Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram vs Curtly Ambrose

[vcs]

If there is one bowler I could choose for defending a small-ish 4th innings target on a pitch with variable bounce, it would probably be Ambrose.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If there is one bowler I could choose for defending a small-ish 4th innings target on a pitch with variable bounce, it would probably be Ambrose.

with Fatty as the spinner.

 

[Bolo]

If there is one bowler I could choose for defending a small-ish 4th innings target on a pitch with variable bounce, it would probably be Ambrose.

Doesn't taking this argument to its extreme lead to the conclusion that Ambrose was more reliant on conditions if he is of similar quality on the whole? Do you mean he was of similar quality in unfavorable conditions, but better under these circumstances?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Doesn't taking this argument to its extreme lead to the conclusion that Ambrose was more reliant on conditions if he is of similar quality on the whole? Do you mean he was of similar quality in unfavorable conditions, but better under these circumstances?

Just that in addition to his other great strengths, Ambrose was the undisputed greatest in that particular set of circumstances.

 

[Bolo]

Just that in addition to his other great strengths, Ambrose was the undisputed greatest in that particular set of circumstances.

Bit of both maybe? I feel like he was a bit weak at manufacturing wickets in conditions that didn't suit (considering how magnificent he was as a bowler, not in relation to weak or even excellent bowlers).

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Bit of both maybe? I feel like he was a bit weak at manufacturing wickets in conditions that didn't suit (considering how magnificent he was as a bowler, not in relation to weak or even excellent bowlers).

Well Ambrose and McGrath fall short on magic balls. Wasim takes the lead here hands down. But Jimmy Anderson has bowled many and many, and he is not ATG contender because of the runs he gives up in between.

How important is bowling magic balls as against not leaking runs?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it needs to be weighted against the cost because manufacturing typically comes at a cost of runs. And we don't like our bowlers giving away runs without a payoff.

But I admit NZ needs Wagner in order to win more games because when there's no seam or orthodox swing - he makes things happen.

So I pose whether this is the first bowlers role - or the second if not third?

I have no issues with Ambrose not looking to manufacture myself. I appreciate Wasim's ability to manufacture also. But Wasim was not Imran or Waqar, he was typically the #2 bowler for most his career, believe it or not. I've already said his into the wind bowling, his uphill bowling (and his batting) earns favours from me that his overall bowling does not.

 

[trundler]

If only talking Tests, 88-96, Wasim is ahead of pretty much any bowler

Overall, Steyn > Ambrose > Wasim as Wasim destroyed himself with 356 ODIs and went on a decline as a Test bowler since 96.

Akram had a legendary peak and all but all great bowlers have awesome runs. Imran had a run of 15 tests where he took over 100 wickets averaging a measly 17 (just an example, albeit over a shorter period). If Akram had been so remarkable then one would expect he would have been rated #1 between that time frame but he wasn't. I'd say both Ambrose and Steyn peaked higher than him and were also better over the course of their career.

 

[Bolo]

It's not just magic balls that get wickets in unhelpful conditions. Movement, pace, surprise...

Batsmen aren't perfect. Sometimes you only need to do a bit to get them.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Akram had a legendary peak and all but all great bowlers have awesome runs. Imran had a run of 15 tests where he took over 100 wickets averaging a measly 17 (just an example, albeit over a shorter period). If Akram had been so remarkable then one would expect he would have been rated #1 between that time frame but he wasn't. I'd say both Ambrose and Steyn peaked higher than him and were also better over the course of their career.

But Akram was second fiddle to Imran and Waqar. He bowled uphill and into the wind. To be honest, he should be compared to Courtney Walsh or Ntini/Morkel, not Curtley Ambrose or Dale Steyn.

 

[trundler]

If there is one bowler I could choose for defending a small-ish 4th innings target on a pitch with variable bounce, it would probably be Ambrose.

