Ambrose or Mcgrath?

[LongHopCassidy]

Tbh I'm completely nonplussed as to why the likes of Lillee and Wasim never feature in these debates.

It's almost as if an average above 23 is an automatic disqualifier, which is tremendously unfair considering the testament from their contemporaries (and they have more than most) about how good they were.

Does this mean the likes of Keith Miller and Alan Davidson are better than Lillee and Wasim? No, and I challenge anyone to argue the contrary.

Ftr my ATG attack would be:

Sobers
Marshall
Wasim
Warne
Lillee
Murali

It would mean Sobers at 5 and Gilly at 6, but **** it.

 

[Red]

I don't know anymore. There are so many bowlers I love.

I always Lillee in my team, for a million reasons that have nothing to do with stats in a particular country.

I want Hadlee in my team because he was so clever, and he was a decent bat too.

I want Marshall in my team because he was complete as a bowler, and mastered most conditions.

I want McGrath because I love his nagging accuracy and his ability to target opposition players and deliver.

I want Wasim because he is a beast of a bowler and had incredible control. Great to watch batting too.

I want Waqar because in his prime there was no one better.

I want Garner and Ambrose because of their incredible skill and because tall black guys are scary.

I want Lindwall and Davo and Trueman because it's easy to forget that there was great cricket played more than 40 years ago.

I want Spofforth and CTB Turner and Barnes because I'm fascinated with history, and I believe their skills must have been something.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I don't know anymore. There are so many bowlers I love.

I always Lillee in my team, for a million reasons that have nothing to do with stats in a particular country.

I want Hadlee in my team because he was so clever, and he was a decent bat too.

I want Marshall in my team because he was complete as a bowler, and mastered most conditions.

I want McGrath because I love his nagging accuracy and his ability to target opposition players and deliver.

I want Wasim because he is a beast of a bowler and had incredible control. Great to watch batting too.

I want Waqar because in his prime there was no one better.

I want Garner and Ambrose because of their incredible skill and because tall black guys are scary.

I want Lindwall and Davo and Trueman because it's easy to forget that there was great cricket played more than 40 years ago.

I want Spofforth and CTB Turner and Barnes because I'm fascinated with history, and I believe their skills must have been something.

Well said

 

[kyear2]

Well said

Yup.

 

[kyear2]

Kyear - how do you say Hadlee relied on pitch assistance? His bowling average and strike rate in subcontinent are better than Marshall and McGrath. See this story: Stats analysis: Richard Hadlee | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo. You would argue that it is because of the exceptional 12.29 average in SL, but he also averages about the same as his overall average in India. Only in Pakistan he has a poor average but that's because he played only one series there in 1976, which was before 1978 at which time he developed into a champion bowler. Even against India, he played one series in 1976 where he averages 35 or so. In the other series he played in India in 80's, he averaged a ridiculous 14.xx. So how exactly do you make your argument?

It's interesting that you gloss over Lillee's record in Pakistan. If the silly small sample size of Lillee's salvages him, then take out Hadlee's 3 matches in Pakistan too which is the only dark spot in his record.

It is actually quite surprising that Hadlee doesn't get the same amount of praise from "experts" as Lillee and Marshall do. Hadlee's record is just extra ordinary for following reasons:

• Stats. Just great, anyway you look at it. Did it against everyone and all over the world.
• Tremendous impact that he had on NZ cricket. Last time when I looked at series by series performances, IIRC Hadlee was the leading wicket taker on either side in 8 out of the 9 NZ test series victories against strong oppositions (excluding SL). And this includes at least one series against each of the 5 main oppositions.
• Longevity. He played for 17 years, and till he was 39. He was mighty effective till the very end. In this respect, one can argue that he outdid Marshall comfortably. Marshall played for 13 years, and only till he was 33.

With a resume like this, I don't see how he can be put in anything but the top bracket. For mine, the second best fast bowler after Marshall (don't know what Barnes classifies as so keeping him out) just ahead of Ambrose and McGrath.

Hadlee was indeed a magnificent bowler as your post brilliantly illustrates. I am not trying to convince anyone that McGrath is better than Hadlee, I am not saying that McGrath has to make an AT XI team, all I was saying is that if McGrath for you is not only the better bowler of the two, but the best fast bowler of them all, and he will be batting at No. 11 in a very deep batting line up he should be in your XI. You are selecting what you believe to be the best of the best with out including the best in that discipline. That's all I was trying to articulate.

Regarding the McGrath v Hadlee debate, I go back to my personal Lara v Tendulkar debate, for me Lara was the better batsman, a creative genius, but Tendulkar (technically brilliant) had the better career because he played at a similar level, but for so much more matches and because of his total volume of work he like McGrath gets the nod for me.

