There’s Only One Jimmy Anderson

Jimmy Nottingham

As England toiled in Antigua yesterday, my heart was bleeding for Jimmy Anderson. He’s very much a team man, and the result put something of a damper on his record breaking moment.

But when Jimmy reflects on the last five days – and puts his achievements in perspective – he should be an extremely happy and contented man. Yesterday was just one test match out of the 100 he’s played. The result doesn’t matter in the scheme of things; Jimmy is now England’s record test wicket taker. And it’s one hell of an achievement.

None of us really knew what to make of Jimmy in the early days of his career. He was plucked from nowhere at the fag end of a disastrous Ashes tour and surpassed all expectations. Then he went to the World Cup and bowled out Pakistan with a masterful display of swing bowling.

But then he fell from grace almost as quickly as he’d arrived. Troy Cooley, who had done an outstanding job with England’s other bowlers, tried to change his action. Jimmy fell to pieces, lost half a yard of pace and looked like the nerdy kid everyone bullied for a year or two. It was painfully sad to see.

Thankfully, England finally figured out that it didn’t really matter where Jimmy looked when he released the ball – as long as it was propelled at the batsman with an upright seam at a lively pace. A bit like Jordan Speith, who looks at the hole rather than the ball when he’s putting, you can still be a champion if you do things slightly differently.

Jimmy soon got his mojo back. He proved the doubters wrong and became a fixture in England’s side. He also developed a bit of attitude. His aggression occasionally overstepped the line, but most of us were encouraged that the little boy lost was now one of England’s feistiest performers.

Who can forget his ‘shhhhhhh’ gesture at Mitchell Johnson in the 2010/11 Ashes? His gesture spoke for all of us: ‘take that Mitch, you malodorous member!’

Of course there are still those who doubt Jimmy’s abilities (even though he’s taken 384 test wickets). Ignoramuses say he’s useless outside of England, or that he’s ineffective on flat decks. It’s utter garbage of course.

I’ve probably watched every one of Anderson’s 100 tests and he’s an incredibly skilful bowler. He no longer has the lively pace he once possessed, but he’s got every other skill it’s possible for a seam bowler to have. Jimmy is accurate, moves the ball both ways off the pitch and in the air, and has a good cricket brain.

His critics should watch his performances in the UAE or India. There was nothing, absolutely nothing in those decks for seam or swing bowlers, yet Jimmy ran in hard and outfoxed some seriously good Asian batsmen time and again. Ask Sachin Tendulkar, who Anderson has dismissed more times than anyone else in test cricket, whether Jimmy is a class act.

The truth is Anderson is a good bowler on any surface. He might not blow you away like he does in England when the ball is swinging, but he does an admirable job wherever England play. I don’t recall it swinging too much in Australia in 2010/11, or at Trent Bridge in 2013. Jimmy has been England’s go-to seam bowler for most of last decade – and he’s delivered far more often than not.

Although Anderson’s career average has hovered just above thirty for most of his career, this statistic comes with a few caveats. For starters, his overall record includes the years when England messed around with his action. Since about 2007, when Jimmy matured as a test bowler, he’s been a highly consistent and effective performer.

Furthermore, we shouldn’t forget that Jimmy has played in an era when bat has generally dominated ball. He’s played on some terribly benign surfaces – presumably because administrators wanted games to last five full days – against numerous test batsmen averaging over fifty. Jimmy never grumbled about it in public. He just kept running in.

Anderson is also a remarkable cricketer because he’s incredibly fit. He’s not just an athletic fielder – a natural athlete if ever there was one – his stamina is off the charts. England have bowled him into the ground at times, but he’s kept coming back for more.

Nobody is pretending that Anderson is the best bowler to ever play the game. He’s never been as destructive as a Donald, an Ambrose or a Waqar. I like to place him in the same bracket as someone like Zaheer Khan – a skilful artist who made the most of his physical abilities.

Neither is Jimmy the best bowler England have produced in recent times – in my opinion Gough, Botham and Willis were all a bit better than Anderson in their pomp. However, Jimmy has always been extremely good to watch. His action is easy on the eye, whippy and repeatable. It’s poetry in motion.

Whereas some bowlers are created artificially – coaches often take guys with raw height and strength and mold them into fast bowlers – Jimmy is a natural pure and simple. He was born to bowl.