Ambrose and Walsh have a remarkable record of defending sub-150 totals against major teams. Cant remember the exact stats but it was better than other duos, including Wasim-Waqar.

 

[Black_Warrior]

But u could pretty much single out any purple patch for any bowler. ...

Correct, hence the second line of my post

 

[trundler]

I wouldn't say he played the supporting role. Imran didn't bowl much due to injuries and focused on his batting late in his career (1989 afaik). He just happened to play alongside great bowlers. His role was to still bamboozle and get wickets, not just create pressure and aid the strike bowler. His strike rate being identical to Ambrose's suggests that.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Akram had a legendary peak and all but all great bowlers have awesome runs. Imran had a run of 15 tests where he took over 100 wickets averaging a measly 17 (just an example, albeit over a shorter period). If Akram had been so remarkable then one would expect he would have been rated #1 between that time frame but he wasn't. I'd say both Ambrose and Steyn peaked higher than him and were also better over the course of their career.

You do realize that rankings are based on a host of different factors right? Pakistan don't play Tests as consistently and regularly as England or Australia and hence their players never make it to the top of the rankings.

 

[trundler]

You do realize that rankings are based on a host of different factors right? Pakistan don't play Tests as consistently and regularly as England or Australia and hence their players never make it to the top of the rankings.

But Waqar did between 1990-94. Imran was rated #1 too in the early 80s.

I'm not saying the ranking argument is definitive. I'm just saying that suggesting that Akram 88-95 was better than any other bowler's peak is unrealistic.

 

[Bolo]

But Waqar did between 1990-94. Imran was rated #1 too in the early 80s.

I'm not saying the ranking argument is definitive. I'm just saying that suggesting that Akram 88-95 was better than any other bowler's peak.

I think Waqars run in that time period suggests Wasim wasn't even the best bowler in his own team in the given period, leave alone it being a unique run.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Well Ambrose and McGrath fall short on magic balls. Wasim takes the lead here hands down. But Jimmy Anderson has bowled many and many, and he is not ATG contender because of the runs he gives up in between.

How important is bowling magic balls as against not leaking runs?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it needs to be weighted against the cost because manufacturing typically comes at a cost of runs. And we don't like our bowlers giving away runs without a payoff.

I think McGrath bowled plenty of magic balls too. Anderson's average is high not because he leaks runs. He is actually very economical. Australia barely scored off him in the Ashes last year. The reason he pegged his length back is to become more economical. The reason Anderson averages so high is because he doesn't bowl those magic balls you're talking about when he plays Away. This is not to say he sucks outside, but his wicket taking prowess is not the same in India, South Africa or Australia which explains his average. This is not the case for someone like McGrath or Steyn or Wasim who don't have such a gulf in their wicket taking ability between home and away.

But I admit NZ needs Wagner in order to win more games because when there's no seam or orthodox swing - he makes things happen.

So I pose whether this is the first bowlers role - or the second if not third?

I have no issues with Ambrose not looking to manufacture myself. I appreciate Wasim's ability to manufacture also. But Wasim was not Imran or Waqar, he was typically the #2 bowler for most his career , believe it or not. I've already said his into the wind bowling, his uphill bowling (and his batting) earns favours from me that his overall bowling does not.

This is absolutely not correct. From 88 to 96, he was definitely number 1. The 87 series in England is when Imran was slowly passing it on to Wasim and Wasim started bowling more overs. The reason Wasim averages 23 and not 21 is because of his decline from 96 on wards.

Bowlers have different skills. That's basic. And yes in an ideal bowling attack, you would want a range of diverse skills to give you the balance you need. I also think Ambrose was the guy doing the manufacturing and Walsh was the guy sustaining the pressure. I'm absolutely for a stats based analysis but I feel that a new generation of fans who haven't watched these guys and are only going by the Cricinfo stats pages are misreading them a little bit. Ambrose was an incredibly threatening and intimidating bowler and even when the conditions were not helpful, he had a vicious bouncer you were always wary of.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I wouldn't say he played the supporting role. Imran didn't bowl much due to injuries and focused on his batting late in his career (1989 afaik). He just happened to play alongside great bowlers. His role was to still bamboozle and get wickets, not just create pressure and aid the strike bowler. His strike rate being identical to Ambrose's suggests that.

