Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn

[PlayerComparisons]

Two bowlers who most agree are in the top 5 but not in the top 3. Ambrose is ahead in the averages and economy rates while Steyn is ahead in the strike rates and WPMs. Who was better?

 

[The Sean]

Two bowlers who most agree are in the top 5 but not in the top 3. Ambrose seems to be ahead in the averages and economy rates while Steyn seems to be ahead in the strike rates and WPMs. Who was better?

Neither of those are "seems to be" - they are fact.

 

[kyear2]

Couldn't find two more different bowlers, especially among the upper echelon.

Both definite top five but did it in such drastically diverse ways.
Curtly was miserly to a fault, sometimes being too defensive when things weren't going well. Steyn on the other hand was more inclined to not back down, runs be damned he was always on the attack, again possibly to a fault.
Both brilliant, both capable of destructive spells, but who you prefer depends greatly on which skill and apprach you place a greater premium on when things were going to ****

 

[subshakerz]

I am inclined to say Ambrose, more consistent, more destructive and less likely to be tonked around. Always thought Steyn was too hittable to be in the top 5.

Steyn's subcontinent record makes this close but on the flipside his record in Australia and England isnt nearly as good as Ambrose's.

 

[OverratedSanity]

People never point out that Ambrose took a third of his career wickets against a terrible England batting lineup. Also only played 5 tests against the second best team of his era (SA), didn't tour the SC as much, and was a severely diminished wicket taking force in the second half of his career.

Steyn's destructive ability throughout his career and huge performances in historic away wins is more valuable imo. I generally also much prefer my strike bowler to have a higher SR and WPM. A low average and ER is good for telling people you never got hit for fours that much but in the context of the WI team at the time who had poor third/fourth seamers, it was a valid criticism of Ambrose' style in the latter half of his career because too often he'd simply be seen off safely. Steyn was all attack all the time and that's way more entertaining. I honestly donot think it's even that close by ATG standards. Would have Steyn over Ambrose everytime in any situation.

 

[subshakerz]

People never point out that Ambrose took a third of his career wickets against a terrible England batting lineup. Also only played 5 tests against the second best team of his era (SA), didn't tour the SC as much, and was a severely diminished wicket taking force in the second half of his career.

Steyn's destructive ability throughout his career and huge performances in historic away wins is more valuable imo. I generally also much prefer my strike bowler to have a higher SR and WPM. A low average and ER is good for telling people you never got hit for fours that much but in the context of the WI team at the time who had poor third/fourth seamers, it was a valid criticism of Ambrose' style in the latter half of his career because too often he'd simply be seen off safely. Steyn was all attack all the time and that's way more entertaining.

No doubt Steyn faced a superior England lineup but he didn't do that well against them in England either. Also would agree that when it comes to matchwinning performances across countries, Steyn is tops.

However, in a real match situation, most captains would choose a bowler who retains control even if he takes an over to two more to get a wicket, versus someone who can either tear through the lineup or get taken apart. Nothing is more demotivating for a team than to see your strike bowler being hit out of the attack, something which happened to Steyn too many times. A guy like Steyn will win you matches but also lose you a few when he underperforms.

It is a fair criticism of Ambrose that 95 onwards, after his shoulder operation, he lost that extra gear and opponents focused on just seeing him out. But overall, I think Ambrose is a better bowler. If SR and WPM are so important, then you might as well put Steyn above McGrath too.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

However, in a real match situation, most captains would choose a bowler who retains control even if he takes an over to two more to get a wicket, versus someone who can either tear through the lineup or get taken apart. If SR and WPM are so important, then you might as well put Steyn above McGrath too.

I agree the first bowler would be better, but only if he's taking as many wickets per game as well. Mcgrath took longer to take wickets but he actually ended up taking those wickets and ended with up a WPM close to Steyn despite having to compete with Warne, Gillespie, and Lee. Ambrose ended up with a significantly lower WPM than Steyn. That said, Ambrose was a lot more economical so it balances out I guess.

If Ambrose maintained his pre 1995 form for his entire career, he would easily be better than Steyn though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

However, in a real match situation, most captains would choose a bowler who retains control even if he takes an over to two more to get a wicket, versus someone who can either tear through the lineup or get taken apart. Nothing is more demotivating for a team than to see your strike bowler being hit out of the attack, something which happened to Steyn too many times. A guy like Steyn will win you matches but also lose you a few when he underperforms.

We're talking about the strike bowler here, I'll take the one that is significantly more likely to get you a wicket. Steyn was also barely ever "hit out of the attack". That implies the captain thought he was taken apart so badly he didnt want him bowling. He was so likely to get you a wicket he'd be kept on. You downplay the negatives of Ambrose post 95 as your lead bowler massively. It is a huge detriment when your main bowler is taking approximately 3.5 WPM and just holding up and end, it is far more of a disadvantage than him going for a few more runs on occasion.

Also, as a sidenote, Steyn going for runs was a function of his style, which was to pitch the ball up and look for the edge everytime. The implication that he was an inaccurate spraygun is so far from the reality its kinda laughable (not saying you said it but some people do believe it when just looking at ERs). Now yes, Ambrose's low ER is also a function of his own style. I just think it's way less useful.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But overall, I think Ambrose is a better bowler. If SR and WPM are so important, then you might as well put Steyn above McGrath too.

I dont think Steyn> McGrath is a crazy opinion at all. But no, Mcgrath was better than them both mainly because he had Ambrose's miserliness but was never as toothless as Ambrose in multiple series in the second half of his career. He was well over 4.5 wpm, Ambrose barely a tick over 4, a signficant difference.