So does Jimmy deserve to be England’s all time leading wicket taker? Absolutely. He’s taken his fair share of wickets when conditions suited him, but he’s also excelled when the pitches were flat and the ride was bumpy.

Basically, Jimmy Anderson is an absolute legend. He thoroughly deserves all the plaudits he’ll get today. When he finally decides to hang up his boots, he’ll leave a massive hole in the England side. Well bowled Jimmy. Keep going lad.

James Morgan

@DoctorCopy

25 comments

  • One of the differences between Jimmy Anderson breaking the record and previous England bowlers is how much higher up in the global list of bowlers they were. Bob Willis said in tribute to Anderson on Sky yesterday that “When you break this record you really do sit on top of the world.”

    I’m sure we all know what Bob meant, but statistically it’s not true any more.

    When Fred Trueman became the first England bowler to reach 300 test wickets he was also the first bowler of all nations to achieve the feat. When Bob Willis retired with his total of 324 wickets only D Lillie was ahead of him. By the time Ian Botham retired with his total of 383 Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev had past him. As Jimmy passes Bothams record there are now 13 bowlers ahead of him on the all time list.

    The good news for Jimmy is he is within site of passing some of those men and he has time on his side (if he says fit) Another 51 wickets will seem him surpass Kapil Dev’s 434. That will be an extraordinary achievement but there will still be 5 bowlers in front of him. The next one would be Courtney Walsh on 519

    Looking at the bowlers ahead of him what stands out other than just wickets are the number of tests played. 3 bowlers for me stand out. Hadlee achieved his 431 in only 86 matches with an average of 22.29. Ambrose achieved his 405 in 98 tests at an average of 20.99 and Steyn is on 396 in only 78 matches at 22.99 average. (Steyn is the only bowler on the list still playing who is above Jimmy Anderson.)

  • James,
    Thank you for this. A properly considered and full-throated tribute to a man who’s been a magnificent servant to English cricket and a top class bowler.
    Had a bee in my bonnet yesterday as I read various comments about how “he’s not as good as X or Y” – or someone even commented that it was a “travesty” that he’d overtaken Botham. That English inability to celebrate an achievement without somehow belittling or denigrating it really irks me.
    I saw Jimmy’s England debut at the MCG in 2002 and to see how far he’s come is a tribute to his skill, dedication and athleticism as you say. He might not be the best England have produced, but who cares? He’s a top class bowler and he’s been a pleasure to watch. I can only echo your piece, and in particular the final paragraph.
    Bowled, Jimmy!

    • Thanks Kev. Where would England be without Anderson? He’s been a magnificent servant.

    • And I’ll echo BigKev. No-one under 200 years of age is entitled to decide who’s best and, yes, “best” is unimportant. If Whittaker did his job and discovered a quickie tomorrow who becomes one of the best, how happy we’d be.

      If England were able to field an express pace bowler plus Jimmy plus Broad as number 3, I reckon we’d be doing fine.

    • Spot on Kev.

      Only in England could we question the skill of a man who’s taken the most test wickets in an era where bat is dominating ball.

  • For a bowler once labeled a ‘pussy’ by a famous Australian, Jimmy (and his grumpy hostility) certainly has come a long way.

  • Well, yes . . . a great team man unless you drop a catch off his bowling. Or hook him in the nets ;)

  • A world class bowler that averages 30? No chance. A great England bowler? Absolutely.
    I reckon Jimmy would of been a better bowler if he had someone, consistently, to bowl with over his career.
    He has worked his arse off over the years because he has had to carry the other end (Swann was his best). Broad is costing Jimmy wickets, runs, stamina, and more importantly, time.
    England stuffed up yesterday because Jimmy could’nt do it, Broad simply can’t and there is no one else – England are a mess!

    Why is England persevering with Broad? Why was Ali not fit for England but played for his county?

    BigKev67, I repeat – a good bowler overtook a great bowler. It’s pretty simple really.

    Ok, what does England do now? Does Ali come in for Tredwell, probably. Any other changes? Plunkett for Broad?

    • Plunkett for Jordan for me. I would persevere with Broad because he has a habit of looking a bit flat in test series but then suddenly exploding with a match winning performance.

      • I’d echo that and Rachid for Tredwell, would certainly add some bite to our bowling…

  • I do not agree with everything you say James. But this is a good post and “I like to place him in the same bracket as someone like Zaheer Khan – a skilful artist who made the most of his physical abilities.” seems spot on.

