Ambrose Vs Mcgrath?

[Himannv]

Like Ambrose more, but McGrath is certainly the better bowler. All due respect to other bowlers but in my mind he's the best Australia have ever produced.

 

[Riggins]

YouTube - Curtley Ambrose devastating spell of 7 for 1 run v Australia devastating..

thoughts on watching this video.
1. Loose early from JL
2. steve waugh is trash
3. david boon is awesome
4. Serious bowler!
5, i love damien martyn


Also, if anyone actually clicked on the poll and didn't know curtly was west indian they are in the wrong place.

 

[slowfinger]

I wonder why some other bowlers who stopped batsmen from scoring runs too haven't got even one-tenth of the wickets that McGrath got...

true dat.

 

[Cevno]

Very tough to split these two.

Would be lovely to sit on the fence on this one, but if being pushed would take Ambrose by the ever so slightest of margins.

Ambrose had something extra in pace and bounce in early part of his career. And adapted beautifully when that pace began to fall with seam movement.Loved watching him ball.

But bear in mind the margin is so slight that tomorrow if asked to pick i might go for Mcgrath.

 

[Matt79]

Ambrose for me, just. Many similarities between the two, but Ambrose, IMO, had that extra yard of pace sometimes, and that extra degree of steeple in the bounce.

 

[morgieb]

Ambrose was more threatening, McGrath was slightly more effective though.

 

[archie mac]

As the thought of watching McGrath is making me sleepy on chose CA

 

[Uppercut]

As the thought of watching McGrath is making me sleepy on chose CA

Well I suppose his winning all of the time does get rather boring for spectators, but it's hard to hold it against the guy.

 

[archie mac]

Well I suppose his winning all of the time does get rather boring for spectators, but it's hard to hold it against the guy.

It did not make him any more exciting

 

[vcs]

As much as I loved Ambrose, I think this poll is a bit closer than it should be.

 

[tooextracool]

As much as I loved Ambrose, I think this poll is a bit closer than it should be.

Yeah I agree. Truth be told, people are letting their biases get the better off them. I was a huge fan of Ambrose and used to love watching him bowl (and used to hate watching McGrath), but for me there is not much doubt here. Ambrose is great in his own right, but he does not compare to McGrath who is arguably the best ever. Ambrose's SR is fairly ordinary given the era in which he played even when you compare it to his peers.

 

[Matt79]

As much as I loved Ambrose, I think this poll is a bit closer than it should be.

Don't see why. It's an extremely close call, with Ambrose the slightly better bowler in my, and many other's opinion.

 

[Burgey]

It did not make him any more exciting

Bet he wasn't too boring to face though. Most every ball was an examination of some sort.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Don't understand how anyone can watch McGrath and say he was boring. Always a chance of something happening, moved it around, took wickets.

Him and Warney were amongst the few guys I'd actually watch for a few hours on TV as there always seemed to be something going on.

 

[Ikki]

If you liked seeing ball whistle past bat, then McGrath certainly wasn't boring.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He certainly beat the bat. Personally, I never would have described a McGrath delivery as "whistling" past the bat.

Funnily enough, that's probably the exact description I'd use of Ambrose; thinking of Mark Taylor shuffling and then throwing his head back as the ball sails through past his nose, just missing his gloves.

 

[Ikki]

Well, I didn't mean to imply he is fast but that he would regularly beat the bat by such a small margin. Let's call it a half whistle.

 

[zaremba]

Don't understand how anyone can watch McGrath and say he was boring. Always a chance of something happening, moved it around, took wickets.

Yep, this.

Plenty of unpleasant adjectives I could summon up about McGrath (the player anyway; apparently a charming guy off the pitch) but boring isn't really among them.

As for the poll, well it's pretty much impossible to split these two. I think of Ambrose as more of an archetypal "quick" than McGrath, who I think of as more of a seamer, but their methods and abilities were in fact amazingly similar. Both were incredibly accurate, both got a lot of lift, both could move it off the seam. They bowled at a similar good pace, but although McGrath was certainly quick enough, Ambrose seemed to be able on his day to bowl a bit quicker. Ambrose was maybe more of a "streak" bowler in that he would suddenly run through a batting line-up, whereas McGrath seemed to take wickets more consistently (Lord's 05 notwithstanding). Who's better? I don't know.

 

[archie mac]

Don't understand how anyone can watch McGrath and say he was boring. Always a chance of something happening, moved it around, took wickets.

Him and Warney were amongst the few guys I'd actually watch for a few hours on TV as there always seemed to be something going on.

If you seen him bowl once, then you had seen the whole show, boring is the word I had for him. Still a great bowler and I agree facing him would have been a great test

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yep, this.

Plenty of unpleasant adjectives I could summon up about McGrath (the player anyway; apparently a charming guy off the pitch) but boring isn't really among them.

As for the poll, well it's pretty much impossible to split these two. I think of Ambrose as more of an archetypal "quick" than McGrath, who I think of as more of a seamer, but their methods and abilities were in fact amazingly similar. Both were incredibly accurate, both got a lot of lift, both could move it off the seam. They bowled at a similar good pace, but although McGrath was certainly quick enough, Ambrose seemed to be able on his day to bowl a bit quicker. Ambrose was maybe more of a "streak" bowler in that he would suddenly run through a batting line-up, whereas McGrath seemed to take wickets more consistently (Lord's 05 notwithstanding). Who's better? I don't know.

A wonderful spell. His delieveries to the 3 rights handers - Vaughan, Bell and Flintoff - were amazing.

Back of a length, down the slope but staying low and moving back in, almost around the batsman. Only Bell had the technique to get a token inside edge onto it. The other two looked like they had their pockets picked by a ghost.