Zaheer Khan vs James Anderson

[War]

Then you have to keep in mind his performance in the WC. Australian pitches have quite good bounce and are not completely flat.

During the second half of the Brisbane test, majority of the Adelaide test and parts of the Melbourne test during the Ashes last winter, saw those pitches flatten out and lose alot of its bounce, to become very sub-continent like.

Anderson was a threat in those conditons as he got the ball to reverse-swing.

 

[Ollie_H]

Then you have to keep in mind his performance in the WC.

Then you have to keep in mind what context this arguement is being put in. Are we talking overall bowler, test bowler or ODI bowler? OP failed to clearly state his premise on which his arguement is based.

And If the Indians are going to use it, I'm going to use the same excuse for Anderson. Come the World Cup, Anderson was effing knackkered. He had basically spearheaded England's attack for 4 months.

 

[pcfan123]

fixed

Just post this from now on, it's just as objective as any of your posts and that way we don't have to suffer reading your tired rants

 

[puddleduck]

They're both excellent swing bowlers, one's a left armer and the other a right hander so they offer different threats. Jimmy has a little more pace about him still, while I think Zaheer as a whole has slightly more accuracy.

Let's see then, as off 2005 both had promised more than they delivered. By today both are considered the front line bowlers and leaders of their respective pace attacks. Jimmy has better numbers now in test cricket than Zaheer, yet Zaheer has slightly better one day numbers.

Well glad we sorted this one out then. They're both quality, and nothing but personal subjectivity will allow anyone to pick one. Still, fun while it lasted haha

 

[shravi]

I don't think you can judge Zaheer using stats though. He's bowled on some of the worst pitches in the world for a fast bowler and on a pretty consistent basis.

I would say they're about even but Zaheer is more proven at this stage because of his performances on all pitches. Anderson has reinvented himself so it will be interesting to see how he does in India next time around. Sure, there were some flat pitches in the Ashes and he bowled brilliantly on them but even though the bounce decreased, the keepers were still collecting the balls at a decent height and not at ankle-height like they do in India.

 

[puddleduck]

Zaheer does also have a nice 52 wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh compared to Jimmys 20. Anyway, you are right in that Anderson appears to be in his peak as a bowler and it will be very interesting to see what he does to rectify his fairly poor numbers outside of England. It is only in England and India (albeit over 3 tests) that he averages under 30 whilst Zaheer has only done so in England and NZ. Both bowlers have gotten better with age, yet time and fitness seem to be on Anderson's side.

The strange thing about Zaheer is, he's generally been poor in Sri Lanka, the Windies, Australia and Pakistan. In fact were I Zaheer. I'd fancy my chances on a slow and low pitch against most of the England batting lineup ahead of one with natural pace every day of the week. 80-85mph with a bit of nip and carry like Sharma is what English batsmen have played all their lives. Mixing up the pace with cutters that you can't leave on length on pitches where you have to generate the power is not. Aussie batsmen are ones to really struggle when they can't leave it on length alone, whereby I am trying to say that good bowlers take wickets at home because that is what they're used to. Anyway, I'm rambling away, and my point is that numbers and statistics can say whatever you want them to haha

 

[Aoun13]

Then you have to keep in mind what context this arguement is being put in. Are we talking overall bowler, test bowler or ODI bowler? OP failed to clearly state his premise on which his arguement is based.

And If the Indians are going to use it, I'm going to use the same excuse for Anderson. Come the World Cup, Anderson was effing knackkered. He had basically spearheaded England's attack for 4 months.

I am posting my arguments comparing both as an overall bowler.

 

[cricket_icon]

I don't think you can judge Zaheer using stats though. He's bowled on some of the worst pitches in the world for a fast bowler and on a pretty consistent basis.

I would say they're about even but Zaheer is more proven at this stage because of his performances on all pitches. Anderson has reinvented himself so it will be interesting to see how he does in India next time around. Sure, there were some flat pitches in the Ashes and he bowled brilliantly on them but even though the bounce decreased, the keepers were still collecting the balls at a decent height and not at ankle-height like they do in India.

