Ambrose vs Imran, who was better away from home?

[HouHsiaoHsien]

copy pasta?

Nah I’m serious dude. So many people are just so biased towards Ambrose, that they are willing to bet you would have done in NZ, SA, even SC pitches. Basis what? And the same people find it impossible to understand the pitches in the 1990 Wi vs pak series were such that it was if the series was in a SENA country. That series was an exception of sorts, context wise. But no, let’s ignore context. Ambrose would’ve wrecked everyone, right? And conjecture wise even I can say if Imran wouldn’t have had the shin injury, he would’ve toured Aus in 1983:84 and improved his record there further and other countries. But conjecture ain’t gonna take us far. Btw the difference is that it’s ok for people to chose Ambrose over Imran, and there’s nothing wrong with their credibility. But if you make the mistake of choosing Imran, your credibility is called into account. This is what happens when one lacks fact based arguments.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, first the insult then asked to answer the question.

Smali, the question was literally who performed better away from home, it wasn't who performed better in the SC, or on dead pitches in Pakistan.

'Away from home' doesnt mean just a couple of countries.

Ambrose's record away from the Caribbean was better than Imran's, that's objectively true. Ambrose's record down under is among the best of anyone's anywhere and he destroyed England like no one else of the era. He didn't make the schedule, nor did he skip tours, where he played he dominated. The greatest challenge of his day was to beat Australia in Australia and he managed that and more. He played 5 matches in Pakistan, but according to some that wouldn't count, because the pitches were more helpful than usual. If that isn't moving the goal posts I don't know what is.
He didn't play in India, let's assume the worst case scenario and he failed, that's the only such country in which he did. Where's the issue?

For the millioneth time, nobody is arguing about his greatness in Australia/England. But his record outside of that is underwhelming or a questionmark

We are arguing whether he did anything else of note outside of that to justify being a better away bowler. 15 wickets in 5 tests in Pakistan, 13 wickets in 4 tests in SA, 5 wickets in 2 test in NZ and 3 wickets in 1 test in SL, and no tests in India isn't really much for us to go on. Imran objectively has a more diverse set of accomplishments.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah I’m serious dude. So many people are just so biased towards Ambrose, that they are willing to bet you would have done in NZ, SA, even SC pitches. Basis what? And the same people find it impossible to understand the pitches in the 1990 Wi vs pak series were such that it was if the series was in a SENA country. That series was an exception of sorts, context wise. But no, let’s ignore context. Ambrose would’ve wrecked everyone, right? And conjecture wise even I can say if Imran wouldn’t have had the shin injury, he would’ve toured Aus in 1983:84 and improved his record there further and other countries. But conjecture ain’t gonna take us far. Btw the difference is that it’s ok for people to chose Ambrose over Imran, and there’s nothing wrong with their credibility. But if you make the mistake of choosing Imran, your credibility is called into account. This is what happens when one lacks fact based arguments.

The pitches in the 1990 Wi vs pak series don't matter much because his overall record there isn't really impressive by any means.

The bias here is basically brain rot. They are so used to Ambrose being in the top half dozen that to question that with facts they aren't used to gets these sorts of slippery, wafer thin logic responses.

 

[ma1978]

Who cares?

 

[Slifer]

Same cliches we heard for Lillee. 'Oh yeah, Lillee would have wrecked India'. You're judged by what you did, mate.

And no, he didnt lack penetration late in his career, it was half way through his career. And his small series haul samples are from that era.

And you are literally giving our point: he didn't have enough of a complete sample away from home to make his case.

You're whole argument is 'Look how great he did in Australia, I bet he would have done the same everywhere else.'

Lillee and Curtly are apples and oranges and you know this. The fact that you even mentioned together says a lot. Did Lillee play away extensively vs the best team of his time ? No. Amby did. Also, overall in small sample sizes in RSA, Pak and NZ Ambrose did just fine. You have an agenda where Curtly is concerned that you need to get over. Because nobody thinks he's the goat of fast bowlers. He's an atg , easily in the top 10 of all time.

Anyway, most of us have voted. Live with it and move on.

 

[kyear2]

'Away from home' doesnt mean just a couple of countries.


For the millioneth time, nobody is arguing about his greatness in Australia/England. But his record outside of that is underwhelming or a questionmark

We are arguing whether he did anything else of note outside of that to justify being a better away bowler. 15 wickets in 5 tests in Pakistan, 13 wickets in 4 tests in SA, 5 wickets in 2 test in NZ and 3 wickets in 1 test in SL, and no tests in India isn't really much for us to go on. Imran objectively has a more diverse set of accomplishments.

Away from home means outside of the Caribbean, and honestly doesn't matter if it's enough for you to go on. Let's be honest, you see the subcontinent as somewhat of a litmus test, that not everyone does.

