Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

[Tom Flint]

I’d agree with that ranking. Ambrose easily over The likes of Akram Donald pollock etc. he intimated Australia in a way that I haven’t seen any other bowler do so in all my years of living here in Sydney.

McGrath was the main reason that Australia were a genuinely great team from 1995 to 2008 not warney, gilly or Ponting.

And Maco was simple the best quick of all time IMO

What about tremlett?

 

[Slifer]

I’d agree with that ranking. Ambrose easily over The likes of Akram Donald pollock etc. he intimated Australia in a way that I haven’t seen any other bowler do so in all my years of living here in Sydney.

McGrath was the main reason that Australia were a genuinely great team from 1995 to 2008 not warney, gilly or Ponting.

And Maco was simple the best quick of all time IMO

YES !!!!

 

[subshakerz]

"Bowlers.

Akram - definitely not
Marshall / Hadlee - yes on both counts.
Murali - spinners are difficult to compare
Barnes - no. Don't even know what he bowled
Lillee - no, reasons long discussed.
Steyn - close, possibly.
McGrath - agreed.
Warne - see Murali, but my 1st thought is no
Trueman - definitely not
Donald - not hugely apart, but I give Ambrose the edge"

This. And Imran no.

Ambrose is definitely better than Steyn. Steyn doesn't belong in the top 5 pacers of all time, even though I was a fan.

 

[Migara]

Hadlee.

Ambrose had the physical gifts and used them incredibly well, and was more skillful than people might give him credit for...but Hadlee was a freak in terms of his control and ability to think players out/get them out. Played an insane amount of cricket too, so longevity also goes in his favour.

I know it's not part of this argument but it shouldn't be ignored that for a guy who took over 1400 FC wickets and 431 Test ones, he managed to strike a balance between being one of the greatest bowlers of all time and still being an international quality all-rounder with 14 FC tons and averaging over 30. That is pretty ridiculous.

Being the workhorse as well as the strike bowler. It's remarkable for a pace bowler combined with the longevity.

 

[ankitj]

Being the workhorse as well as the strike bowler. It's remarkable for a pace bowler combined with the longevity.

Yeah, I really rate James Anderson

 

[trundler]

Yeah, I really rate James Anderson

He said strike bowler, not strike bowler*

*terms and clouditions apply

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, I really rate James Anderson

This, but unironically

 

[Jack1]

Hadlee's wickets per game is too much to ignore for me. Hadlee.

 

[Slifer]

Hadlee's wickets per game is too much to ignore for me. Hadlee.

That's fine but imo wpm is not a measure I'd consider too much. Why? Because guys like Hadlee and Murali bowled with much lesser bowlers to compete with for wickets. That's why comparatively speaking, the likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath etc have lesser wpm. Hadlee > Ambrose for me as well fwiw, but for 'other' reasons.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ambrose's WPM is quite a bit lower than guys like McGrath/Steyn too. It's only slightly more than Imran's despite the fact that Imran barely bowled at all his last few years. It's enough of a difference in pure wicket taking volume that I wouldnt put him at the McGrath/Steyn/Hadlee level.

 

[The Sean]

Ambrose's WPM is quite a bit lower than guys like McGrath/Steyn too. It's only slightly more than Imran's despite the fact that Imran barely bowled at all his last few years. It's enough of a difference in pure wicket taking volume that I wouldnt put him at the McGrath/Steyn/Hadlee level.

Yeah, Ambrose had a few surprisingly poor stretches as a wicket-taker, even during his peak years. There was one period where he took just nine wickets in five Tests, another where he picked up only 23 wickets in ten.

In fact, in 28 Tests from April 1994 to January 1998 he took only 90 wickets - just over three wickets per match for a period of nearly four years - but such was his remorseless accuracy and consistency that he rarely copped a real hammering and even during that far-from-prolific run he still averaged sub-24.

Perhaps more bizarrely, at the end of his career Ambrose picked up just 29 wickets in his last nine Tests - but his average actually improved!

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, Ambrose had a few surprisingly poor stretches as a wicket-taker, even during his peak years. There was one period where he took just nine wickets in five Tests, another where he picked up only 23 wickets in ten.

In fact, in 28 Tests from April 1994 to January 1998 he took only 90 wickets - just over three wickets per match for a period of nearly four years - but such was his remorseless accuracy and consistency that he rarely copped a real hammering and even during that far-from-prolific run he still averaged sub-24.

Perhaps more bizarrely, at the end of his career Ambrose picked up just 29 wickets in his last nine Tests - but his average actually improved!