    Now if only Anderson were to control his abusive conduct!

    • “Now if only Anderson were to control his abusive conduct!”

      Let him play for Australia in the coming Ashes series, the ICC will come down on him like a ton of bricks then. After that he can go back to England with a new perspective.

  • For the talk of number of wickets, averages and who was the better bowler, there is also the matter of who you get out.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32105879

    Obviously Hoggard isn’t the best ever England bowler but it does show that as well as playing in an era where bat dominated, Anderson also managed to get better batsmen out whilst Botham got a lot of tail enders out. Obviously tail end wickets are still valuable but as the leading bowler in your team, getting the key batsmen out are more so.

    As you say, talk of who is the best is a bit silly but Anderson is a worthy recipient of the record.

    • What would England give to have somebody else like Botham who could run through the tail?

    • Seems like the formula rather favours bowlers from the modern era – perhaps because batting averages are higher?

    • I think that metholdology here is fundamentally flawed, as it’s dividing performance by wickets. Not by matches. All it shows is that Hoggard was good at getting some good openers out. (And we know how badly Sehwag, who otherwise scored many, batted in England)

      I’ll post more on this below.

  • Very good and well balanced, James. I particularly liked your final paragraph. It summed up all that needed to be said about the value of Jimmy’s contribution to the England team. He will always be there amidst my best cricketing memories.

  • I’ve never warmed to Jimmy. Sure, I cheered loudly when he has taken wickets and have no doubt that he is a very good bowler………..I’ve just never warmed to him. On occasions he has come across as surly, often spiteful and at times just a little bit nasty. Now I’m not saying you don’t need a bit of grumpiness to be a fast bowler, bending your back in the sun, over after over. Look at Bob Willis and Angus Fraser, even Goughy had a bit of a cob on at times, but Anderson has always gone over and above this. His withering looks to fielders if they make the slightest mistake, the “banter” to batsmen which as times goes beyond the pale and then of course the words he had with Jadeja at Trent Bridge last year.

    But I guess the reason I just don’t like the bloke is that for me he has always seemed at the epicentre of the anti KP Cabal. Heavily implicated in the KP Genius account, big mates with those other anti Kevin players, Broad and Swann, I just think he never liked a personality or ego bigger than his own.

    Oh and if you want a slightly different view to his achievements, a Antipodean view, have a read of this……..

    http://dennisdoescricket.com/james-anderson-an-inconvenient-truth/

    • a good read that link, thanks, Jimmy Anderson …. didn’t he play for Lancashire once – whatever happened to him?

  • Anderson deserves praise for his magnificent bowling. There is a but though. I don’t like his on field nastiness to his opposition nor indeed his own team members. He’s been damn good for England. I think he lost the plot during and after the last Ashes. Do hope he has learned from that – he says he has!

  • So, as Mike says above, the BBC have done a slightly odd analysis on England’s bowlers that comes up with Hoggard as number one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32105879

    Aside from the fact that this analysis ignores some brilliant England bowlers, including Laker, Verity and Barnes, it seems to be the fundamental flaw is that it is basically a measure of how good the batsmen a bowler got out, rather than how often (or cheaply) batsmen were dismissed. Which is surely the point.

    To expand on this, had Hoggard taken 20 wickets on his final tour to NZ, he would have dropped DOWN the rankings, as those players didn’t average all that highly. And had he taken 0-700 in the same series (or any series), his ranking would have been unchanged (!)

    Surely better to divide the total points achieved by the number of innings bowled? That gives an indication of not just the quality of batsmen dismissed, but also the frequency with which they were dismissed. That’s the real value to a team.

    The ten Andrew Samson of the BBC considered were Matthew Hoggard, James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Derek Underwood, Alec Bedser, Bob Willis, Ian Botham, Fred Trueman & Brian Statham

    I’ll give you a clue and say, if you divide points taken by innings bowled, Hoggard comes in at number 4 (which I was impressed by). Can anyone guess who is number 1? It surprised me.

    (I suspect by any numerical analysis you’d care to throw at this problem Sidney Barnes comes out number 1)

  • Jimmy Anderson’s achievement is unparalleled. He is by far the best swing bowler in world cricket today, results may prove the same or not. He is a gem of a bowler and English cricket is really lucky to have such a talent in the squad.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting