Ambrose vs Warne: Greater Test Bowler?

[SillyCowCorner1]

Ambrose's record: not bad for a guy who wanted to play in the NBA

Warne's record: not bad for a guy who wanted to play Aussie Football

 

[kyear2]

Wow, there's a lot to digest here and will try to touch each point....

Before I start, as @Saket1209 said, Steyn, Ambrose and Imran are really close to each other and definitely below the "big 3"

I'll also state that I rate them Steyn, Ambrose, then Imran.

@subshakerz why do I rate Ambrose higher than Imran? Better home and away ratio and and better rounded record than Imran and Steyn. Not including records for less than 5 tests played in any country.

Imran averaged in
Australia - 28
England - 24
India - 28
Pakistan - 19
West Indies - 25

Ambrose averaged in
Australia - 19
England - 20
Pakistan - 25
West Indies - 21

Steyn averaged in
Australia - 28
England - 31
India - 21
South Africa - 21
Sri Lanka - 30

Ambrose's highest average outside of the Caribbean is the same as Imran's lowest outside of Pakistan.

Additionally while everyone says that Imran performed brilliantly everywhere, that's not exactly true, what we can say is that he had excellent performed everywhere.

And the Ambrose not proving himself in the SC thing is a bit played out. The toughest challenge in his day was Australia, and he handled that. The SC also didn't have the monopoly on dead or unresponsive pitches, there were plenty in the Caribbean.

As I said, I rate all three very highly and literally 4, 5 & 6 all time, so can't be much closer to each other.

 

[Migara]

Compared to Warne, Ambrose wasn't destroyed nearly as much as Warne but he was probably neutralised more often.

Warne's main issue is India. It isn't even conditions as much.

Warne's issue is India and vs India. He was poor against WI in WI.. May be the pitches he had to bowl on were designed to neutralize Indian spinners. Warne averages 32 or something against SL in Australia as well. May have been the same reason.

 

[subshakerz]

This is silly. They both resorted to this in unfavourable conditions, because... well it worked and it's not their fault for doing that. Ambrose a tad bit more, but both of them were a bit conservative and not balls to the wall strike bowlers for all conditions like a Steyn , or even Marshall or Hadlee.

Also, I'm not going to argue that Ambrose was as great later on as in his early career, but his average was still damn impressive for a player no longer at his peak. Sub 26 (usually sub 24) for every year after 94. To me that's useful longevity, not something to be used against him.

The nice thing about both him and McGrath, is that they simply could not be targeted to hit out of the attack even in tough bowling conditions. It was too risky in playing those strokes and when batsmen did they would pay.

The others, it was still very cat and mouse for the most part, but you could attack good length deliveries more reasonably.

The problem is that Warne and McGrath would at least try different things on unhelpful wickets, not just go robotic like Ambrose.

I have come to the conclusion that the low average is entirely misleading in Ambrose's case and overstates his greatness as a bowler. On bouncy, pacy and seaming wicket he was awesome, but on others he would be content to simply be played out harmlessly which accounts for many low wicket taking phases of his career.

Ambrose's main issue is lack of penetration when the wicket doesn't help him, and his low averages hides this to fool many of us here.

 

[subshakerz]

And the Ambrose not proving himself in the SC thing is a bit played out. The toughest challenge in his day was Australia, and he handled that. The SC also didn't have the monopoly on dead or unresponsive pitches, there were plenty in the Caribbean.

Yeah Australia were the toughest batting lineup but also the most sporting pitches for his style.

The SC was the exact challenge that would test his type of bowling. He has significant questionmarks for me.

 

[kyear2]

This. How many series or even tests has Ambrose performed on flat wickets?



Imran is a bit better.

The funny thing is that Lara is often cited as being a HTB on the flat WI pitches. As I said earlier, the SC didn't have the monopoly on non responsive wickets. Australia, WI, even England has them. Half the wickets in the Caribbean were flat, Bourda, Queens Park Oval and the ARG.

