Imran Khan vs Curtley Ambrose

[Bahnz]

Yeah, he was immense in the '88 series (albeit against a WI batting lineup that was a few years past its best).

 

[honestbharani]

Imran was impressive both in WI and in the supertests.

Yeah, I expect it to be impressive. He is one of the ATGs. But the comparison point matters.

 

[Migara]

Literally nobody said Australia post 95 were better than WI 80s (that's debatable btw).This is what you posted: "Another important thing is that Imran did much better against best opposition of the era. Ambrose, even as a part of a great bowling unit was not as successful against Pakistan as Imran against WI." During Ambrose's era, Australia not Pakistan was the best opposition. Pakistan would come in third behind South Africa. Coincidentally, Ambrose was outstanding vs both those teams.

Once again this is incorrect. Half of the Ambroses career they could not beat Pakistan. In the same time period they thrashed Australia left right and center. Under Imran's captaincy, Pakistan was the second best team in the world. Non one have let West Indies run for their money as Pakistan under Imran.

Then comes period of Aussie dominance after 1995. Ambrose does monumentally well against them. But was this equal to the WI sides Imran played? Make your own decision. Aussie dominance of late 90s only happened outside subcontinent, and no way superior to Aussie sides post 2001.

Imran and Hadlee bowled to probably the best cricket teams to walk on planet earth, and came out with flying colors. Ambrose never had the chance to do it (he may have succeded, but that is speculation). This is one of the reasons I rate Imran and Hadlee very highly, and Kapil's bowling over Botham's.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, I expect it to be impressive. He is one of the ATGs. But the comparison point matters.

Well, he was better than his peers in the WI and the supertests. Also had the best average of any bowler in the 1980s.

 

[subshakerz]

Lol. News to me as well. I always thought that to be thought of as the best, not only did you have to do well vs the best but it'll help if you did it vs all comers home and away.

Ambrose bodied the best team of his time (Australia), he also bodied the 2nd best team of his time RSA. Just about the only glitch on his resume is one poor series vs India at home in 1990 ( if I recall). Still, Ambrose was as great at home as he was any where else on earth (including Pakistan). Imran just wasn't as good outside his own home country. And that's really odd considering how places like New Zealand and Australia are supposedly better for fast bowlers.

I think if we look at the other top bowlers we can notice similar shortcomings overseas.

McGrath was only decent in Sri Lanka or Pakistan, yet he is said to have conquered the subcontinent.

Steyn has relatively high averages in England and Australia, two strong batting sides of his era. Yet Steyn is considered a success in Australia while Imran is not, despite averaging the same.

Ambrose, as mentioned, only played 6 tests in the subcontinent in his entire career, and took relatively few wickets, but again is given a pass on his overseas checklist.

Hadlee only played one series in the WI at their peak, in which he did below his standards and averaged 27, yet again he is considered to have a complete overseas record.

Some posters suggested that Imran didnt do comparatively well enough in England despite averaging 24, while Marshall averaged 24 in India and nobody has the same issue.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Pakistani umpiring standards at the time were horrible, but I don't see evidence that it was worse than say, India, or even WI and NZ. You would have a point if Pakistani umpiring was the exception. I don't see this as a valid point to downgrade a player's rating.

Of course it was. Pakistani umpiring was dreadful. What was wrong with NZ umpiring apart from Goodall being officious? Australian umpiring was extremely dodgy in the 80s, but nothing like Pakistan's

 

[Bahnz]

Once again this is incorrect. Half of the Ambroses career they could not beat Pakistan. In the same time period they thrashed Australia left right and center. Under Imran's captaincy, Pakistan was the second best team in the world. Non one have let West Indies run for their money as Pakistan under Imran. [/QUOTE]

This was certainly true in the late 80's, but by the early 90's Australia and SA were putting out more consistent results than Pakistan (even though Pakistan with W&W were capable of beating anyone on their day).

Then comes period of Aussie dominance after 1995. Ambrose does monumentally well against them. But was this equal to the WI sides Imran played? Make your own decision. Aussie dominance of late 90s only happened outside subcontinent, and no way superior to Aussie sides post 2001.