 

[subshakerz]

We're talking about the strike bowler here, I'll take the one that is significantly more likely to get you a wicket. Steyn was also barely ever "hit out of the attack". That implies the captain thought he was taken apart so badly he didnt want him bowling. He was so likely to get you a wicket he'd be kept on. You downplay the negatives of Ambrose post 95 as your lead bowler massively. It is a huge detriment when your main bowler is taking approximately 3.5 WPM and just holding up and end, it is far more of a disadvantage than him going for a few more runs on occasion.

Also, as a sidenote, Steyn going for runs was a function of his style, which was to pitch the ball up and look for the edge everytime. The implication that he was an inaccurate spraygun is so far from the reality its kinda laughable (not saying you said it but some people do believe it when just looking at ERs). Now yes, Ambrose's low ER is also a function of his own style. I just think it's way less useful.

Yes, Steyn lost his radar quite often by ATG standards. Steyn was smashed on quite a few occasions, by Sehwag, Clarke, Warner, KP, etc. The point is that there is a liability when the opposition dominates your main bowler that you have to concede, as I do concede that Ambrose post-95 was a liability in not being penetrative enough. Also do recall that once Steyn was in decline due to injuries 2017 onwards he was a much worse bowler than Ambrose post-shoulder injury ever was.

And let us not forget what a beast Ambrose was from 88 to 94. Regularly running through lineups, sustained world class performances throughout long series, winning WI matches in clutch situations. He was a demon.

At their best, Ambrose was better, and at their worst, Ambrose was better. The only question is if you think Ambrose post-95 dip is enough to downgrade him below Steyn. I dont think it is.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree the first bowler would be better, but only if he's taking as many wickets per game as well. Mcgrath took longer to take wickets but he actually ended up taking those wickets and ended with up a WPM close to Steyn despite having to compete with Warne, Gillespie, and Lee. Ambrose ended up with a significantly lower WPM than Steyn. That said, Ambrose was a lot more economical so it balances out I guess.

If Ambrose maintained his pre 1995 form for his entire career, he would easily be better than Steyn though.

Here is the issue, players like Ambrose have careers split into halves. The first half he was one of the great peak bowlers ever, the second half he was unhittable, occasionally matchwinning but also not as penetrative.

So how will you judge Ambrose then? Seems weird to put Steyn ahead while knowing that for a fair stretch of time Ambrose was clearly superior and for the rest was still good enough that he gave the batsmen nothing.

 

[OverratedSanity]

So how will you judge Ambrose then? Seems weird to put Steyn ahead while knowing that for a fair stretch of time Ambrose was clearly superior

Clearly superior to what ? Steyn's peak? Eh I dont know about that

 

[Xix2565]

I mean they balance out then. Can't use peaks/good halves only for one person since that's not a full career.

And considering exactly when Steyn was playing to come away with his numbers is actually impressive.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Here is the issue, players like Ambrose have careers split into halves. The first half he was one of the great peak bowlers ever, the second half he was unhittable, occasionally matchwinning but also not as penetrative.

So how will you judge Ambrose then? Seems weird to put Steyn ahead while knowing that for a fair stretch of time Ambrose was clearly superior and for the rest was still good enough that he gave the batsmen nothing.

Not sure lol. Just judge on their whole careers I guess. I wonder how much the eras they played in factors into this though. Not sure Ambrose’s peak was much better than Steyn’s considering the era difference.

Steyn averaged 22.25 with a WPM of 5.17 in a pretty hard era during his peak from 2008 to 2014. Pretty ridiculous.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose from 95 onwards took 186 wickets in 50 tests @20.88. Is that performance really that bad that it takes away from the beast he was from 88 to 94 and therefore Steyn is better?

 

[subshakerz]

I mean they balance out then. Can't use peaks/good halves only for one person since that's not a full career.

And considering exactly when Steyn was playing to come away with his numbers is actually impressive.

While I agree that Steyn did well on tough pitches in his time, I think this point gets overdone considering that for over half his career he played at home on the best pace bowling pitches in the world. His away average is nearly 25, and many posters here penalized Imran Khan for having the same difference in home/away averages that Steyn does.

The places where it flattened the most compared a decade earlier in late 2000s were NZ, Eng and Australia and lo and behold, he averages notably higher in those countries.

It would only make sense to give Steyn extra credit for performing on flatter pitches if he actually could pull together the same kind of worldclass <25 figures despite the era, but he didn't.

Steyn definitely gets credit for his reverse swing mastery of the subcontinent though, where it has always been tough for outside pacers.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Ambrose’s stats away from home are better than Steyn’s. Away from home, Ambrose has an average of 20.81 and a WPM of 4.39 while Steyn has an average of 24.91 and a WPM of 4.34. If we adjust for era, the difference is probably smaller.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose’s stats away from home are better than Steyn’s. Away from home, Ambrose has an average of 20.81 and a WPM of 4.39 while Steyn has an average of 24.91 and a WPM of 4.34. If we adjust for era, the difference is probably smaller.

Good point. So the big difference in their overall records on WPM comes from Steyn
being better in home conditions.

 

[Bahnz]

Interesting to see Curtly’s wpm number drop away so markedly in the late 90’s. While he’d undeniably lost a yard by that stage, you have to wonder how much this had to do with the fact that the drop off in quality from him and Courtney to the support bowlers became absolutely cavernous after Bishop and the Benjamin’s faded away.

 

[Starfighter]

you have to wonder how much this had to do with the fact that the drop off in quality from him and Courtney to the support bowlers became absolutely cavernous after Bishop and the Benjamin’s faded away.

I doubt little, if any of it. Over time I've become convinced that the averages of your support bowlers don't matter so much if they're not bleeding runs all over the place.