If he failed in the SC sure, if he skipped tours, why not. Not getting to tour and being marked down when he proves himself vs the best batting lineup in the world is disingenuous.

 

[subshakerz]

The funny thing is that Lara is often cited as being a HTB on the flat WI pitches. As I said earlier, the SC didn't have the monopoly on non responsive wickets. Australia, WI, even England has them. Half the wickets in the Caribbean were flat, Bourda, Queens Park Oval and the ARG.

Lara in the 2000s maybe, when Ambrose had retired.

If he failed in the SC sure, if he skipped tours, why not. Not getting to tour and being marked down when he proves himself vs the best batting lineup in the world is disingenuous.

You could use the same argument to.excuse Lillee, but we do.mark.him down for not being proven in SC.

 

[kyear2]

The problem is that Warne and McGrath would at least try different things on unhelpful wickets, not just go robotic like Ambrose.

I have come to the conclusion that the low average is entirely misleading in Ambrose's case and overstates his greatness as a bowler. On bouncy, pacy and seaming wicket he was awesome, but on others he would be content to simply be played out harmlessly which accounts for many low wicket taking phases of his career.

Ambrose's main issue is lack of penetration when the wicket doesn't help him, and his low averages hides this to fool many of us here.

Ok, sooooo....

Ambrose's averages were misleading because he didn't play enough in India and Pakistan. He played 5 matches in Pakistan, which is 3 more than Steyn, but Steyn payed 4 in the UAE, so let's call that equal.

Steyn played 6 in India and averaged 21, Ambrose didn't get to. Steyn averaged 28 and 31 in England and Australia respectively, places where Ambrose dominated. But those were helpful conditions, so guess doesn't matter, right? But then if it was so easy in Australia, why doesn't anyone else's record come close to what he did. Akram, Donald, how did they perform in Australia during that era?

Ok, now, Imran's average is misleading because......

He played in high scoring series? Weren't these the same pitches that Hadlee and Marshall performed exceedingly well on? Pakistan was supposed to be a grave yards, yet he performed better there than the apparently helpful pitches of Australia and England? Why???

Ambrose didn't play minnows, yet to say his average is misleading and he doesn't belong in the top 5, but Imran who is the only ATG pacer with such a disparity between home and away records does is rich. That Steyn who gets extra credit for playing in a batsman friendly era, yet played the vast majority of games at home and struggled outside of which (India apart) does? And if the England team with Atherton, Alec, Robin, Lamb was poor, what would you call the WI, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe teams he faced? And since we're here, how about the Sri Lanka team Imran played almost as much as he played England that he averaged 14 against.

If you want to disparage someone's figures, please look at the ones of the people he's competing against as well.

So again, my rankings of the 3 if them

4th Steyn
5th Ambrose
6th Imran

 

[shortpitched713]

The problem is that Warne and McGrath would at least try different things on unhelpful wickets, not just go robotic like Ambrose.

I have come to the conclusion that the low average is entirely misleading in Ambrose's case and overstates his greatness as a bowler. On bouncy, pacy and seaming wicket he was awesome, but on others he would be content to simply be played out harmlessly which accounts for many low wicket taking phases of his career.

Ambrose's main issue is lack of penetration when the wicket doesn't help him, and his low averages hides this to fool many of us here.

So the main indicator of what bowlers do, which he did, is misleading, according to you. I mean I agree in a small way about best bowlers ideally being strike bowlers, but this is taking it way, way too far. No bowler is a one man army, regardless of how close some seem to come in the most spectacular circumstances.

 

[subshakerz]

So the main indicator of what bowlers do, which he did, is misleading, according to you. I mean I agree in a small way about best bowlers ideally being strike bowlers, but this is taking it way, way too far. No bowler is a one man army, regardless of how close some seem to come in the most spectacular circumstances.

I am saying it is an exception in Ambrose case because it doesn't necessary show his wicket impact, but more his miserliness.

 

[Archer6K]

Very close, voted for Ambrose because a large proportion of Warne’s wickets were tail enders

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, sooooo....