With regards to Warne v Muralitharan, it may seem hypocritical that Warne is included despite similar bowling skills to Murali and picked over him for his overall cricketing ability while McGrath still gets in over Hadlee. The difference is that a bowling compromise already exists where Imran makes it over Lillee and Ambrose, bowlers I rate higher, because of his batting (and again Imran isn't that far behind, but he isn't my third rated fast bowler) and the team has to be seen as a whole and if Murali makes it over Warne then I need to find a 3rd slip fielder and Tendulkar then looses out to Lara (or Hammond or Chappell) and there is a domino effect and after all I rate Warne and Murali just about equal as bowlers overall and outside of the subcontinent Warne gets the nod, and not that overly happy with Viv in the cordon as it is as he was better in the covers. So yes Warne makes it over Murali while McGrath makes it over Hadlee and that for me gives the team the better balance over all.

And yes, I spend too much time thinking about this stuff.

 

[smash84]

I don't know anymore. There are so many bowlers I love.

I always Lillee in my team, for a million reasons that have nothing to do with stats in a particular country.

I want Hadlee in my team because he was so clever, and he was a decent bat too.

I want Marshall in my team because he was complete as a bowler, and mastered most conditions.

I want McGrath because I love his nagging accuracy and his ability to target opposition players and deliver.

I want Wasim because he is a beast of a bowler and had incredible control. Great to watch batting too.

I want Waqar because in his prime there was no one better.

I want Garner and Ambrose because of their incredible skill and because tall black guys are scary.

I want Lindwall and Davo and Trueman because it's easy to forget that there was great cricket played more than 40 years ago.

I want Spofforth and CTB Turner and Barnes because I'm fascinated with history, and I believe their skills must have been something.

This sounds so racist

 

[Red]

Well, maybe. But who is scarier. Joel Garner or Damien Fleming?

 

[bagapath]

imran-hadlee-marshall-warne

and

lillee-ambrose-murali-mcgrath

are both equally potent attacks. in fact, you form two bowling attacks mixing the 6 pace bowlers and two spinners into any combo, they will be of roughly equal quality. by choosing imran over mcgrath, for example, you don't lose any bowling quality i can assure you.

when all things are equal - and in this crowd they are, absolutely - using their batting skills to split hairs is very legitimate.

 

[watson]

imran-hadlee-marshall-warne

and

lillee-ambrose-murali-mcgrath

are both equally potent attacks. in fact, you form two bowling attacks mixing the 6 pace bowlers and two spinners into any combo, they will be of roughly equal quality. by choosing imran over mcgrath, for example, you don't lose any bowling quality i can assure you.

when all things are equal - and in this crowd they are, absolutely - using their batting skills to split hairs is very legitimate.

I don't think that anyone has argued for a weak last four batsman. Generally, most people include at least 2 reasonable batsman, so your example with Lillee at No.8 is unrepresentative.

Where it does get all murky is when the No.8 is not occupied by a proper bowling allrounder like Imran or Hadlee.

And so, Marshall-Warne-Lillee-Barnes is a powerful bowling attack, and is a reasonable tail at the same time, but still not according to everyones taste because the principle of "must have a bowling allrounder" has been sacrificed for the sake of selecting the preferred attack.

 

[bagapath]

And so, Marshall-Warne-Lillee-Barnes is a powerful bowling attack, and is a reasonable tail at the same time, but still not according to everyones taste because the principle of "must have a bowling allrounder" has been sacrificed for the sake of selecting the preferred attack.

This is exactly my all time dream xi's attack. So I won't obviously argue against that combo. For me, as long as the last four are not as pathetic with the bat as an ATG bowling unit of Donald, Walsh, McGrath and Chandra will be, the bowlers need not be bowling all rounders at all. But the lower order batting skills cannot be close to zilch. Along with one top order batsman the tail should be capable of adding 100 runs after the fall of the sixth wicket. To achieve this end, 2 bowlers with a 15+ batting avg and 2 sub 10 avg batters are okay; as long as all four are absolutely fab bowlers - which in my books is a sub 24 bowling avg, sub 54 SR, Econ rate under 3 and 4+ WPM for fast bowlers and a few more deliveries and runs cushion for spinners

 

[ankitj]

Hadlee was indeed a magnificent bowler as your post brilliantly illustrates. I am not trying to convince anyone that McGrath is better than Hadlee, I am not saying that McGrath has to make an AT XI team, all I was saying is that if McGrath for you is not only the better bowler of the two, but the best fast bowler of them all, and he will be batting at No. 11 in a very deep batting line up he should be in your XI. You are selecting what you believe to be the best of the best with out including the best in that discipline. That's all I was trying to articulate.

Regarding the McGrath v Hadlee debate, I go back to my personal Lara v Tendulkar debate, for me Lara was the better batsman, a creative genius, but Tendulkar (technically brilliant) had the better career because he played at a similar level, but for so much more matches and because of his total volume of work he like McGrath gets the nod for me.

