So James Anderson has now taken 529 wickets for England, one more than Sir Ian Botham. Of course James has played more matches in all formats, 261 to Botham's 218, but at a better SR of 48.26 to Botham's 53.19.
This is helped by playing 49 more ODIs where the SR tends to be a lot lower, but then runs are easier to score with changes to fielding and pitches being set up for runfests.
Tests
Botham (102) : 383 wkts @ 28.40 (SR 56.96, ER 2.99)
Anderson (77) : 288 wkts @ 30.40 (SR 58.83, ER 3.10)
ODIs
Botham (116) : 145 wkts @ 28.54 (SR 43.25, ER 3.96)
Anderson (165) : 223 wkts @ 30.57 (SR 36.62, ER 5.01)
T20Is
Botham (0) : n/a
Anderson (19) : 18 wkts @ 30.67 (SR 23.44, ER 7.85)
Overall (FWIW)
Botham (218) : 528 wkts @ 28.44 (SR 53.19, ER 3.21)
Anderson (261) : 529 wkts @ 30.48 (SR 48.26, ER 3.79)
I do loathe 'records' involving 'more than' stats like 'more wickets', 'more runs' etc, largely because of the contributing factor of playing more cricket than the previous record/player. If Botham had played that many matches he would have taken more wickets, although he did play 25 more Tests in which you would expect him to take around 100 more wickets - so it's about right.
And of course back in Botham's pomp he'd have ripped through Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, the only minnows playing Tests then were Sri Lanka and Botham played three Tests against them to umpteen Anderson Tests including a much weaker West Indies
This is helped by playing 49 more ODIs where the SR tends to be a lot lower, but then runs are easier to score with changes to fielding and pitches being set up for runfests.
Tests
Botham (102) : 383 wkts @ 28.40 (SR 56.96, ER 2.99)
Anderson (77) : 288 wkts @ 30.40 (SR 58.83, ER 3.10)
ODIs
Botham (116) : 145 wkts @ 28.54 (SR 43.25, ER 3.96)
Anderson (165) : 223 wkts @ 30.57 (SR 36.62, ER 5.01)
T20Is
Botham (0) : n/a
Anderson (19) : 18 wkts @ 30.67 (SR 23.44, ER 7.85)
Overall (FWIW)
Botham (218) : 528 wkts @ 28.44 (SR 53.19, ER 3.21)
Anderson (261) : 529 wkts @ 30.48 (SR 48.26, ER 3.79)
I do loathe 'records' involving 'more than' stats like 'more wickets', 'more runs' etc, largely because of the contributing factor of playing more cricket than the previous record/player. If Botham had played that many matches he would have taken more wickets, although he did play 25 more Tests in which you would expect him to take around 100 more wickets - so it's about right.
And of course back in Botham's pomp he'd have ripped through Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, the only minnows playing Tests then were Sri Lanka and Botham played three Tests against them to umpteen Anderson Tests including a much weaker West Indies
