Ambrose Vs Mcgrath?

[Richard]

McGrath, Warne, Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Lillee, Hadlee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Curtley Ambrose.

Warne a better bowler than Ambrose.

 

[weldone]

Can't vote really...rank them equally...the vote results till now are with me ... 26-26

 

[weldone]

No way, Ambrose was better than all of them except Marshall.

so very true...

 

[Leslie1]

Happy to oblidge and tip the scales one way. (53rd vote)

I think Ambrose because he terrorises batsmen. McGrath is Mr Consistency. Ambrose can get juice from a flat track while McGrath relies on batsmen making mistakes.

 

[Ikki]

Having looked more into fast bowlers in the last month I've come to change my mind somewhat about McGrath. Although he is a great, surely, and has many reasons of being superior not only to Ambrose but other fast bowlers, I think there is something slightly missing with McGrath in his ability to take big hauls of wickets. Still, I rate him slightly above Ambrose but I am not sure anymore how he figures in my own rankings. For me, the ability to take wickets cheaply should be complemented by the ability to take them in a bunch.

 

[Ikki]

Warne a better bowler than Ambrose.

You laugh at that of all comparisons? Hussain V Hayden, Knight V Gilchrist are ones you seriously contend but you laugh at that?

 

[Flem274*]

Ambrose. Eeny meeny miney mo clinched the descision.

 

[silentstriker]

For me, the ability to take wickets cheaply should be complemented by the ability to take them in a bunch.

That would clearly put Murali as the best bowler of all time - which he isn't, for me, considering he has 20 ten wicket hauls at the lowest average for any modern spinner (twice as many as Warne, in less Test matches)..so not only is he taking wickets cheaper than everyone, he is also taking them in bigger bunches.......but obviously you still think Warne is superior.....

And Murali and Warne are nowhere near Ambrose as bowlers, to me.

 

[Richard]

You laugh at that of all comparisons? Hussain V Hayden, Knight V Gilchrist are ones you seriously contend but you laugh at that?

I've provided solid, obvious reasoning for both of those, and on the latter there were even plenty of others who agreed.

There is and can be no good reasoning for Warne > Ambrose, other than "loads of Australians and some from elsewhere say he's a match-winner", really.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I do love how Richard gets so precious and hurt about people getting fed up with his ramblings, yet he actively seeks to make provocative statements and court trouble. It's such an endearing characteristic.

 

[Richard]

I don't tend to get hurt at people getting fed-up with my ramblings, by-and-large those who do so and get vocal about it tend to be people I don't give a stuff about. And I certainly don't seek to court trouble, that's a fool's game.

 

[Ikki]

That would clearly put Murali as the best bowler of all time - which he isn't, for me, considering he has 20 ten wicket hauls at the lowest average for any modern spinner (twice as many as Warne, in less Test matches)..so not only is he taking wickets cheaper than everyone, he is also taking them in bigger bunches.......but obviously you still think Warne is superior.....

Murali takes the wickets cheaper because of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and several other factors that have been mentioned 1000+ times, otherwise we all know where that average would be. Secondly, Murali is taking such big hauls because he bowls so much more than everyone and has little wicket taking competition.

Whereas with McGrath, he is quite behind Warne who bowls in the same team. Still, when I made the comment I was talking about pacers. And there are many examples of pacers who have had competition, bowled the same amount of overs or even less than McGrath and have managed relatively more big hauls. Take Marshall, Ambrose, Akram or even Donald as examples. Or take Lillee: who bowls just a few overs more per test than McGrath, had someone else in his team taking wickets, and played 55 less tests but has only a few less 4fers/5fers than McGrath whilst Lillee has even more 10fers. This is a huge difference.

Also in this regard, compare Hadlee with Lillee. Very interesting stuff.

And Murali and Warne are nowhere near Ambrose as bowlers, to me.

Well, you have an unhealthy admiration for pacers so I won't get into that. . But Warne > Ambrose.

 

[Ikki]

I don't tend to get hurt at people getting fed-up with my ramblings, by-and-large those who do so and get vocal about it tend to be people I don't give a stuff about. And I certainly don't seek to court trouble, that's a fool's game.

TBH, you make the kind of statements that only one courting for attention (let's not say trouble ) would make. I am beginning to wonder if that really is your intention, to get attention.

 

[Sanz]

And Murali and Warne are nowhere near Ambrose as bowlers, to me.

Yeah Amby is clearly the better fast bowler of the 3.

 

[Richard]

TBH, you make the kind of statements that only one courting for attention (let's not say trouble ) would make. I am beginning to wonder if that really is your intention, to get attention.

Shows how little a clue about me you have then, frankly. Attention-seeking is a fool's game. And there are many better places to do it than online forums. If I was an attention-seeker I'd go around threatening to jump in front of trains and overdosing in public view.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You laugh at that of all comparisons? Hussain V Hayden, Knight V Gilchrist are ones you seriously contend but you laugh at that?

Knight V Gilchrist I must have missed that.

 

[Richard]

Evidently so, so a rehash. Something that showed how outrageous the notion of Knight > Gilchrist isn't.

 

[Ikki]

Evidently so, so a rehash. Something that showed how outrageous the notion of Knight > Gilchrist isn't.

If you're name is Richard that is...

The thread pretty much ended when someone mentioned that:

Gilchrist - 36 runs off 37 balls
Knight - 40 runs off 56 balls

Difference between them that Knight scores 4 more runs on average but needing 19 balls more to do so.

It also disregarded the fact that Knight was getting worse towards the end of his ODI career and that his record pales to Gilchrist's when it mattered - i.e. World Cups/Finals.

 

[Perm]

Still wish Fiery had made that a public poll. Extremely interesting to see who voted for Knight.

 

[Flem274*]

Love how we've managed to get Warne vs Murali AGAIN.

Tbh to Kazo or whoever it was on Lillee vs Hadlee I personally can't seperate those two and Marshall. For me they're first equal seam bowlers of all time.