JIMMY ANDERSON : VERY GOOD BUT NO G.O.A.T.

There is no doubt that Jimmy Anderson has been a great performer for England's cricket team over the last 15 or more years, but the claims that he is the "greatest of all time" is the usual nonsense spouted by those who are blinded by a need to laud the achievements of current players over those of former years. Sadly, the assorted pundits on the Sky cricket channel, only one of whom was born before 1968, are so blinded.

Anderson is close to becoming the first fast bowler to take 600 wickets in test matches, a notable achievement, but what is ignored is that he has also played many more matches than any other bowler of his type. In fact, his nearest rival in this respect is his usual bowling partner, Stuart Broad, who is some dozen or more matches behind, while no one else is within 25 matches; the great Australian fast bowler, Glen McGrath, played more than 30 matches fewer but managed to be within 35 or Anderson's total of wickets, suggesting that there is more to being the greatest of all time than simply the number of wickets taken.

Bowlers abilities can be measured in various ways - wickets taken, runs conceded, 'strike rate', meaning the regularity of their wicket taking, but all may be dependent on the number of balls bowled. McGrath, for instance, took a wicket every 52 balls, Anderson's average in this respect is every 56 balls. McGrath conceded 0.42 runs per ball, while Anderson'c record is 0.48, and McGrath's average runs per wicket was 21.64 while Anderson's is 26.83. On a combination of these measures, McGrath beats Anderson, as do numerous others, including former English fast bowlers Trueman, Bedser, Statham, Willis and Snow; even these illustrious predecessors are well adrift of the best performers, the West Indian trio of Marshall, Garner and Ambrose.

Anderson is good, even very good, and his longevity is a credit to both him and those who have looked after him over the years, but to claim that he is the "greatest of all time" is just idiotic. Times change, conditions change and there actually was cricket before Sky became involved. Trueman, for instance, not only took his 307 test match wickets more efficiently than Anderson, he also played regular county cricket and amassed a career record of over 2,300 wickets; Anderson plays little other than test matches and one day games, and has around 1,350 wickets to his name in all formats, even though he has played for a similar number of years.

Media pundits really do need to be more careful in their proclamations of brilliance and their use of superlatives. Routinely describing events as being incredible, fantastic, phenomenal, and the rest, simply demonstrates a lack of language skills; constant references to players as being 'great' similarly demonstrates a lack of appreciation for, or knowledge of, the history of the game.