Anderson vs Broad

joblytheismywife, I was talking about bowling strike rates, not economy rates.

Broad bags a wicket every 58 balls and Anderson every 59 balls.

In test cricket, the important quality for a bowler is his ability to take wickets. In this regard, Anderson and Broad are about the same.

Overall, the stats dont lie and well done youve used them to your advantage well. As said above Broad only seems to bowl well when i feels like it, Anderson is a much more consistent bowler but he has been flogged to death over this last 12-18 months and hasnt looked the same since the 2nd/3rd test last summer.
Other nations seem to handle/look after their fast bowlers better than we do, Anderson could easily have been rested for either NZ series last year.
As far as Broad is concerned, i believe he should be first change bowler rather than strike bowler , basically our answer to Siddle, his best spells have been when the ball is a bit older

" when he feels like it "

Strike rates of bowlers for the past 20-year period:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=1;class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=bowling_strike_rate;qualmin1=50;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=06+Jan+2014;spanmin1=07+Jan+1994;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Here is the same list sorted by bowling average. Anderson remains at the bottom of the page.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=1;class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=50;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=06+Jan+2014;spanmin1=07+Jan+1994;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Anderson is more reliant on swing.
In non-swinging conditions, Anderson struggles. However, he is probably up there with the best of them, when the ball does swing.

Jimmy looked a shadow of his former self in this series. One more home series in him before he retires to the after dinner speakers circuit where we will enthrall the next few generations with his stories on how we used to beat the Aussies at cricket.

Anderson a very good bowler, but not great.
Although when he bags 400 pundits will label him as great.

Think andersons wickets tend to look better if you get what I mean, seems to get more jaffas than broad.
Good article didnt actually realise there stats were that close, will be interesting to see how they shape up if broad reaches similar amount of games

Davidoff, I guess we tend to like a bowler who beats the batsman often. Anderson is that kind of bowler.

There are others who bowl a few overs of utter tripe and suddenly produce an unplayable ball.

Ultimately, in test cricket, what matters is the ability of the bowler to grab wickets.

Anderson give the impression that he is clever, crafty, and consistent. Broad comes across as, well Broad. I suspect that Broad will finish his career with more wickets and a better bowling average than Anderson.