Imran on the other hand, didn't average under 24 in any country outside of Pakistan. And no, I'm not counting SL.

Anyways, I'm done with the arguing over this one.

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee and Curtly are apples and oranges and you know this. The fact that you even mentioned together says a lot. Did Lillee play away extensively vs the best team of his time ? No. Amby did. Also, overall in small sample sizes in RSA, Pak and NZ Ambrose did just fine. You have an agenda where Curtly is concerned that you need to get over. Because nobody thinks he's the goat of fast bowlers. He's an atg , easily in the top 10 of all time.

Anyway, most of us have voted. Live with it and move on.

Ambrose is different and it is precisely his bowling style we have been critiquing.

And no his small sample sizes in those countries just emphasize the same concern over lack of penetration.

 

[subshakerz]

Away from home means outside of the Caribbean, and honestly doesn't matter if it's enough for you to go on. Let's be honest, you see the subcontinent as somewhat of a litmus test, that not everyone does.

Imran on the other hand, didn't average under 24 in any country outside of Pakistan. And no, I'm not counting SL.

Anyways, I'm done with the arguing over this one.

Lol I will take this non-answer as a sign you don't really have a counter argument.

Yes, SC is a litmus test, as is Australia, and other regions of varying conditions. This is what we mean by an 'away record'.

Next time please address the actual argument.

 

[Slifer]

Ambrose is different and it is precisely his bowling style we have been critiquing.

And no his small sample sizes in those countries just emphasize the same concern over lack of penetration.

Yeah but the poll asked who was better away not about bowling style. And statistically Ambrose is better. He had small sample sizes in certain places but even in those small sample sizes he did just fine. I mean his crew mate played extensively everywhere and has a peerless record in Asia but no one with a functioning brain thinks Walsh was better away than Ambrose.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Walsh was probably a better away bowler than Lillee tbh. Don’t think he was better than Ambrose tho

 

[Line and Length]

Lol I will take this non-answer as a sign you don't really have a counter argument.

Yes, SC is a litmus test, as is Australia, and other regions of varying conditions. This is what we mean by an 'away record'.

Next time please address the actual argument.

This has been addressed by a number of posters yet you continue, like a dog with a bone, to use Ambrose's relatively small SC number of games to downplay his away from home record. We can only judge on actual history, not hypotheticals.
The actual argument is 'who was better away from home'. To address that we only need to look at one set of facts.
Ambrose away from home 202 wickets @ 20.78 in 46 Tests
Imran away from home 199 wickets @ 25.76 in 50 Tests.

And before you continue your rant about the SC, Ambrose took 18 wickets @ 22.5 in his limited games there - still superior to Imran's away record.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah but the poll asked who was better away not about bowling style. And statistically Ambrose is better. He had small sample sizes in certain places but even in those small sample sizes he did just fine. I mean his crew mate played extensively everywhere and has a peerless record in Asia but no one with a functioning brain thinks Walsh was better away than Ambrose.

He didn't. That's the point. If it was Imran you wouldnt consider 13 wickets in 4 tests as acceptable returns.

And Walsh failed in Australia, which is another litmus test. I never suggested that SC is the only one. You've all been beating that strawman to death

 

[subshakerz]

This has been addressed by a number of posters yet you continue, like a dog with a bone, to use Ambrose's relatively small SC number of games to downplay his away from home record. We can only judge on actual history, not hypotheticals.

Not just SC, but in SA and NZ too. Basically, he hasnt accomplished much anywhere outside Australia/England. You think he did because you did a lazy reading of averages to believe so.

Again you don't address the point. Why is just England/Australia enough to be the better away bowler?

The actual argument is 'who was better away from home'. To address that we only need to look at one set of facts.
Ambrose away from home 202 wickets @ 20.78 in 46 Tests
Imran away from home 199 wickets @ 25.76 in 50 Tests.

I would expect seasoned posters to not have to resort to raw averages without looking into countries like someone who only learned cricket stats a week ago. This argument is too dumb to address.

And before you continue your rant about the SC, Ambrose took 18 wickets @ 22.5 in his limited games there - still superior to Imran's away record.