With regards to Warne v Muralitharan, it may seem hypocritical that Warne is included despite similar bowling skills to Murali and picked over him for his overall cricketing ability while McGrath still gets in over Hadlee. The difference is that a bowling compromise already exists where Imran makes it over Lillee and Ambrose, bowlers I rate higher, because of his batting (and again Imran isn't that far behind, but he isn't my third rated fast bowler) and the team has to be seen as a whole and if Murali makes it over Warne then I need to find a 3rd slip fielder and Tendulkar then looses out to Lara (or Hammond or Chappell) and there is a domino effect and after all I rate Warne and Murali just about equal as bowlers overall and outside of the subcontinent Warne gets the nod, and not that overly happy with Viv in the cordon as it is as he was better in the covers. So yes Warne makes it over Murali while McGrath makes it over Hadlee and that for me gives the team the better balance over all.

And yes, I spend too much time thinking about this stuff.

I am not concerned about who you pick in your all time XI But you don't put Hadlee in the top tier of fast bolwers (which is also OK) and say that very often with justification that I strongly disagree with. Hence that post

 

[cricmahanty]

On a completely different note, I wonder why Ambrose's partner-in-crime Courtney Walsh doesn't get mentioned one bit in discussions such as this. That he averaged only slightly below 25 as against the low 20s of some of the names that appear frequently in this thread is probably one reason but what people tend to overlook is the fact that he was an absolute pace bowling warhorse, a well-oiled machine that hardly ever showed any signs of grease. And he could bowl as well on the most unresponsive of pitches too. The longevity is also what goes for him. The highest wicket-taker in test cricket at a time.

 

[kyear2]

On a completely different note, I wonder why Ambrose's partner-in-crime Courtney Walsh doesn't get mentioned one bit in discussions such as this. That he averaged only slightly below 25 as against the low 20s of some of the names that appear frequently in this thread is probably one reason but what people tend to overlook is the fact that he was an absolute pace bowling warhorse, a well-oiled machine that hardly ever showed any signs of grease. And he could bowl as well on the most unresponsive of pitches too. The longevity is also what goes for him. The highest wicket-taker in test cricket at a time.

Because he simply just wasn't as good a bowler as the others named. It just wan't his average, it was his WPM, his S/R and in 132 matches he had as many 5 wicket halls as Ambrose did in 98 and Marshall did in 81, and Maco had much more competition for wickets than either. For me it's more about impact that just longevity.

 

[cricmahanty]

Because he simply just wasn't as good a bowler as the others named. It just wan't his average, it was his WPM, his S/R and in 132 matches he had as many 5 wicket halls as Ambrose did in 98 and Marshall did in 81, and Maco had much more competition for wickets than either. For me it's more about impact that just longevity.

He probably wasn't Ambrose-good or Marshall-good as you mention but with such a huge pile of wickets, he deserves a mention when we're discussing all-time great fast bowlers. As his Cricinfo profile rightly puts it, he bowled faster for longer than any man in history. And longevity does matter, atleast when it's about fast bowlers who are generally not known to have prolonged international careers due to the physical rigours involved.

Sometimes, it isn't just about the statistics alone after-all.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

On a completely different note, I wonder why Ambrose's partner-in-crime Courtney Walsh doesn't get mentioned one bit in discussions such as this. That he averaged only slightly below 25 as against the low 20s of some of the names that appear frequently in this thread is probably one reason but what people tend to overlook is the fact that he was an absolute pace bowling warhorse, a well-oiled machine that hardly ever showed any signs of grease. And he could bowl as well on the most unresponsive of pitches too. The longevity is also what goes for him. The highest wicket-taker in test cricket at a time.

For two bowlers of the same average, the guy who does a good job on a regular basis will almost always tend to get less attention than the one who completely wrecks a team every once in a while and does merely decent the rest of the time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

For two bowlers of the same average, the guy who does a good job on a regular basis will almost always tend to get less attention than the one who completely wrecks a team every once in a while and does merely decent the rest of the time.

While what you've said is true, it doesn't accurately describe Walsh and Ambrose. Walsh was merely a decent to good bowler for the first phase of his career when he bowled with Marshall and Ambrose, became a superb bowler as he got older and by the time he retired he was consistently magnificent. Ambrose was brilliant throughout his career. I rate Walsh highly because of his longevity and I do agree that he doesn't quite get his due but he was a significant step below Ambrose, McGrath level imo. And he chucked it frequently too but we can let that slide considering his age

 

[Flem274*]

I put Courtney Walsh in the same bracket as the likes of Jason Gillespie: ****ing awesome and if offered one for my team I'd take them every time, but they're not quite on the same level as Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Ambrose, Imran, Lillee, Trueman and friends.

 

[ankitj]

As his Cricinfo profile rightly puts it, he bowled faster for longer than any man in history.

Seems like Hadlee played for about the same duration.

 

[GotSpin]

Walsh was awesome. Just kept bowling and bowling.

 

[watson]

In assessing a bowlers greatness the parameter of Longevity is important. However, I reckon the parameter of 'Peak Performance' is more important, and I look at that first when trying to rank bowlers.