Dale Steyn vs Imran khan

[Slifer]

Average of 66 at Sydney.

Might point out the '96/'97 series as an example of what people criticised Ambrose for later in his career. At the start of the series he went completely missing on reasonable but hardly excessively friendly batting pitches, leaving WI two down. Then he turns up on a Melbourne pitch that was grassy, damp, and inconsistent throughout the match, and after missing the flattest deck the series at Adelaide he pulls out another good performance on a cracked Perth pitch. That's why people would think his series average (23.37) overstates his actual value in the series.


Lol no.

Ambrose was distinctly faster than McGrath pace wise, there's no debating that. And you can cherry pick the 96 series all you want, the fact is, he did well and you're conveniently also forgetting his series turning performances in '93, including a 10 for at that same flat Adelaide.

 

[Starfighter]

Ambrose was distinctly faster than McGrath pace wise, there's no debating that. And you can cherry pick the 96 series all you want, the fact is, he did well and you're conveniently also forgetting his series turning performances in '93, including a 10 for at that same flat Adelaide.

You have disingenuously missed my point, which is exactly what I expected.

And Adelaide in '93≠Adelaide in '96. That pitch was more like the ones produced over the last few years, a rare occurrence in the Les Burdett era.

 

[Slifer]

You have disingenuously missed my point, which is exactly what I expected.

And Adelaide in '93≠Adelaide in '96. That pitch was more like the ones produced over the last few years, a rare occurrence in the Les Burdett era.

I missed nothing. The fact is, Ambrose did well in Australia where his contemporaries failed. And it's not as if he played on wickets distinctly different than those afforded to his contemporaries. And then you make it seem that he missed (avoided) Adelaide in 96 because the pitch was flat; he was injured. And I still maintain to this day, that had he not missed that test, no way does Hayden score his maiden hundred.

Anyway, to the post I was responding to originally, Ambrose found success on all sorts of wickets, not just the spicier ones. :

At the ARG aka the flattest wicket in the world he averages 20 and strikes at 48.

At Bourda averages 20 and strikes at 55.

 

[ankitj]

Average of 66 at Sydney.

Might point out the '96/'97 series as an example of what people criticised Ambrose for later in his career. At the start of the series he went completely missing on reasonable but hardly excessively friendly batting pitches, leaving WI two down. Then he turns up on a Melbourne pitch that was grassy, damp, and inconsistent throughout the match, and after missing the flattest deck the series at Adelaide he pulls out another good performance on a cracked Perth pitch. That's why people would think his series average (23.37) overstates his actual value in the series.


Lol no.

I remember reading in newspaper (no internet, those were the days) Ambrose declaring he will take 10 wickets in next game after ordinary first 2 games. Then followed the game to see what he actually does. Got 9 wickets. WAG.

Also at roughly the same time, Prasad took 10 wickets in Durban and I was telling myself - even Ambrose didn't take 10, our guy did.

 

[ZK$]

Once Ambrose was past his peak, he basically did what Pollock did at his peak. They were very economical and did take the occasional match winning spell on flat pitches, but they typically did need some assistance from the pitch to really have an impact.

 

[The Sean]

I remember reading in newspaper (no internet, those were the days) Ambrose declaring he will take 10 wickets in next game after ordinary first 2 games. Then followed the game to see what he actually does. Got 9 wickets. WAG.

So he lied. WAC.

 

[BazBall21]

Ambrose has a great record at Antigua and the Oval in England, both generally batting paradises. Wish he played in Asia more though.

 

[Starfighter]

Once Ambrose was past his peak, he basically did what Pollock did at his peak. They were very economical and did take the occasional match winning spell on flat pitches, but they typically did need some assistance from the pitch to really have an impact.

That's the point. And so it might not be unreasonable if, looking at the context of the actual series (96-97 being a case in point), people judge that his average overstates his value a little during that period of his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Once Ambrose was past his peak, he basically did what Pollock did at his peak. They were very economical and did take the occasional match winning spell on flat pitches, but they typically did need some assistance from the pitch to really have an impact.

Except Ambrose averaged a lot less than Pollock post peak. Still you are right, his match impact was less than the average suggests.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose didn’t play on the **** pitches Steyn did. And he never had to truly face a monster like Sehwag on the pitches Steyn did.

Aw, poor Steyn, bowling 60 percent of his career on those horrible pitches in South Africa.

And yes, pitches in Australia and England were tougher than before, but Steyn did worse as well.

 

[ZK$]

Except Ambrose averaged a lot less than Pollock post peak. Still you are right, his match impact was less than the average suggests.

Ambrose averaged around 20-21 post peak, which is what Pollock averaged during his peak if I’m remembering correctly. You get the point though.

 

[ZK$]

That's the point. And so it might not be unreasonable if, looking at the context of the actual series (96-97 being a case in point), people judge that his average overstates his value a little during that period of his career.

Yeah, that’s why it’s also important to look at strike rate imo.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, that’s why it’s also important to look at strike rate imo.

In which case, Ambrose's sr was a perfectly acceptable 50.7 for the series. Only behind McGrath and curiously Bevan.

 

[ZK$]

In which case, Ambrose's sr was a perfectly acceptable 50.7 for the series. Only behind McGrath and curiously Bevan.

Yeah, I’m just referring to his overall strike rate of 56 from 1996-2000.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, I’m just referring to his overall strike rate of 56 from 1996-2000.

SR of 56 is very good. Just takes one more over to take another wicket. That is nothing over the course of an innings.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, I’m just referring to his overall strike rate of 56 from 1996-2000.

Oh ok...got it.

 

[ZK$]

SR of 56 is very good. Just takes one more over to take another wicket. That is nothing over the course of an innings.

I disagree. There’s a big difference between a strike rate of 56 and a strike rate of 50 over a 5 year period.

It’s like how the difference between a bowling average of 22 and a bowling average of 26 is only 4 runs. Over an entire career, that’s a big difference.

 

[TheJediBrah]

SR of 56 is very good. Just takes one more over to take another wicket. That is nothing over the course of an innings.

Strike rates of similar-level bowlers don't vary as much you think. A difference of 6 balls is pretty big

 

[Starfighter]

Strike rates of similar-level bowlers don't vary as much you think. A difference of 6 balls is pretty big

I think a lot of people would argue that the difference between an SR of 50 and 44.5 is quite significant. That's the same % difference as between 50 and 56.

 

[subshakerz]

I think Ambrose post his shoulder operation in 94 was very much a deadly bowler in the right conditions, and steady bowler otherwise.

The 95 series against Australia in a good example, in which aside from the 3rd test on a grassy wicket, he was neutralized.

In Pakistan in 97 he was taken apart on flat wickets.