THE GOOGLY: Anderson is great, but is he the greatest?

HUW TURBERVILL: Anderson has a great haul of Test wickets – 564, the most by an Englishman, the most by any seamer. In fact Cook could also be considered the greatest, for his runs, again more than any other Englishman – 12,472

^{Alastair Cook, left, and Jimmy Anderson}

“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them!”

So said the poor, misguided Malvolio in Twelfth Night, but another quote about greatness has caught my eye: Alastair Cook describing James Anderson as England’s greatest cricketer.

Look up the word ‘great’ in the dictionary and it says ‘unusually large or competitively large in size or dimensions’.

And indeed Anderson has a great haul of Test wickets – 564, the most by an Englishman, the most by any seamer.

In fact Cook could also be considered the greatest, for his runs, again more than any other Englishman – 12,472.

But... both their averages are not as good as their rivals and this cannot simply be ignored.

^{Anderson is England's record Test wicket-taker}

Anderson’s Test bowling average is 26.84, Cook’s batting is 45.35.

For instance, Glenn McGrath, the man who Cook overtook, finished with 563 wickets at 21.64. 

Anderson indeed wrote after The Oval Test against India: “I'll tell you something about Glenn McGrath – he was a much better bowler than me. This is not false modesty.”

Well, horses for courses. If you want a bowler to deliver an immaculate line at the top of one stump over and over again, pick McGrath. If you want a bowler to swing the ball both ways at will, and to land it on a sixpence, choose Anderson.

Anyhow, my point is that, brilliant as they are, I don’t think Anderson and Cook (amazing resilience, extraordinary powers of concentration) are the best England cricketers.

Courtney Walsh also took 519 at 24.44, and Richard Hadlee 431 at 22.29.

In the top 10 of Test run-makers, only Mahela Jayawardene averages in the 40s (11,814 at 49.84); the eight others average 50-plus.

LATEST ENGLAND NEWS

Cook has excuses, though – opening against the Dukes ball in English conditions is far more arduous than facing a Kookaburra ball in overseas climes (and inversely I guess you could argue that Anderson had the advantage of the Dukes ball in England!).

Anyhow, my point is that, brilliant as they are, I don’t think Anderson (with his ability to swing the ball both ways at will, and to land it on a sixpence) and Cook (amazing resilience, extraordinary powers of concentration) are the best England cricketers.

For cricket is a game of bat and ball and Sir Ian Botham was great with both.

In his early Test days he was a marvellous bowler, lean and mean, he swung it both ways, late.

He was also a gifted batsmen with a fine technique (watertight in defence when required – see Pakistan at The Oval 1988), who could switch to brutality in the blink of an eye (19 from six balls against Australia at Edgbaston in 1985).

Cook is England's record Test runscorer

In his first 48 Tests he averaged 34 with the bat and a staggering 22 with the ball. 

In his final 54 Tests he averaged 32 with the bat and 36 with the ball.

Boycott wrote in the Telegraph about him: “Ian Botham was a great cricketer in anyone’s language. He had a big backside, big shoulders, and a narrow waist, and before his back injury he had this fantastic turn in his action, which gave him real pace and swing.”

If you do not want to pick an allrounder, I think you would have to go with Fred Trueman, who took 307 Test wickets at 21.57.

And talking about Botham and the first half of his career, for batting I would opt for Graham Gooch for the second half of his. 

In 69 Tests between 1982 and 1993 he averaged 49.20, making notable runs against West Indies’ Fab Four, one of the greatest attacks ever (this is compared to his overall record of 42.58 in 118 Tests).

It is probably not fair to cherry-pick Gooch’s stats, anyhow, so I am sticking with Botham.

He has to be the greatest cricketer all round.