Ambrose Vs Mcgrath?

[Lillian Thomson]

i hope he got banned for some other reason. not possible to follow all threads, so i dont know. but calling holding a top 3 fast bowler or ranking him above ambrose is not a crime at all. mikey deserves a lot more respect than this.

I don't think calling Michael Holding a top 3 bowler is a banning offence. Bond was a troll from day one, if you go back to his very first postings they were just pointless random comments that were nothing to do with the subject matter. When that was ignored he started posting insults instead.
Michael Holding was potentially a top 3 bowler but never played against Pakistan and had a slightly shorter career than some other great bowlers, but he had the perfect run up and action and bowled at express pace. He bowled England out cheaply on a featherbed at the Oval in 1976 mainly through his sheer speed.

 

[slowfinger]

Bit harsh isnt it?

 

[Richard]

i hope he got banned for some other reason. not possible to follow all threads, so i dont know. but calling holding a top 3 fast bowler or ranking him above ambrose is not a crime at all. mikey deserves a lot more respect than this.

Suggesting Holding as a top-three bowler isn't completely and totally outrageous, but suggesting he was better than Marshall and Ambrose is clueless. Cluelessness isn't what bond21 was banned for, he was banned because he's a dickhead and in addition to not having a clue about pretty much anything made some of the worst comments in CW history.

Holding was an absolutely magnificent bowler but his career had one or two shortcomings already alluded to. If someone other than bond21 had suggested it I'd have made a different type of post, but bond21 deserves complete derision and gets it from just about everyone who posts on this forum.

 

[funnygirl]

That ban was little harsh ,But what credibilty he got when he says ''Ambrose is no hell more accurate than Holding ''. I can very well see that guy haven't watched any of them .

 

[Richard]

That ban was little harsh

Really, it wasn't. It was absurdly overdue. When you think of the respectible members () who've been banned during his time here, this should have happened long ago.

 

[Manee]

Suggesting Holding as a top-three bowler isn't completely and totally outrageous, but suggesting he was better than Marshall and Ambrose is clueless. Cluelessness isn't what bond21 was banned for, he was banned because he's a dickhead and in addition to not having a clue about pretty much anything made some of the worst comments in CW history.

Holding was an absolutely magnificent bowler but his career had one or two shortcomings already alluded to. If someone other than bond21 had suggested it I'd have made a different type of post, but bond21 deserves complete derision and gets it from just about everyone who posts on this forum.

I am not going to go onto statsguru, but what were Holding's shortcomings? Did he lack accuracy?

 

[Slifer]

Holding never played against Pakistan and his record in New Zealand was quite awful. Apart from those two short comings, I'd say he was surely one of the greatest bowlers of all time. However, among west indians, i would rank Ambrose, Marshall and even Garner above him.

 

[Richard]

I am not going to go onto statsguru, but what were Holding's shortcomings? Did he lack accuracy?

Not remarkably so. Holding's principal problem was that as his career progressed, his hamstrings got weaker and weaker. Holding's best phase came very early on - his first series in Australia was a premature elevation (he'd been taken on the tour with the aim of learning more than playing but ended-up shoved into the front-line and averaged 61.40 in the series) but in his next two he destroyed India and England taking 47 wickets in 8 Tests at 15.61.

However, even in 1976 he'd missed one Test with injury and he missed the entire next series against Pakistan a year later as well, with Joel Garner getting his debut as a result. And because he, like most of his team-mates, joined the Packer Schism he did not play again until 1979\80. From then until 1986 he was still a phenomenal bowler, but missed another series in Pakistan (as did Gordon Greenidge) in 1980/81 and as a result never faced them at all, something which is always a must for a bowler wishing to be considered at the very top of the tree. Why he (and Greenidge) missed this series I've never been sure.

He missed another 7 Tests after 1981, and should have played his last game against England in 1986 as West Indies triumphed 5-0 in possibly the most one-sided five-Test series ever. However, he played one more, failing to take a wicket, and that was it.

Finishing his Test career, essentially, at 32 is younger than most; he played just 54 Tests between 1976 and 1986, and while his record (239 wickets at 21.69) stacks-up brilliantly, there's another little hole hiding there: as well as never facing Pakistan, Holding played just 6 Tests against New Zealand and was distinctly moderate in them, taking just 16 wickets at 28.37. This isn't entirely a fair reflection, as it's come to be regarded as historical fact that all of West Indies' bowlers were cheated out of numerous wickets in the infamous series of 1979/80 by execrable Umpiring.

As a result, Holding's Test career for the overwhelming part consists of just 3 teams: England; Australia; India. This falls short of his contemporaries Marshall and Garner.

EDIT: I see Slifer has beaten me to several of these points in a shorter fashion.

 

[Manee]

Thanks for that - may I ask how you cobbled together such an extensive piece of knowledge in this particular case?

 

[Richard]

Much of it is just using StatsGuru, but there's a few pieces in Wisden and a particularly superb, insightful piece from 1990. This combined has taught me a great deal.

 

[Burgey]

Good to see a ban... at last... and hopefully clueless nonsense like this will be no more soon.

You cant ban someone for saying Holding > Ambrose, surely.

Must be for something else.

 

[Dasa]

Think he was banned for his posts in this thread and for being on thin ice because of earlier warnings.

 

[Burgey]

Ah, it all makes sense now.

Cheers mate.

 

[Richard]

You cant ban someone for saying Holding > Ambrose, surely.

Must be for something else.

Kinda wish I hadn't posted that now.

No, bond21 wasn't banned for being clueless, he was banned for deplorable comments. The fact that we shall now be rid of his cluelessness (only for 7 days for the time being but hopefully eventually extended) is merely a bonus.

 

[slowfinger]

Come on, banned for claiming ur the best

 

[Migara]

Ambrose any day. He had that nasty streak in him unlike McGrath. Even wih that nasty streak he was lot better behaved than McGrath.

 

[Laurrz]

the closeness of this poll really tells the story

 

[Debris]

So hard to choose between them. Ambrose was a bit better at his peak but he was a bit on and off so....

McGrath

 

[bond21]

McGrath by 2 miles.

Oh I forgot, Ambrose is the greatest bowler in the entire solar system. Oh wait, theres smoething called free speech...yay

McGrath, Warne, Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Lillee, Hadlee, Greg Matthews, Bruce Reid, Craig McDermott, Damien Martyn Right arm medium, AB slow left arm orthodox, Shahid Afridi, Cameron White, Nathan Hauritz, Ian Healy impersonating Merv Hughes in the charity match >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Curtley Ambrose.


Prove me wrong. Its my opinion, so you cant lmfao.

 

[Burgey]

McGrath by 2 miles.

Oh I forgot, Ambrose is the greatest bowler in the entire solar system. Oh wait, theres smoething called free speech...yay

McGrath, Warne, Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Lillee, Hadlee, Greg Matthews, Bruce Reid, Craig McDermott, Damien Martyn Right arm medium, AB slow left arm orthodox, Shahid Afridi, Cameron White, Nathan Hauritz, Ian Healy impersonating Merv Hughes in the charity match >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Curtley Ambrose.


Prove me wrong. Its my opinion, so you cant lmfao.