Imran was still Pakistan's primary bowler in 1989 in NZ (Was didn't play and there was no Waqar). Waqar was established by 1990 and Wasim was bowling upwind and uphil after Imran opened the bowling from his choice of ends, and Waqar also got his pick ahead of Wasim. Wasim by his own admission concedes Waqar got this right because of Waqar's long run up, with all respect - where are you going with this? Wasim bowled uphill and into the wind to Imran and Waqar for the vast majority of his career. These are facts.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I think McGrath bowled plenty of magic balls too. Anderson's average is high not because he leaks runs. He is actually very economical. Australia barely scored off him in the Ashes last year. The reason he pegged his length back is to become more economical. The reason Anderson averages so high is because he doesn't bowl those magic balls you're talking about when he plays Away. This is not to say he sucks outside, but his wicket taking prowess is not the same in India, South Africa or Australia which explains his average. This is not the case for someone like McGrath or Steyn or Wasim who don't have such a gulf in their wicket taking ability between home and away.





This is absolutely not correct. From 88 to 96, he was definitely number 1. The 87 series in England is when Imran was slowly passing it on to Wasim and Wasim started bowling more overs. The reason Wasim averages 23 and not 21 is because of his decline from 96 on wards.

Bowlers have different skills. That's basic. And yes in an ideal bowling attack, you would want a range of diverse skills to give you the balance you need. I also think Ambrose was the guy doing the manufacturing and Walsh was the guy sustaining the pressure. I'm absolutely for a stats based analysis but I feel that a new generation of fans who haven't watched these guys and are only going by the Cricinfo stats pages are misreading them a little bit. Ambrose was an incredibly threatening and intimidating bowler and even when the conditions were not helpful, he had a vicious bouncer you were always wary of.

He may have been number 1, but Imran and Waqar got choice of ends ahead of him. Wasim bowled upwind and uphill.

Imran was still taking the new ball from his end in Australia in 1989/90 despite bowling less.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-1st-test-pakistan-tour-of-australia-1989-90/

Garner may have outperformed Roberts and Holding, but he was still their support.

In NZ we all know Wagner is doing better than Southee, but Southee still gets the new ball ahead of Wagner, even if Boult has finally usurped the choice of ends from Timmy.

Wasim plays second fiddle to Imran and Waqar for most his career. So he really should be compared to Walsh and not Ambrose. Someone has to bowl from the junk end.

 

[vcs]

Would be an interesting debate as to which was the more destructive duo - Wasim/Waqar or Steyn/Philander.

 

[trundler]

But Akram was second fiddle to Imran and Waqar. He bowled uphill and into the wind. To be honest, he should be compared to Courtney Walsh or Ntini/Morkel, not Curtley Ambrose or Dale Steyn.

Imran was still Pakistan's primary bowler in 1989 in NZ (Was didn't play and there was no Waqar). Waqar was established by 1990 and Wasim was bowling upwind and uphil after Imran opened the bowling from his choice of ends, and Waqar also got his pick ahead of Wasim. Wasim by his own admission concedes Waqar got this right because of Waqar's long run up, with all respect - where are you going with this? Wasim bowled uphill and into the wind to Imran and Waqar. These are facts.

Because his style was different. He was fast medium, relying on swing whereas Waqar was an all-out pace tearaway quick so it makes sense to have him bowling downhill against the wind. Doesn't make him the supporting bowler like Walsh. Imran too relied more on pace than Wasim (was actually 3rd in the Packer fast bowling challenge, after Thommo and Holding). You need different types of bowlers to make a great attack. Are you going to say McGrath played 2nd fiddle to Warne, or Holding to Roberts?