Ambrose's averages were misleading because he didn't play enough in India and Pakistan. He played 5 matches in Pakistan, which is 3 more than Steyn, but Steyn payed 4 in the UAE, so let's call that equal.

Steyn played 6 in India and averaged 21, Ambrose didn't get to. Steyn averaged 28 and 31 in England and Australia respectively, places where Ambrose dominated. But those were helpful conditions, so guess doesn't matter, right? But then if it was so easy in Australia, why doesn't anyone else's record come close to what he did. Akram, Donald, how did they perform in Australia during that era?

Ok, now, Imran's average is misleading because......

He played in high scoring series? Weren't these the same pitches that Hadlee and Marshall performed exceedingly well on? Pakistan was supposed to be a grave yards, yet he performed better there than the apparently helpful pitches of Australia and England? Why???

Ambrose didn't play minnows, yet to say his average is misleading and he doesn't belong in the top 5, but Imran who is the only ATG pacer with such a disparity between home and away records does is rich. That Steyn who gets extra credit for playing in a batsman friendly era, yet played the vast majority of games at home and struggled outside of which (India apart) does? And if the England team with Atherton, Alec, Robin, Lamb was poor, what would you call the WI, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe teams he faced? And since we're here, how about the Sri Lanka team Imran played almost as much as he played England that he averaged 14 against.

If you want to disparage someone's figures, please look at the ones of the people he's competing against as well.

So again, my rankings of the 3 if them

4th Steyn
5th Ambrose
6th Imran

All of this is besides the point. My reason for saying his average is misleading is because quite often it didn't match up with wicket impact.

For example, someone said he succeeded in SA based on average, yet he took 13 wickets in 4 tests, which is ok but not quite as spectacular. People say he succeeded in Pakistan with 15 wickets in 5 tests. And these sorts of small series hauls with low average were pretty much his MO from 94 onwards. Hence misleading.

People are overestimating latter half career Ambrose based on his low average. He wasn't nearly as great a bowler.

And I have yet to see someone bring up a notable flat pitch performance of his.

 

[kyear2]

As I mentioned earlier, was watching an old Sky video on the greatest sportsmen of all time. So of course there was a panel (Aussies and English only) to select a top ten for cricket to choose one.
The finalists were

Botham
Grace
Sobers
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Lara
Gilchrist
Imran
Warne

Some warranted, some just not.

Then the arguments came that was it always the greatest or the just the most visible, the most charismatic, or as they said, the ones you remember.

The Wisden, the top 6 were

Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Richards, Warne.

One can easily argue that Richards nor Warne have any right being there. And Lillee, besides the bravado, how was he better than Marshall, Hadlee or Imran.

Seems that fast bowlers are disrespected compared to batsmen, and personality factors way too much into these lists.

As someone mentioned, Warne was even a unanimous selections for Cricinfo's all time team alone with much more deserving Sobers and Bradman.

Now before I make my next statement, I think it must be noted that someone can be great and over rated. And with that being said it's hard to look past Warne as possibly the most over rated cricketer in history. I also note that Richards, Lara, Wasim and Lillee are up there as well, but Warne has to be it. Still makes the first team, but yeah.

Most under rated out there? Marshall, may be a biased view, but even in that top 10, how does Lara, Botham, Warne make it over the most statistically complete of the century.

But yeah, Still my top 5 pacers over any of the two spinners

 

[Prince EWS]

I think Ambrose is the worst fast bowler to be better than all the spinners. Imran vs Warne/Murali is really close for me but I think Ambrose was fractionally better than that group of three.

 

[subshakerz]

Unfortunately I am convinced by this thread how easily some posters just follow averages regardless of if the bowler is actually taking wickets.

In analysing a cricketer, you refuse to account for ground realities.

Kyear brought the fact that WI also had flat wickets. Well, Ambrose is probably the only modern ATG bowler to have less than 4WPM in his own home country. That is because he would frequently go missing for entire series at home, just bowling down the corridor and be negotiated away. Also away too.

