Curtly Ambrose vs Wasim Akram

[trundler]

You can say that about almost any great cricketer. Still Garner has every bowling metric over Lindwall including sr which isn't close. Therefore Garner>Ray for me.

Strike rate and over rates are inversely related. Lindwall bowled at a time when run scoring was much slower and many more overs were bowled in a day.

 

[number11]

I'll reiterate that Akram will make more AT XIs as he is a rarer commodity. But strictly A v B, Ambrose was the more devastating bowler.

He had that extra gear.

 

[number11]

I remember a test in West indies where Walsh, Ambrose and Rose routed out India. They were the only 3 bowlers who bowled.

Yes. India failed chasing 120 odd.

 

[Slifer]

Strike rate and over rates are inversely related. Lindwall bowled at a time when run scoring was much slower and many more overs were bowled in a day.

Yeah but he's not better on any metric whatsoever. For example, comparing McGrath to Garner, McGrath at least has a better wpm. And the strike rates aren't close 60 vs 50. People give Ambrose crap for a SR of 54 but Lindwall relative to Garner is worse. Garner over Lindwall for me.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

My opinion, Wasim.....just. But Ambrose....all time great fast bowler too. In fact...in my opinion - very difficult to split them. I enjoyed watching them bowl. Great stuff.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I'll reiterate that Akram will make more AT XIs as he is a rarer commodity. But strictly A v B, Ambrose was the more devastating bowler.

He had that extra gear.

Agreed

 

[kyear2]

Wasim had a much longer career career, much worse fielding support and much tougher home decks so the statistical gap between them is pretty much entirely down to those things. Wasim was picked as a teen and had to learn on the job, something people consider for Tendulkar but not him. And still put in some epic performances against that ATG WI team. Akram played for 5 more years than Ambrose which is pretty substantial.

I'll give you two of the three, though tbh, taking you views into account should only be one.

Yes Wasim did play longer, and it seems he and Ponting both seem to be always penalized for that. In a post further in you mention comparing the career lengths of the two men and comparing from that perspective. Though that one isn't 100% fair either (because that also includes Curly's slow start and him slowing down), it's more accurate than looking at it unfiltered.

With regards to fielding support, for bowlers like Hadlee, Lillee, Steyn and McGrath, I have no doubt the fielding support may have been worth at least one average point over their careers, who knows, possibly more. But for Wasim there is possibly two counter points. One he attacked the stumps more, but that may also have been because he knew he didn't have the catching support, and two you don't believe it should even be factored into the selection process, at least not above a certain base level of competence. Just to note that the Chappells, Mark Waugh, Ponting, Hayden, Kallis to name a few were considerably above the mean and we're just special. Marshall and co had Lloyd and Richardson, success isn't a coincidence. So long way to say, that yes, he would have been well served by better catching support.

I cannot agree with the third point though, though I'm sure you'll (hopefully cordially) dispute it. Yes, it's always stated that Pakistan had less helpful home pitches, but Wasim and Imran consistently averaged less at home than away, even during the respective peaks (especially for Imran). So while you may state that it was because they adapted to them, it then can't be seen as a negative. But that's just my opinion.

But yes, two of the three are valid points. But if you were in charge, would you have done anything about the second one.

 

[trundler]

I cannot agree with the third point though, though I'm sure you'll (hopefully cordially) dispute it. Yes, it's always stated that Pakistan had less helpful home pitches, but Wasim and Imran consistently averaged less at home than away, even during the respective peaks (especially for Imran). So while you may state that it was because they adapted to them, it then can't be seen as a negative. But that's just my opinion.

This is just circular reasoning and contrary to common sense. Obviously a bowler would do even better with more favourable conditions. Wasim maximized wicket taking on Pakistani roads by adapting to them and if he could adapt to more bowler friendly decks over the length of a career he would obviously average less their than on decks which offer less to a bowler.

"Shouldn't get points for tough home conditions because he did well in them" is illogical.

 

[kyear2]

This is just circular reasoning and contrary to common sense. Obviously a bowler would do even better with more favourable conditions. Wasim maximized wicket taking on Pakistani roads by adapting to them and if he could adapt to more bowler friendly decks over the length of a career he would obviously average less their than on decks which offer less to a bowler.

"Shouldn't get points for tough home conditions because he did well in them" is illogical.

Well there goes the cordially.

What I said was not that they did well, they did better than on more helpful tracks. Big difference. They both averaged better at home that away, despite them being less helpful. That's the illogical part. Bowlers and batsmen with tougher home conditions generally averaged better away from home.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Outside of England, SA and NZ, most pitches are not helpful for fast bowling.