In terms of opposition batting lineups I don't think there's a whole lot to choose from between late 80's WI and late 90's Oz. Richards and Greenidge were both past their best, and while Haynes and Richardson were at their peak, they had a couple of middling players in Logie and Hooper as well. It was the bowlers who were really keeping the WI dynasty going at that point. Would probably give Aus with Taylor, the Waugh brothers, Slater and Langer the slight advantage in the batting stakes. Imran's efforts against peak WI at home in the early-mid 80's though are unassailable achievements.

 

[Bahnz]

Of course it was.

Was it really though? Some of Fred Godall's umpiring was shameful in the 80's.

 

[Migara]

This was certainly true in the late 80's, but by the early 90's Australia and SA were putting out more consistent results than Pakistan (even though Pakistan with W&W were capable of beating anyone on their day).

No one is saying that Pakistan was good post 1994. In fact Pakistan's performance post 1994 are irrelevant for the argument. They were extremely inconsistent. The argument is that 80s West indies are better than 90s Australia.

In terms of opposition batting lineups I don't think there's a whole lot to choose from between late 80's WI and late 90's Oz. Richards and Greenidge were both past their best, and while Haynes and Richardson were at their peak, they had a couple of middling players in Logie and Hooper as well. It was the bowlers who were really keeping the WI dynasty going at that point. Would probably give Aus with Taylor, the Waugh brothers, Slater and Langer the slight advantage in the batting stakes. Imran's efforts against peak WI at home in the early-mid 80's though are unassailable achievements.

This probably is true. But the pressure on batting once again depends on knowing how much you need to score for your bowlers to defend. West Indians didn't need much. When on song Pakistani bowlers also didn't need many. Bowling to such a batting line up, who can play care free needs special skills.

 

[Gob]

I think if we look at the other top bowlers we can notice similar shortcomings overseas.

McGrath was only decent in Sri Lanka or Pakistan, yet he is said to have conquered the subcontinent.

Steyn has relatively high averages in England and Australia, two strong batting sides of his era. Yet Steyn is considered a success in Australia while Imran is not, despite averaging the same.

Ambrose, as mentioned, only played 6 tests in the subcontinent in his entire career, and took relatively few wickets, but again is given a pass on his overseas checklist.

Hadlee only played one series in the WI at their peak, in which he did below his standards and averaged 27, yet again he is considered to have a complete overseas record.

Some posters suggested that Imran didnt do comparatively well enough in England despite averaging 24, while Marshall averaged 24 in India and nobody has the same issue.

lol he was immense in India

 

[Calm_profit]

Based on careers I will pick Ambrose but if I want to choose in my XI it will be Imran.

 

[TheJediBrah]

lol he was immense in India

He was probably the same size everywhere, except on the colder mornings

 

[_00_deathscar]

I really don’t understand why everyone is pretending to beat about the bush with this thread title, and all the arguments - we all know what you’re really asking is Jadeja vs Ashwin

 

[Slifer]

Once again this is incorrect. Half of the Ambroses career they could not beat Pakistan. In the same time period they thrashed Australia left right and center. Under Imran's captaincy, Pakistan was the second best team in the world. Non one have let West Indies run for their money as Pakistan under Imran.

Then comes period of Aussie dominance after 1995. Ambrose does monumentally well against them. But was this equal to the WI sides Imran played? Make your own decision. Aussie dominance of late 90s only happened outside subcontinent, and no way superior to Aussie sides post 2001.

Imran and Hadlee bowled to probably the best cricket teams to walk on planet earth, and came out with flying colors. Ambrose never had the chance to do it (he may have succeded, but that is speculation). This is one of the reasons I rate Imran and Hadlee very highly, and Kapil's bowling over Botham's.

Pakistani cricket team in the West Indies in 1992–93 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

??????

 

[Starfighter]

??????

You've been here long enough to know there is no overlap between 'Migara' and 'reality'.

 

[Slifer]

I think if we look at the other top bowlers we can notice similar shortcomings overseas.

McGrath was only decent in Sri Lanka or Pakistan, yet he is said to have conquered the subcontinent.

Steyn has relatively high averages in England and Australia, two strong batting sides of his era. Yet Steyn is considered a success in Australia while Imran is not, despite averaging the same.

Ambrose, as mentioned, only played 6 tests in the subcontinent in his entire career, and took relatively few wickets, but again is given a pass on his overseas checklist.

Hadlee only played one series in the WI at their peak, in which he did below his standards and averaged 27, yet again he is considered to have a complete overseas record.