Ambrose took less than 4WPM in around 45% of the series he played in, not counting single tests. Steyn did it 20%, McGrath and Marshall around 30%. Imran is similar to Ambrose but that is only counting the fact that he played 5/6 series as a specialist bat.

Ambrose had a problem. Ambrose struggled with penetration in his bowling when conditions didn't suit and just went with the motions.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Unfortunately I am convinced by this thread how easily some posters just follow averages regardless of if the bowler is actually taking wickets.

In analysing a cricketer, you refuse to account for ground realities.

Kyear brought the fact that WI also had flat wickets. Well, Ambrose is probably the only modern ATG bowler to have less than 4WPM in his own home country. That is because he would frequently go missing for entire series at home, just bowling down the corridor and be negotiated away. Also away too.

Ambrose's WPM at home: 3.9
Ambrose's net WPM: 4.13


Imran's WPM at home: 4.28
Imran's net WPM: 4.11

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose's WPM at home: 3.9
Ambrose's net WPM: 4.13


Imran's WPM at home: 4.28
Imran's net WPM: 4.11

Imran played around 5/6 series as a specialist bat. Did you account for that?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Wow, there's a lot to digest here and will try to touch each point....

Before I start, as @Saket1209 said, Steyn, Ambrose and Imran are really close to each other and definitely below the "big 3"

I'll also state that I rate them Steyn, Ambrose, then Imran.

@subshakerz why do I rate Ambrose higher than Imran? Better home and away ratio and and better rounded record than Imran and Steyn. Not including records for less than 5 tests played in any country.

Imran averaged in
Australia - 28
England - 24
India - 28
Pakistan - 19
West Indies - 25

Ambrose averaged in
Australia - 19
England - 20
Pakistan - 25
West Indies - 21

Steyn averaged in
Australia - 28
England - 31
India - 21
South Africa - 21
Sri Lanka - 30

Ambrose's highest average outside of the Caribbean is the same as Imran's lowest outside of Pakistan.

Additionally while everyone says that Imran performed brilliantly everywhere, that's not exactly true, what we can say is that he had excellent performed everywhere.

And the Ambrose not proving himself in the SC thing is a bit played out. The toughest challenge in his day was Australia, and he handled that. The SC also didn't have the monopoly on dead or unresponsive pitches, there were plenty in the Caribbean.

As I said, I rate all three very highly and literally 4, 5 & 6 all time, so can't be much closer to each other.

Imran has great performances in Australia, Eng, home, WI and SL. Also going by pure averages isn't a good idea. Imran in WI was clearly ahead of Ambrose everywhere, other than Ambrose in Aus. His average was higher cause he was overbowled there on his first tour. But he literally took 48 wickets 8 wickets and struck at an SR of 45 vs the WI of that era. He was goodish in NZ(clearly outperformed Hadlee), and India. In Aus, I have explained why his low average is misleading(40 wickets in 8 matches prior to the last tour plus his great WSC record). Same for Steyn in Aus and Eng. And Steyn was a master in Ind, Australia, SA, Bang, Pak, WI, goodish in NZ, outperformed Broad/Anderson in Eng. And Ambrose' WI record is weird, where he was a master on the supposed deadest wicket there, but lesser records on better wickets there. So, it is a hole in his record

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

For both Imran and Steyn , context in essential. Even I used to think they are only decentish in Australia, but both are magnificent there(only below Ambrose/Hadlee tier in Australia). Even Steyn's performances in Eng are impressive in context. Ambrose got better pitches in Eng, and worse batting lineups. So you can't compare directly.

 

[subshakerz]

For both Imran and Steyn , context in essential. Even I used to think they are only decentish in Australia, but both are magnificent there(only below Ambrose/Hadlee tier in Australia). Even Steyn's performances in Eng are impressive in context. Ambrose got better pitches in Eng, and worse batting lineups. So you can't compare directly.

Steyn would have wrecked nineties England in England IMO.

Steyn in Australia wasn't magnificent, but pretty good. He struggled on flat wickets there except for his two standout performances.