 

[kyear2]

Outside of England, SA and NZ, most pitches are not helpful for fast bowling.

Well the comment was that Sir Curtly had more helpful home pitches so let's include them

In Aus - 24
In Eng - 28
WI - 26
Pak - 22

SA sample size too small so would use against him

 

[Coronis]

Well there goes the cordially.

What I said was not that they did well, they did better than on more helpful tracks. Big difference. They both averaged better at home that away, despite them being less helpful. That's the illogical part. Bowlers and batsmen with tougher home conditions generally averaged better away from home.

Jacques Kallis averages more at home than away. Because he played so well at home, does that mean he gets no credit for the tough batting conditions he encountered there?

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Well the comment was that Sir Curtly had more helpful home pitches so let's include them

In Aus - 24
In Eng - 28
WI - 26
Pak - 22

SA sample size too small so would use against him

Sabina Park is very helpful pitch. Maybe Bridgetown also but I don't think other pitches in WI are bowling friendly.

Jacques Kallis averages more at home than away. Because he played so well at home, does that mean he gets no credit for the tough batting conditions he encountered there?

That's a good argument but not against Ambrose I would say.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Sabina Park is very helpful pitch. Maybe Bridgetown also but I don't think other pitches in WI are bowling friendly.

Sir Curtly Ambrose at the Queens Park Oval is legendary.

Check out his stats at that particular venue. Mind you, it’s usually a spinner’s wicket.

 

[BazBall21]

Sabina Park is very helpful pitch. Maybe Bridgetown also but I don't think other pitches in WI are bowling friendly.


That's a good argument but not against Ambrose I would say.

The uneven bounce in QPO in the 90s was good for all bowlers. Bourda and Antigua are unhelpful though.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The uneven bounce in QPO in the 90s was good for all bowlers. Bourda and Antigua are unhelpful though.

Bourda always rains like a mfer

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Sir Curtly Ambrose at the Queens Park Oval is legendary.

Check out his stats at that particular venue. Mind you, it’s usually a spinner’s wicket.

His record in WACA is even better.

The uneven bounce in QPO in the 90s was good for all bowlers. Bourda and Antigua are unhelpful though.

Strange that Ambrose did worse in Sabina and Kensington than Bourda and Antigua.

Averages 50 in Sabina. Don't really know what pitches he played on tho.

 

[kyear2]

Jacques Kallis averages more at home than away. Because he played so well at home, does that mean he gets no credit for the tough batting conditions he encountered there?

Why would I? Have I ever used that as a reason to give him extra credit.

He grew up on those pitches, that's the norm.

And his away average is partly worse because of his performance in places like England, which swings and is probably the only place more helpful, though for different reasons.

But as I've said repeatedly in the past. Batsmen are impacted by bowlers, bowlers are impacted by conditions.

If you average is so good in Pakistan, why isn't it better in England, SA, Australia, WI.

Let's say Australia always has a good team, understood. England wasn't that great, nor the WI. It was basically just Lara, and we know how that went and is discussed.

There's no accusations, nothing being implied. All I said is of the 3 arguments put forward, I don't subscribe to that one. I don't give extra credit because it apparently worked for them

 

[kyear2]

Sabina Park is very helpful pitch. Maybe Bridgetown also but I don't think other pitches in WI are bowling friendly.


That's a good argument but not against Ambrose I would say.

That's the thing though, like everywhere it's a mixed bag.

Sabina and Kensington were helpful to fast bowling. Trinidad leaned spin, but as pointed out uneven bounce. Don't know how many matches in Bourda even went 5 days, but was spin friendly or flat. ARG was just a run fest, thing was a featherbed.

 

[Coronis]

Why would I? Have I ever used that as a reason to give him extra credit.

He grew up on those pitches, that's the norm.

And his away average is partly worse because of his performance in places like England, which swings and is probably the only place more helpful, though for different reasons.

But as I've said repeatedly in the past. Batsmen are impacted by bowlers, bowlers are impacted by conditions.

If you average is so good in Pakistan, why isn't it better in England, SA, Australia, WI.

Let's say Australia always has a good team, understood. England wasn't that great, nor the WI. It was basically just Lara, and we know how that went and is discussed.

There's no accusations, nothing being implied. All I said is of the 3 arguments put forward, I don't subscribe to that one. I don't give extra credit because it apparently worked for them

Jesus….

What’s more impressive, a 55 average in SA or a 55 average in Australia? Take your time