The problem is that while Ambrose was keeping things in control, the rest of the attack was often being carted around. I noticed this with Wasim too in his later years when batsmen would play him out with respect but preserve their wickets but take on the rest of the attack.

 

[subshakerz]

That's fine but imo wpm is not a measure I'd consider too much. Why? Because guys like Hadlee and Murali bowled with much lesser bowlers to compete with for wickets. That's why comparatively speaking, the likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath etc have lesser wpm. Hadlee > Ambrose for me as well fwiw, but for 'other' reasons.

Ambrose also has a relatively higher strikerate than Hadlee too.

Shows how Marshall is supreme, doesnt it? Exceptional in pretty much every statistical category of average, strikerate, WPM and economy rate, plus record in and against all countries.

 

[Migara]

That's fine but imo wpm is not a measure I'd consider too much. Why? Because guys like Hadlee and Murali bowled with much lesser bowlers to compete with for wickets. That's why comparatively speaking, the likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath etc have lesser wpm. Hadlee > Ambrose for me as well fwiw, but for 'other' reasons.

The likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath had more chances to bowl to the tail than Murali or Hadlee, hence they had access to cheaper wickets. If Hadlee or murali had another ATG at other end, their WPM will become less, but their SR's and averages will be much better.

 

[kyear2]

The likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath had more chances to bowl to the tail than Murali or Hadlee, hence they had access to cheaper wickets. If Hadlee or murali had another ATG at other end, their WPM will become less, but their SR's and averages will be much better.

Apparently I'm missing something, but this doesn't make sense to me. They didn't get to bowl at the tail?

 

[Slifer]

The likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath had more chances to bowl to the tail than Murali or Hadlee, hence they had access to cheaper wickets. If Hadlee or murali had another ATG at other end, their WPM will become less, but their SR's and averages will be much better.

??? Using Marshall as an example, how would he possibly have more chances at the tail considering more often that not, Garner would've cleaned up the tail. And the likes of McGrath would be competing with Warne, Gillespie, Riefel etc to have a shot at the tail. Murali on the other hand would have a go at whatever position in the batting line up. Sorry, the bold part you wrote makes very little sense to me....

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, Ambrose had a few surprisingly poor stretches as a wicket-taker, even during his peak years. There was one period where he took just nine wickets in five Tests, another where he picked up only 23 wickets in ten.

In fact, in 28 Tests from April 1994 to January 1998 he took only 90 wickets - just over three wickets per match for a period of nearly four years - but such was his remorseless accuracy and consistency that he rarely copped a real hammering and even during that far-from-prolific run he still averaged sub-24.

Perhaps more bizarrely, at the end of his career Ambrose picked up just 29 wickets in his last nine Tests - but his average actually improved!

Well my theory is, WI batting became so poor (relatively speaking), that more often than not, he hardly had a shot at 20 wickets in the opposition team. Example the 95 home series vs Australia: first test Australia won by 10 wkts, 2nd test Australia batted both innings but declared 7 wkts down in the second dig, 3rd test he had a shot at 20 wickets available, 4th test WI lost by an innings. So yeah except for the 3rd test, he didn't have a shot at the maximum number of wickets. Maybe I'm grasping at straws lol. Either way, the 4 or so wickets he took per test is perfectly acceptable considering he started off competing against Marshall, Bishop , Walsh, and the Benjamins for wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

The likes of Ambrose, Warne, Marshall, McGrath had more chances to bowl to the tail than Murali or Hadlee, hence they had access to cheaper wickets. If Hadlee or murali had another ATG at other end, their WPM will become less, but their SR's and averages will be much better.

Why would their averages and strikerates be affected?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Ambrose's WPM is quite a bit lower than guys like McGrath/Steyn too. It's only slightly more than Imran's despite the fact that Imran barely bowled at all his last few years. It's enough of a difference in pure wicket taking volume that I wouldnt put him at the McGrath/Steyn/Hadlee level.

CW conveniently avoided discussions about Ambrose's low WPM so far. But always questioned Akram's low WPM, which is actually better (WPI) than Ambrose's despite playing much more longer

 

[subshakerz]

CW conveniently avoided discussions about Ambrose's low WPM so far. But always questioned Akram's low WPM, which is actually better (WPI) than Ambrose's despite playing much more longer

WPI seems a better indicator than WPM. To me any WPI above 2 is acceptable for an ATG.

However, I think the point about Ambrose going through low wicket phases in his career is actually a fair critique of him. I got the sense that he could revert into robomode if the conditions didnt suit him.