The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s

[aussie]

Not quite true, Ambrose against India in 1997 was certainly not off-peak in terms of his results against other sides around the same time; Ambrose basically had one non-stop "peak" (for me plateau is the more appropriate term) from 1990 to 2000, without any sustained downtime. And the overwhelming impression I've got from that series is that India simply blocked him out without great difficulty - try as he might he was unable to break through the quality of the Indian batting. Yet Franklyn Rose could.

That was Ambrose's only series against India, and had he had more - as Donald did - then it's a fair assumption that he might have done a decimation job, especially if allowed some proper seaming, bouncy decks that he so thrived on. But sadly, he didn't.

Overall he was still at his peak yea. But I would saw Ambrose after AUS 96/97, from IND 97 to ENG 2000 lost that imtimidatory factor & pace he had from previous years slightly. He was just was a super metronome thats teams couldn't get away in the last few years of his test career, while Walsh began to step up & took over the wicket-taking role.

 

[Slifer]

You could argue that the Australian batting unit of 1993-1993/94 (Taylor, Slater, Boon, M Waugh, Border, S Waugh, Healy) was superior to anything India put out 1990-1999/2000, but by-and-large India had more quality and were a tougher prospect to bowl at, especially at home, than Australia.

Aside from that one year there was always at least one hole in the Australian batting, and while the same was generally true of India, the quality there (Sidhu, Dravid, Tendulkar, Azhar) was far superior to most that was available to Australia.

No Way. Dravid of the 90s was no where as good as he later be post 2000 otherwise u might as well add Ponting to the Oz middle order that Ambrose had to contend with. Simple fact is, Oz usually had a reliable opening pair (Boon, Slater, Taylor Elliot) followed by a middle oder far superior to India (espeically worldwide).

I would agree that India were a handful at home but bowlers like Pollock and Walsh didnt seem to have problem there so i dont see y a bowler like ambrose (of considerably greater quality) wouldnt aslo succeed there.

 

[Ikki]

I would agree that India were a handful at home but bowlers like Pollock and Walsh didnt seem to have problem there so i dont see y a bowler like ambrose (of considerably greater quality) wouldnt aslo succeed there.

Isn't this the kind of reasoning you've use against Lillee? Except Lillee has even less Tests played in the subcontinent.

ambrose's very poor record against india works against him when u compare him with mcgrath who was terrific against all opponents.

Except, McGrath wasn't.

 

[Sir Alex]

Completely disagree here Australia >> india batting wise.

In the 90s, I agree with MrIncredible. Indian batting was Sachin Tendulkar show basically. Dravid did not touch greatness till 2000s so did not Laxman. Ganguly never was a great test batsman. And India lacked any world class opener in that decade. In the first half of 90s, it was basically a team of mediocre batsmen like Srikanth, Shastri, Sidhu, Mongia, Manjrekar, etc. Tendulkar was growing to the role of Atlas, while the only other World class batsman in the side was Azharuddin who I think (deliberately or otherwise) underperformed.

However Australia had superb batsmen like Slater, Langer, Ponting (evolving), Taylor, etc and for me the third best batsman of the 90s, Steve Waugh (after Tendulkar and Lara). In the early 90s they were a bit weak, but then Donald was nor there also.

 

[Ikki]

Dravid averaged 50 in the 90s and Langer was hardly superb. I think Australia had better openers, but the middle-order of both teams was comparable from about the mid 90s onwards.

 

[Sir Alex]

Dravid averaged 50 in the 90s and Langer was hardly superb. I think Australia had better openers, but the middle-order of both teams was comparable from about the mid 90s onwards.

Ikki, I am putting in a comparison below:

Taylor & Slater comfortable were better than any Indian operners during that period
Langer was equal or better than Dravid then (averages are tricky due to lower sample sizes, Dravid was colossal flop in Australia the first decent pace attack he faced in favorable condirtions)
Tendulkar was better than any Australian batsman
Steve Waugh was better than Mohammad Azharuddin
Ganguly perhaps was on par with the then ponting, though I wish to think Ponting was actually better
India had a bunch of nomads who formed middle and lower order like Jadeja, Robin Singh, Kanitkar, etc who were hardly test class.

 

[subshakerz]

Ikki, I am putting in a comparison below:

Taylor & Slater comfortable were better than any Indian operners during that period
Langer was equal or better than Dravid then (averages are tricky due to lower sample sizes, Dravid was colossal flop in Australia the first decent pace attack he faced in favorable condirtions)
Tendulkar was better than any Australian batsman
Steve Waugh was better than Mohammad Azharuddin
Ganguly perhaps was on par with the then ponting, though I wish to think Ponting was actually better
India had a bunch of nomads who formed middle and lower order like Jadeja, Robin Singh, Kanitkar, etc who were hardly test class.