Cricket is a sport where both batsmen and bowlers can be judged to a certain degree by stats. Just look at the stats of fast bowlers such as Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Imran on flat pitches where they spent most of their time bowling.
But I do agree about your comments and the comments made by many in relation to Anderson and flat pitches and I mean true, Asian level of flatness. Anderson has yet to prove himself on such pitches and let us be honest, Australia was not that flat.
I was just thinking, as I was reading these posts, that we are comparing two of the best "fast" bowlers on the planet and both of them average about 30 in both forms of the game. Gone are the glory days of the 90s

 

[SLICKR392]

Both are uber awesome, my vote goes to Zaheer cuz his much more experienced...and well am an Indian :P

 

[Aoun13]

Cricket is a sport where both batsmen and bowlers can be judged to a certain degree by stats. Just look at the stats of fast bowlers such as Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Imran on flat pitches where they spent most of their time bowling.
But I do agree about your comments and the comments made by many in relation to Anderson and flat pitches and I mean true, Asian level of flatness. Anderson has yet to prove himself on such pitches and let us be honest, Australia was not that flat.
I was just thinking, as I was reading these posts, that we are comparing two of the best "fast" bowlers on the planet and both of them average about 30 in both forms of the game. Gone are the glory days of the 90s

Its a sad fact and you have to wait till the world can rediscover "pace bowling".
Cricket is now without those bowlers who once considered to be single hand match winners. In such situations one can even say that both Asif and Aamer did even bigger crime then if they had done this in 90s or 80s.

 

[cricket_icon]

Yep, With those 2 around and Steyn doing the business for SA, we would have had some real competition on our hands.

 

[puddleduck]

But Asif only bowls at 80 odd mph. He's no different to every other pace bowler around. Line and length consistency. Aamer did look a bit different, genuine pace in good areas. However, he had a long career ahead of him to get close to being considered as good as people decided he would be. Which if we're honest, not being the brightest chap around there were no guarantees he would have fulfilled that undoubted potential.

 

[cricket_icon]

It's all ifs and buts really. Asif proved himself to be the best besides Steyn where as Amir did have a long way to go but he was getting there. Some talent is just undeniable and he had that. Still they are gone now.

 

[vorgaphe]

I think Anderson is the superior bowler. Zaheer, when Ishant isn't in form is really India's only pace threat and therefore has the greater share of pace wickets. Anderson though has had to share with Broad, Bresnan, Finn, Tremlett, Harmison, Flintoff, Hoggard and more in his career. Also, if we look at the stats Anderson has 267 wickets at 30.05 in 130 innings whereas Zaheer has 288 wickets at 31.78 in 150 innings. Anderson also has more 5 wicket hauls: 12 to Zaheer's 10. Also in the tours to Pakistan and Sri Lanka Anderson displayed that he can bowl effectively in subcontinent conditions. Anderson is also more consistent, in his last five years he had averaged 29.8, 33.9, 23.0 and 24.9. Zaheer in contrast: 36.9, 33.3, 22 and 28.5. Anderson is a more dangerous bowler at better pace with more swing and has learnt to share with some other very good bowlers.

 

[War]

Zaheer slightly better overall, because he has proven he can take wickets on the roads in the sub-continent and he has bowled well overseas in key places like ENG, AUS, SA, NZ where quick bowlers get help.

When the ball is swinging in ENG, AUS, SA, NZ Anderson is slightly more lethal though. Since he has some big 7 wicket hauls in such conditions, Khan doesn't have such big hauls when the ball is swinging.

Anderson though however has yet to do the former like Khan in the sub-continent given he has yet to bowl their since he peaked as a test bowler last winter in the Ashes. This "new Anderson" has yet to prove his wicket taking acumen in those conditions. But he certainly did prove during the 2010/11 Ashes, that he has the skills i.e "reverse-swing" to be threat when he eventually bowls in SRI, PAK (neutral) and IND within the next 2 years.

So presuming Anderson conquers the sub-continent, that will bring him even with Khan, not better than him.

They are even now since Anderson proved he can take wickets on flat sub-continent pitches this winter in UAE and Sri Lanka.

These dyas i would have both opening the bowling for me in a world test XI, with Steyn first change.

Smith
Cook
Sangakkara
Tendulkar
Kallis
Pietersen
Prior
Steyn
Anderson
Khan
Ajmal