Ambrose Vs Mcgrath?

[subshakerz]

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.
QUOTE]

To suggest McGrath is "quite behind" Warne is a laughable statement really.

Percentage of 4fers/5fers is a pretty poor and arbitrary criteria to prove that Warne is better than McGrath, especially since Warne bowls more overs per match than McGrath which you conveniently forgot to mention. What you didnt mention is that McGrath has a better average, strikerate, economy, record against all teams, record in all countries and record against the best batsmen than Warne does. The fact is, McGrath OWNS Warne in almost all major statistical criteria, Warne's overall record is not even that terribly impressive when compared to most world class pace bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

To suggest McGrath is "quite behind" Warne is a laughable statement really.

Percentage of 4fers/5fers is a pretty poor and arbitrary criteria to prove that Warne is better than McGrath, especially since Warne bowls more overs per match than McGrath which you conveniently forgot to mention. What you didnt mention is that McGrath has a better average, strikerate, economy, record against all teams, record in all countries and record against the best batsmen than Warne does. The fact is, McGrath OWNS Warne in almost all major statistical criteria, Warne's overall record is not even that terribly impressive when compared to most world class pace bowlers.

We've gone through this before so I won't get into the same argument for the sake of not derailing the thread. There are proper reasons why Warne would average more or strike slower. The fact is they're different bowlers who are employed to do different things at different times.

But there is no reason for McGrath to have such a poor ratio in regards to 4fers/5fers/10fers. This is undeniable; bowling a few less overs per inning is not the reason why McGrath has that many less big hauls. For the large part, it even transcends teams or pitch conditions. Allan Donald, for example bowls, even less than McGrath per test but kills McGrath in big hauls. Do this comparison with every front-line bowler of this era and past and McGrath struggles in this category. If McGrath has a weakness, it is this.

Here is a little analysis:

TBH, pretty incredible from Lillee - a 10 wicket match every 10 matches.

 

[Smudge]

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.

Nice to see that week away appeared to do you the world of good.

 

[bagapath]

wow! no wonder lillee and warne make it to so many all time XIs easily. if you have such bowlers who can take 4 wickets and 5fers so frequently no captain would look for other options ahead of them. these numbers prove their greatness even in such exclusive company.

 

[Richard]

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.

The thread ended at a time when I'd stopped posting in it, though why that was I can't remember. I would contend that both those statements are irrelevancies.

 

[funnygirl]

Nice to see that week away appeared to do you the world of good.

Now i got why he was banned .

 

[JBH001]

Dont think I have voted in this thread yet. McGrath it is.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

McGrath couldn't take wickets in a bunch? You're having a laugh, no?

 

[Ikki]

McGrath couldn't take wickets in a bunch? You're having a laugh, no?

I didn't say he can't, well I didn't mean to imply to. He just does it less often than some of his contemporary and past greats. This kind of record is very important because it's not about, for example, performance where one guy does better in one country or one opposition, but this is an overall measure to their wicket-taking ability. The excel worksheet I posted above doesn't seem to show and it is on my computer which is having problems. Once that is resolved I will post it again and show the difference I am talking about. Have you read the rest of the thread or was that the only post? Because I did show examples in my posts after.

 

[Top_Cat]

I didn't say he can't, well I didn't mean to imply to. He just does it less often than some of his contemporary and past greats. This kind of record is very important because it not about, for example, performance where one guy does better in one country or one opposition, but this is an overall measure to their wicket-taking ability.

The problem with using an overall measure in this way, though, is that it does ignore all of the many facets of any given wicket such as the type of pitch, position in the batting order, etc. For this to be a representative measure of wicket-taking, all wickets would have to be 'equal' (all batsmen at the same standard, all pitches the same, etc.). Grouping those variables under the one heading ignores too many very important factors to valid when comparing the overall records.

 

[Ikki]

The problem with using an overall measure in this way, though, is that it does ignore all of the many facets of any given wicket such as the type of pitch, position in the batting order, etc. For this to be a representative measure of wicket-taking, all wickets would have to be 'equal' (all batsmen at the same standard, all pitches the same, etc.). Grouping those variables under the one heading ignores too many very important factors to valid when comparing the overall records.

Well, I agree. I don't think it should be used as an overall measure, really. It has flaws, but it's certainly encapsulating of a few more factors than your usual measure does. For one, McGrath does great pretty much everywhere. So with that in mind, it does say something about him here, really, since he didn't do very well in one place and shocking in another for it to be distorted.