I remember watching cricket in the 90s and I never remotely got the impression that the Indian batting lineup was as good as the Aussies. The Indian lineup of the 90s were paper tigers and aside from their dependence on Tendulkar, they had a penchant for spectacular collapses away from home that you would rarely if ever see from Australia. Just look how they lost in South Africa in 96, West Indies in 97 and Australia in 99, if Tendulkar didnt score their entire lineup usually folded or only scored when the match was already lost.

 

[Top_Cat]

I remember watching cricket in the 90s and I never remotely got the impression that the Indian batting lineup was as good as the Aussies. The Indian lineup of the 90s were paper tigers and aside from their dependence on Tendulkar, they had a penchant for spectacular collapses away from home that you would rarely if ever see from Australia. Just look how they lost in South Africa in 96, West Indies in 97 and Australia in 99, if Tendulkar didnt score their entire lineup usually folded or only scored when the match was already lost.

Agree completely. India on really hit their straps post 2000.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, I am putting in a comparison below:

Taylor & Slater comfortable were better than any Indian operners during that period
Langer was equal or better than Dravid then (averages are tricky due to lower sample sizes, Dravid was colossal flop in Australia the first decent pace attack he faced in favorable condirtions)
Tendulkar was better than any Australian batsman
Steve Waugh was better than Mohammad Azharuddin
Ganguly perhaps was on par with the then ponting, though I wish to think Ponting was actually better
India had a bunch of nomads who formed middle and lower order like Jadeja, Robin Singh, Kanitkar, etc who were hardly test class.

I think that's a fair assessment except that Langer was really no equal to Dravid. As far as averages go, Dravid averaged 50 and Langer 35-36.

 

[Uppercut]

Nah I personally disagree. Firstly there is often far less emotion with a McGrath vs Ambrose debate (generally).

Secondly, I think the records of Ambrose and McGrath, despite their diffferent techniques and bowling methods, is ridiculously similar.

Whilst Ambrose and McGrath's careers don't completely overlap either, I think there's a much better case for people arguing in favour of one over the other to run out of arguments pretty quickly. They cancel each other out so much in their overall bowling record.

What McGrath has over Ambrose is he did it when batting did become quite easier, and was amazing. But if he's better than Ambrose for that alone, he's probably better than every other fast bowler the world has seen.

Quite right too. When I say I'd have McGrath over Ambrose, you have to remember that the margins are SO fine. There's next to nothing to choose between them. Bearing that in mind, McGrath's considerable success when batsmen ruled the world becomes quite significant. And in actual fact, that could apply to McGrath vs. almost any other top-class bowler.

 

[Richard]

Agree completely. India on really hit their straps post 2000.

Post-2001/02 in fact, like so many others. However, it's very wrong to say Dravid was not an outstanding batsman from his very first Test to the very last one of 2001. He merely went from outstanding to even more outstanding where others (Kallis, Ponting, Chanderpaul, Lara etc.) went from good to prolific. Also I think some people are underestimating just how good Azharruddin and Sidhu were. The former was better than any Australian middle-order batsman bar Stephen Waugh and the latter was at worst not far behind Taylor and Slater (and definately better than Elliott) and at best as good as them.

 

[Jono]

Quite right too. When I say I'd have McGrath over Ambrose, you have to remember that the margins are SO fine. There's next to nothing to choose between them. Bearing that in mind, McGrath's considerable success when batsmen ruled the world becomes quite significant. And in actual fact, that could apply to McGrath vs. almost any other top-class bowler.

Yep, that was sort of my point. I feel if your reasons for McGrath over Ambrose is his record post 2000s, then its probably the same reason why you should feel McGrath was better than Marshall, Lillee, Holding etc.

 

[iamdavid]

Post-2001/02 in fact, like so many others. However, it's very wrong to say Dravid was not an outstanding batsman from his very first Test to the very last one of 2001. He merely went from outstanding to even more outstanding where others (Kallis, Ponting, Chanderpaul, Lara etc.) went from good to prolific. Also I think some people are underestimating just how good Azharruddin and Sidhu were. The former was better than any Australian middle-order batsman bar Stephen Waugh and the latter was at worst not far behind Taylor and Slater (and definately better than Elliott) and at best as good as them.