Some posters suggested that Imran didnt do comparatively well enough in England despite averaging 24, while Marshall averaged 24 in India and nobody has the same issue.

The difference between Ambrose's home and away average is miniscule: 21 at home vs 20 away. The same applies to Hadlee, Marshall etc. Imran, it's a difference of 7 runs. Smh

 

[Slifer]

You've been here long enough to know there is no overlap between 'Migara' and 'reality'.

I'm starting to see that....

 

[Slifer]

lol he was immense in India

I'm starting to think migara and this subs person are related...

 

[Slifer]

No one is saying that Pakistan was good post 1994. In fact Pakistan's performance post 1994 are irrelevant for the argument. They were extremely inconsistent. The argument is that 80s West indies are better than 90s Australia.

This probably is true. But the pressure on batting once again depends on knowing how much you need to score for your bowlers to defend. West Indians didn't need much. When on song Pakistani bowlers also didn't need many. Bowling to such a batting line up, who can play care free needs special skills.

No dude, you are straight up lying. Nobody in this thread ever said that Australia in the 90s was better than the WI of the 80s. You said Imran did well vs the best team of his era, the WI which is true. Then some of us countered by saying that Ambrose also did well vs the best team of his era: Australia. You tried to counter by saying Pakistan were the best team of Ambrose's era. Probably when you realized that made no sense, you and only you decided to start the argument of the WI team being better than Australia. Fwiw during Amby's era ie 1988 to 2000:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/attachments/20210831_094001-jpg.29093/

 

[Migara]

No dude, you are straight up lying. Nobody in this thread ever said that Australia in the 90s was better than the WI of the 80s. You said Imran did well vs the best team of his era, the WI which is true. Then some of us countered by saying that Ambrose also did well vs the best team of his era: Australia. You tried to counter by saying Pakistan were the best team of Ambrose's era. Probably when you realized that made no sense, you and only you decided to start the argument of the WI team being better than Australia. Fwiw during Amby's era ie 1988 to 2000:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/attachments/20210831_094001-jpg.29093/

Nooe, you are the one straight up lying here. What I said was very clear.

This was the first point I made

Another important thing is that Imran did much better against best opposition of the era. Ambrose, even as a part of a great bowling unit was not as successful against Pakistan as Imran against WI.

Ambrose against Pakistan 27.9, Imran against WI - 21.2

The best opposition of Curtlys time was Australia not Pakistan. And Ambrose completely bodied Australia where most of his contemporaries failed. Also, Ambrose's record in Asia isn't bad at all, 6 tests at 22 odd. Even limiting it to just Pakistan, it's 15 wkts in 5 tests at 25. Not awful by any means.

Imran in 80% his bowling career bowled to a dominant West Indies side. For half of his career Ambrose was in the dominant team. During half of that time the second dominant team was Pakistam. Other half of the time it was Australia. Either not as strong as West Indies that Imran bowled to.

Dude, Pakistan were the goodish side because of their bowling, not batting. I'm a little confused though, you literally said Australia were the best from 95 onwards. But then you also said Ambrose never bowled against Australia from mid 2000 which was the best. ????. Anyway, Ambrose excelled vs the best batting lineup of his time (Australia) where his contemporaries failed time and time again.

Then you go on a tangent discussing about the batting strengths. In late 90s Indians were as good as Aussies in their own den. Because this was going in a tangent, I ignored it.

Australia took the kead in 1996. It toom them another 5 - 6 years to become as good as WI team of 80s. Ambrose never bowled to this Aussie side.

And the first assumption is not true at all. Pakistan had a monster batting lineup during this time. So was West Indies. When they met each other both sides lost about 10 runs average from their usual performances.

View attachment 29087

Once again I smashed your argument that Pakistani batting was poor, and re-iterated that Wi of 80 s were better tha Australia og 90s.

Even after getting owned with facts best you can do is cheap accusations of lies. That is a sure sign of an empty cupboard.


If we summarize the whole thing;

1. Imran in majority of his career bowled to probably the best test side in cricket history and came out with flying colors.
2. Ambroses best opposition in his early career was Pakistan, who were the 2nd best team. In his late career it was Australia who was the top team.
3. Neither of above teams in (2) are as good as in (1).

If you want to carry on even after this much of clarification, you can go ahead with your rose tinted glasses or warped sense of reality.