Let me clarify . It is an overall measure, like for example career average, but it should never be the main criterion, like career average, because it can be distorted. But for most of the players mentioned, they generally had a very good record everywhere (Lillee, McGrath, Wasim, Marshall, Warne, etc) and it is still telling when you look at it overall.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, I agree. I don't think it should be used as an overall measure, really. It has flaws, but it's certainly encapsulating of a few more factors than your usual measure does. For one, McGrath does great pretty much everywhere. So with that in mind, it does say something about him here, really, since he didn't do very well in one place and shocking in another for it to be distorted.

Let me clarify . It is an overall measure, like for example career average, but it should never be the main criterion, like career average, because it can be distorted. But for most of the players mentioned, they generally had a very good record everywhere (Lillee, McGrath, Wasim, Marshall, Warne, etc) and it is still telling when you look at it overall.

Even by your own chart, McGrath matches up decently against the rest of the fast bowlers in terms of percentage of 4 wicket/5 wicket hauls. Lillee and Warne do significantly better, yes, but what a coincidence that Lillee bowls 4 overs more a match than McGrath and Warne nearly 7 overs. Surely, the more you bowl the more likely you are to get more wickets in bunches?

 

[susan.sexy.cric]

Of course amrose who else

 

[Ikki]

Even by your own chart, McGrath matches up decently against the rest of the fast bowlers in terms of percentage of 4 wicket/5 wicket hauls. Lillee and Warne do significantly better, yes, but what a coincidence that Lillee bowls 4 overs more a match than McGrath and Warne nearly 7 overs. Surely, the more you bowl the more likely you are to get more wickets in bunches?

Are you kidding? The only person he matches up well with is Ambrose.

And you keep missing the point: even when Lillee and Warne bowl more, the difference is not as much to imply THAT much difference in the number of 4w/5w/10w hauls. So if bowling more was giving that much of an advantage then McGrath's figures look even worse because he bowled more than all those bowlers listed except for Warne and Lillee...and still he has worse stats, it's pretty hard to deny. McGrath is a great bowler - all-time great, in fact - but with respect to the greats, he is behind in getting bigger hauls.

Put whatever weight you want on it, there are many things that McGrath is ahead in. I gave my reasoning and I put quite a bit on this telling stat. I was questioned so I gave a reply and backed it with some pretty simple stats.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

McGrath>Ambrose>Warne.

 

[subshakerz]

Are you kidding? The only person he matches up well with is Ambrose.
QUOTE]

Actually, if you remove performances against minnows Zimbabwe and Bangladesh from the equation, McGrath stands up pretty favourably against contemporaries Waqar, Wasim, Donald and Ambrose. So this perceived weakness of McGrath's actually doesn't exist.

 

[funnygirl]

Of course amrose who else

what kind of a rose is that? ....BTW kidding.

 

[funnygirl]

Are you kidding? The only person he matches up well with is Ambrose.
QUOTE]

Actually, if you remove performances against minnows Zimbabwe and Bangladesh from the equation, McGrath stands up pretty favourably against contemporaries Waqar, Wasim, Donald and Ambrose. So this perceived weakness of McGrath's actually doesn't exist.

Mcgrath didn't play against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.?

 

[Ikki]

Actually, if you remove performances against minnows Zimbabwe and Bangladesh from the equation, McGrath stands up pretty favourably against contemporaries Waqar, Wasim, Donald and Ambrose. So this perceived weakness of McGrath's actually doesn't exist.

Only McGrath himself, Waqar and Wasim played against Bangladesh. Donald and Ambrose played Zimbabwe about 2-3 times which is the same amount of games McGrath played against both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. So he's even with them as it stands. And of course, all the other bowlers I mentioned didn't play the two and Warne played them as much as McGrath.

So it's only Waqar and Wasim who played Zimbabwe enough times where it makes a difference, but I'll redo the analysis excluding those games and compare to McGrath. But tell me, how should I do it? For you see McGrath did play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in total 3 times without registering even a 4 wicket haul. If I remove them I am improving his figures giving him an advantage he doesn't deserve. Whereas with Akram and Younis, they played about 7-8 more tests, but they were more successful. Yes, they did play against minnows, but just more against minnows that McGrath couldn't take.

And even if that analysis means McGrath was better than he looked originally against Akram (because Waqar is much more in front for it to even matter) it still puts him low down the list even against the likes of Botham, Imran and Roberts. It's just not going to change, McGrath is quite behind in this facet. Remembering that most of these guys also bowl less per test than McGrath.

 

[silentstriker]

4/29 in the IPL just now. First bowler to take four wickets. He was also the first to send down a maiden.

And he is a 38 year old fast bowler. That is all.