harmison (63 Tests, 3.59 wkts/Test)
226 wkts @ 31.82 (SR 59.18, ER .23, BB 7/12)
5wi x8, 10wm x1
13. 226 A.Flintoff (79 Tests, 2.86 wkts/Test)
226 wkts @ 32.79 (SR 66.15, ER 2.97, BB 5/58)
5wi x3, 10wm x0
14. 202 J.Snow (49 Tests, 4.12 wkts/Test)
202 wkts @ 26.67 (SR 59.51, ER 2.69, BB 7/40)
5wi x8, 10wm x1
The likes of Botham and Flintoff were performers with bat and ball, and Botham was less of a force as his career drew to a close.
It is noticeable that more modern era players (90s onwards) like Gough (0), Flintoff (0), Hoggard (1), Harmison (1) and Caddick (1) struggled to take 10 wickets in a match - Botham took four compared to their combined three. Considering some of the opposition Anderson bowls at these days, 2 is a nothing - 25 of his 84 Tests against Bangladesh, New Zealand, West Indies and Zimbabwe. That said he has taken his 10 wicket hauls against the aussies (1) and Pakistan (1), although Pakistan aren't as strong as they once were.
That haul against Pakistan was against a side scoring 182 and 80 on a pitch England scored 354 and 262/9d. A line-up of Farhat, Butt, Ali, Amin, Umar Akmal, Malik and Kamran Akmal is hardly the strongest.
Swann's three 10 wicket hauls came against Bangladesh, New Zealand and Sri Lanka, that Sri Lanka haul away as was the Bangladesh haul.
The presence of weaker opposition should balance the pitches, and indeed other factors. Wickets per Test are similar by and large, which further substantiates the assertion it is purely because Anderson and others play more cricket that they are right up there more than they're better than what's gone before.
If Swann were to continue his current rate of wicket taking to 84 matches. same as Anderson, he'd be on 359. Unfortunately time is not on his side, but considering he only made his debut in December 2008 he's taken 231 wickets in under five years with the rest of this series to add to them. Anderson has a five year head start on Swann, was on 104 wickets before Swann made his debut so Swann is 231-214 ahead in wickets taken since.
Best England bowler from that lot? You decide. If you pick Anderson I can surmise it is most likely the recency effect, remembering what he's done way more clearly than greats of the past. One thing is for sure, those bowlers pre-1990 are definitely England greats, can't say that of all those post-1990 with 200+ wickets
Pick either Botham, Willis, Trueman, Statham, Underwood, Bedser and Snow
or Anderson, Hoggard, Gough, Swann, Flintoff, Harmison and Caddick
No contest. Not even sure any of those on the second list would make the first.
England's 200 club
1. 383 I.Botham (102 Tests, 3.75 wkts/Test)
383 wkts @ 28.40 (SR 56.96, ER 2.99, BB 8/34)
5wi x27, 10wm x4
2. 325 B.Willis (90 Tests, 3.61 wkts/Test)
325 wkts @ 25.20 (SR 2.83, ER 53.41, BB 8/43)
5wi x16, 10wm x0
3. 318 J.Anderson (84 Tests, 3.79 wkts/Test)
318 wkts @ 29.68 (SR 57.84, ER 3.08, BB 7/43)
5wi x15, 10wm x2
4. 307 F.Trueman (67 Tests, 4.58 wkts/Test)
307 wkts @ 21.58 (SR 49.44, ER 2.62, BB 8/31)
5wi x17, 10wm x3
5. 297 D.Underwood (86 Tests, 3.45 wkts/Test)
297 wkts @ 25.84 (SR 73.61, ER 2.11, BB 8/51)
5wi x17, 10wm x6
6. 252 B.Statham (70 Tests, 3.60 wkts/Test)
252 wkts @ 24.85 (SR 63.71, ER 2.34, BB 7/39)
5wi x9, 10wm x1
7. 248 M.Hoggard (67 Tests, 3.70 wkts/Test)
248 wkts @ 30.50 (SR 56.08, ER 3.26, BB 7/61)
5wi x7, 10wm x1
8. 236 A.Bedser (51 Tests, 4.63 wkts/Test)
236 wkts @ 24.90 (SR 67.45, ER 2.21, BB 7/44)
5wi x15, 10wm x5
9. 234 A.Caddick (62 Tests, 3.77 wkts/Test)
234 wkts @ 29.91 (SR 57.94, ER 3.10, BB 7/46)
5wi x13, 10wm x1
10. 231 G.Swann (54 Tests, 4.28 wkts/Test)
231 wkts @ 28.29 (SR 58.48, ER 2.90, BB 6/65)
5wi x16, 10wm x3
11. 229 D.Gough (58 Tests, 3.95 wkts/Test)
229 wkts @ 28.40 (SR 51.61, ER 3.30, BB 6/42)
5wi x9, 10wm x0
12. 226 S.Harmison (63 Tests, 3.59 wkts/Test)
226 wkts @ 31.82 (SR 59.18, ER .23, BB 7/12)
5wi x8, 10wm x1
13. 226 A.Flintoff (79 Tests, 2.86 wkts/Test)
226 wkts @ 32.79 (SR 66.15, ER 2.97, BB 5/58)
5wi x3, 10wm x0
14. 202 J.Snow (49 Tests, 4.12 wkts/Test)
202 wkts @ 26.67 (SR 59.51, ER 2.69, BB 7/40)
5wi x8, 10wm x1
The likes of Botham and Flintoff were performers with bat and ball, and Botham was less of a force as his career drew to a close.
It is noticeable that more modern era players (90s onwards) like Gough (0), Flintoff (0), Hoggard (1), Harmison (1) and Caddick (1) struggled to take 10 wickets in a match - Botham took four compared to their combined three. Considering some of the opposition Anderson bowls at these days, 2 is a nothing - 25 of his 84 Tests against Bangladesh, New Zealand, West Indies and Zimbabwe. That said he has taken his 10 wicket hauls against the aussies (1) and Pakistan (1), although Pakistan aren't as strong as they once were.
That haul against Pakistan was against a side scoring 182 and 80 on a pitch England scored 354 and 262/9d. A line-up of Farhat, Butt, Ali, Amin, Umar Akmal, Malik and Kamran Akmal is hardly the strongest.
Swann's three 10 wicket hauls came against Bangladesh, New Zealand and Sri Lanka, that Sri Lanka haul away as was the Bangladesh haul.
The presence of weaker opposition should balance the pitches, and indeed other factors. Wickets per Test are similar by and large, which further substantiates the assertion it is purely because Anderson and others play more cricket that they are right up there more than they're better than what's gone before.
If Swann were to continue his current rate of wicket taking to 84 matches. same as Anderson, he'd be on 359. Unfortunately time is not on his side, but considering he only made his debut in December 2008 he's taken 231 wickets in under five years with the rest of this series to add to them. Anderson has a five year head start on Swann, was on 104 wickets before Swann made his debut so Swann is 231-214 ahead in wickets taken since.
Best England bowler from that lot? You decide. If you pick Anderson I can surmise it is most likely the recency effect, remembering what he's done way more clearly than greats of the past. One thing is for sure, those bowlers pre-1990 are definitely England greats, can't say that of all those post-1990 with 200+ wickets
Pick either Botham, Willis, Trueman, Statham, Underwood, Bedser and Snow
or Anderson, Hoggard, Gough, Swann, Flintoff, Harmison and Caddick
No contest. Not even sure any of those on the second list would make the first.
Last edited:
Similar threads
