Ambrose v McGrath

[iamdavid]

Another of these silly 'vs' threads, because I'm bored...doubt this one hasnt been done before but oh well...

Who was all things considered the better bowler between Curtley Ambrose and Glenn McGrath ?
Statistically the two best seamers of the 90's/2000's.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ambrose for me; had the metronomic accuracy but was a little brisker, certainly is his younger years.

 

[Richard]

Ambrose. So much in common: the height; the just-back-of-length stock length; the ability to hit the seam ball after ball; the (most obviously) crazy precision in line; the stock-ball being the off-cutter; the impossibly good legcutter that meant virtually neither ever needed to swing the ball; the occasional demonstration of outswing on the rare occasion they pitched it up; the fact that they showed, as they cut down their speed later in their careers, that 90mph is not a prerequistite for a very-top-of-the-tree bowler; the fact that both pretty well got better with age; even the dodgy start (McGrath after 8 Tests averaged 43.68; Ambrose after 5 averaged 40 and after getting it down to 23.20 after 11 saw it rise again to 27.35 after 17). One big difference, of course, was Ambrose's virtually never saying a word while McGrath rarely stopped doing.

But McGrath's "fallow" period between 23rd August 2001 and 21st November 2004 always made me rate Ambrose the better. During this time, let's not forget, McGrath only ever got wickets on non-seaming pitches (the vast majority) through poor strokes.

 

[funnygirl]

Ambrose .Faster ,more menacing and more variety.

 

[archie mac]

I think this poll throws cold water on the idea that people vote based on colour

 

[Richard]

Whose idea was that?

 

[Anil]

I think this poll throws cold water on the idea that people vote based on colour

you really cannot generalize either way...

 

[archie mac]

Whose idea was that?

It was mentioned in the Khan V Miller thread for one, although the word colour may not have been used as such

 

[archie mac]

you really cannot generalize either way...

I agree 100%, I thought the suggestion insulting tbh

 

[Jamee999]

McGrath, purely because most of Ambrose's career was before my time, itbt.

 

[andyc]

McGrath, purely because most of Ambrose's career was before my time, itbt.

AWTA

 

[Richard]

Kids.

 

[Pratters]

McGrath, purely because most of Ambrose's career was before my time, itbt.

I wouldn't vote for some one over some one else because of before my time criteria.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think I'd have to go for McGrath these days, I just think he was slightly less fallible. There are more batsmen who I think could handle Ambrose well than McGrath. McGrath was also a better ODI bowler IMO, and adapted well to the changing nature of the ODI game as his career went on. Very close though.

 

[aussie]

Ambrose. So much in common: the height; the just-back-of-length stock length; the ability to hit the seam ball after ball; the (most obviously) crazy precision in line; the stock-ball being the off-cutter; the impossibly good legcutter that meant virtually neither ever needed to swing the ball; the occasional demonstration of outswing on the rare occasion they pitched it up; the fact that they showed, as they cut down their speed later in their careers, that 90mph is not a prerequistite for a very-top-of-the-tree bowler; the fact that both pretty well got better with age; even the dodgy start (McGrath after 8 Tests averaged 43.68; Ambrose after 5 averaged 40 and after getting it down to 23.20 after 11 saw it rise again to 27.35 after 17). One big difference, of course, was Ambrose's virtually never saying a word while McGrath rarely stopped doing.

But McGrath's "fallow" period between 23rd August 2001 and 21st November 2004 always made me rate Ambrose the better. During this time, let's not forget, McGrath only ever got wickets on non-seaming pitches (the vast majority) through poor strokes.

i see you have brought up this crazyness again

 

[LongHopCassidy]

But McGrath's "fallow" period between 23rd August 2001 and 21st November 2004 always made me rate Ambrose the better. During this time, let's not forget, McGrath only ever got wickets on non-seaming pitches (the vast majority) through poor strokes.

Please cite examples. Doesn't seem right without some spurious statistic in tow.

 

[Perm]

McGrath.

 

[Top_Cat]

At the peak of their powers, big Ambi just shades McGrath because he was just so destructive. There was a palpable tension when Ambi was bowling well whereas with McGrath, it was all part of the plan. Ambi was positively dangerous on occasion. Vastly under-rated bowler except when he was playing and by those who played against him. McGrath was very clinical, Ambi was a menace. It's been said so many times but he did indeed bowl the best first over of any bowler and it was not just the accuracy but the probability of getting a wicket which made people say that I reckon.

But if we're talking all-wicket ability, longevity and overall achievement, I'd have to put McGrath a little higher. Ambi also had a greater propensity to lose his temper and try to hit the batsmen rather than get them out and there were some real lulls in his career post 1994 when he bowled with less pace whereas McGrath was far more consistent. I guess to give an example, McGrath bowled one of his best ever spells in 2005 at Lords when he was only a year away from finishing whereas Ambi's best was well behind him when he gave it up although part of me suspects it was a motivation thing rather than loss of ability. SO yeah, for consistency, McGrath but both bowlers at peak, Ambi. Just.

 

[Craig]

At the peak of their powers, big Ambi just shades McGrath because he was just so destructive. There was a palpable tension when Ambi was bowling well whereas with McGrath, it was all part of the plan. Ambi was positively dangerous on occasion. Vastly under-rated bowler except when he was playing and by those who played against him. McGrath was very clinical, Ambi was a menace. It's been said so many times but he did indeed bowl the best first over of any bowler and it was not just the accuracy but the probability of getting a wicket which made people say that I reckon.

But if we're talking all-wicket ability, longevity and overall achievement, I'd have to put McGrath a little higher. Ambi also had a greater propensity to lose his temper and try to hit the batsmen rather than get them out and there were some real lulls in his career post 1994 when he bowled with less pace whereas McGrath was far more consistent. I guess to give an example, McGrath bowled one of his best ever spells in 2005 at Lords when he was only a year away from finishing whereas Ambi's best was well behind him when he gave it up although part of me suspects it was a motivation thing rather than loss of ability. SO yeah, for consistency, McGrath but both bowlers at peak, Ambi. Just.

I guess what happened at the WACA in 96/97 (?) be a prime example?

 

[Laurrz]

Ambrose never bowled in India.. would that count against him?