Hmm I think you're perhaps granting Sidhu more credit than is due there, I'm not disputing he was a fantastic player on home soil and he was excellent against slow bowling. His batting against Warne in 1998 was superlative. But as with alot of Indian players pre-2000, there is that disparity between his stats home and away, average of 53 in India and 33 overseas..With that in mind I'd rank him pretty comfortably below Slater/Taylor. Similar story with Azza btw...55 at home, 36 away.


On topic - Ambrose and Tendulkar for me. Honourable mentions to Lara, Waugh, Warne, Donald & Waqar.

 

[Top_Cat]

Post-2001/02 in fact, like so many others. However, it's very wrong to say Dravid was not an outstanding batsman from his very first Test to the very last one of 2001. He merely went from outstanding to even more outstanding where others (Kallis, Ponting, Chanderpaul, Lara etc.) went from good to prolific. Also I think some people are underestimating just how good Azharruddin and Sidhu were. The former was better than any Australian middle-order batsman bar Stephen Waugh and the latter was at worst not far behind Taylor and Slater (and definately better than Elliott) and at best as good as them.

Highly debatable. Massive disparity between home/away record (like many of the Indian players of the time) counts against him. And Sidhu as good as Slater/Taylor? You're kidding. Sidhu was terrible away from India against remotely decent opposition, unlike either of those two, and I say that as someone who loved watching him bat.

 

[Richard]

I can accept people saying that Sidhu was less than outstanding away from the subcontinent (he was certainly far from poor in Pakistan and Sri Lanka) but to suggest that he was terrible against any decent opposition is plain wrong IMO. He scored a double-century in West Indies in 1997, having scored a century in 1989, had a couple of good one-off Tests in New Zealand in 1989/90 and 1994/95 before a rank shocker aged 35 in 1998/99. Basically all Sidhu did wrong was a couple of very poor tours of England in 1990 (where in any case conditions could barely have been more bat-friendly if you took a Test from mid-2003) and Australia in 1991/92 - he never had the chance to play in South Africa and never had the chance to play properly in New Zealand. It's plain wrong in my book to suggest he was one of your classic no-hoper-outside-subcontinent types based on that flimsy evidence.

And if you're telling me there was a better Australian middle-order batsman than Azhar between 1989 and 1999/2000 aside from Stephen Waugh I'd like to know who he was. You could possibly make a case for Boon, but even despite Azhar's increasing vulnerability outside the subcontinent as his career went on (passed 50 4 times outside the subcon between 1991/92 and 1998/99, in 35 innings') I'd still probably prefer Azhar to Boon. I can't believe anyone would claim a case for Jones, Mark Waugh, Ponting, Langer or even (given views you've previously discussed with me) Border. And clearly certainly not for Blewett (who was in any case a manufactured opener), Lehmann, Bevan etc.

 

[MrIncredible]

Still the point is Oz of the 90s clearly better than India batting wise and certainly vs fast men. actually, looking at the records of many of the fastmen of the 90s Ambrose is one of the few who has an outstanding record in Oz

 

[Richard]

So you're seriously telling me that bowling against India in India was less of a challenge than bowling against Australia, in Australia or anywhere else?

 

[subshakerz]

So you're seriously telling me that bowling against India in India was less of a challenge than bowling against Australia, in Australia or anywhere else?

Bowling against India in India in the 90swould be roughly an equal challenge to bowling against Australia in Australia (given that the Aussies were about as good at exploiting home conditions and were better players of pace than the Indians). But overall, home and away, a fast bowler would rather face India than Australia in the 90s. India's strength at home was outweighed by their fragility away. Australia weren't fragile, home or away.

 

[Richard]

Any team is fragile to quality seam bowling. As a seam bowler, the ultimate challenge - in the 1990s and for a fair while before - was always playing in India, not in Australia. Many Indian batsmen were indeed certainly over-vulnerable to the ball that moves off the pitch or in the air bowled at pace, but the fact that such a thing is typically so difficult to get to happen in India means this is not relevant.

In Australia it was until recently typically much easier to make the ball behave thus. Since 2001/02 you've been as likely to get seam-friendly conditions in either country as you have to cut your hand on the side of the bed while asleep, but up to then Australia was a far, far more seamer-friendly place than India.

 

[MrIncredible]

So you're seriously telling me that bowling against India in India was less of a challenge than bowling against Australia, in Australia or anywhere else?

No Richard i was simply stating that in the 90s Oz batting lineup was superior to India's.

This is what u said:

"Wrong. The best batting side of their day was India. Ambrose struggled for effect against them;..."

Clearly worldwide Oz battin line ups were far more consistent which is y they were clearly the best battin side of the 90s. In fact, up until the retirement of S waugh (or thereabouts) Oz still had the best battin line up