Irrelevant.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

So basically what we have learnt from this thread is sample sizes of 5 wickets in 2 countries, 3 wickets in one country are good enough if they are at good enough averages. Secondly averages are everything and if someone averages 27 somewhere he cannot be more than merely good there(ignore WPM, WSC all that). In fact I’m surprised some posters didn’t equate Ambrose in Pak and Imran in WI since both average the same. This Ambrose love here is so potent that it washes over all context. Ambrose’ record in SC is lacking cause his record of one match in SL doesn’t mean anything. Also in Pak, majority of his wickets were on a wicket which wasn’t merely not flat but very SENA like. So how this constitutes into a reasonable or good record in SC, I dunno. I have given context for Imran in Aus and Eng. In the latter atleast he averaged sub 25, and would’ve even below that if the Pak team didn’t make the mistake of playing in 74 when he was too raw and not good enough for this level, not only average debutant problems. Don’t misunderstand me, I’ll still take Ambrose over Imran in Eng, and in Aus(this one’s easy). And both Imran and Ambrose performed with aplomb against the best team of that day: WI in the former and Aus in the latter, just cause Imran averages 25.2 in the former doesn’t mean he’s any less, on his first tour he was the only really threatening bowler and was over-bowled and the WI of Immy’s era was better than Aus of Ambrose’ era. It’s only that in addition to the previous statement, Imran’s record in Aus and Eng is brilliant(slightly short of greatness), good in NZ and India. Ambrose in addition has a great record in Eng, but his records in atleast NZ and SL are far too small. In SA, maybe he could’ve been a good bowler. The Pak record as I’ve explained with context, is ok and nothing more. So I believe Imran’s performances are more spread out and better across conditions.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

This has been addressed by a number of posters yet you continue, like a dog with a bone, to use Ambrose's relatively small SC number of games to downplay his away from home record. We can only judge on actual history, not hypotheticals.
The actual argument is 'who was better away from home'. To address that we only need to look at one set of facts.
Ambrose away from home 202 wickets @ 20.78 in 46 Tests
Imran away from home 199 wickets @ 25.76 in 50 Tests.

And before you continue your rant about the SC, Ambrose took 18 wickets @ 22.5 in his limited games there - still superior to Imran's away record.

It is also hypothetical to base upon 1 or 2 game , whether Ambrose would’ve done well there, especially when he picked a tiny amount of wickets. Also the context for SC is explained, 3 wickets in one match in SL(minnows anyway as you all say for Imran), and the 15 wickets in 5 matches in Pak majoritarily came on SENA like pitches. In 1997 Pak he sucked. I’d easily take Immy’s record in Aus and Eng combined over Ambrose in SC by a hundred miles, despite the average difference s

 

[subshakerz]

It is also hypothetical to base upon 1 or 2 game , whether Ambrose would’ve done well there, especially when he picked a tiny amount of wickets. Also the context for SC is explained, 3 wickets in one match in SL(minnows anyway as you all say for Imran), and the 15 wickets in 5 matches in Pak majoritarily came on SENA like pitches. In 1997 Pak he sucked. I’d easily take Immy’s record in Aus and Eng combined over Ambrose in SC by a hundred miles, despite the average difference s

Actually the reason these guys are salty is because their conventional wisdom has been exposed. When it's pointed out to them they can't use blind averages and look at actual wicket tallies, they either double down or reply with strawmans.

I take their non-answer as a sign of defeat.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And if Ambrose would’ve wrecked NZ lineups of the 90s, I’m sure Imran would’ve more than just wrecked the Eng lineups in 90s, and if Imran didn’t get an injury, he would’ve improved his record vs Aus in 83/84. But all of these are would’ves at the end of the day

 

[subshakerz]

And if Ambrose would’ve wrecked NZ lineups of the 90s, I’m sure Imran would’ve more than just wrecked the Eng lineups in 90s, and if Imran didn’t get an injury, he would’ve improved his record vs Aus in 83/84. But all of these are would’ves at the end of the day

His small hauls in NZ and SA are in the latter unpenetrative half of his career, so consistent with a stretch of low impact miserly series.

 

[Line and Length]

Not just SC, but in SA and NZ too. Basically, he hasnt accomplished much anywhere outside Australia/England. You think he did because you did a lazy reading of averages to believe so.

Again you don't address the point. Why is just England/Australia enough to be the better away bowler?


I would expect seasoned posters to not have to resort to raw averages without looking into countries like someone who only learned cricket stats a week ago. This argument is too dumb to address.


Irrelevant.

I'll address your highlighted question first.
We are comparing two bowlers and their away from home records. Because of scheduling, Ambrose never played in India where Imran played 10 Tests. We are left with the fact that, apart from England and Australia, there are no common away countries that both have played any significant number of Tests in to make a valid comparison based on facts.
I grant you that Imran performed well on Ambrose's home turf while Ambrose's performances in Pakistan, although similar in raw average, is inferior in terms of WPM and overall effectiveness.
Of the other common countries played in (SL and NZ) the tests played by each in both countries are too few for a valid comparison. Ambrose played 1 and 2 Tests in these countries while Imran play 3 and 4.
Back to your question, Tests against England and Australia (34 by Ambrose and 25 by Imran) provide the only significant common ground for a valid comparison.

You accuse me of having to 'resort to raw averages without looking into countries'. Well, I have looked into countries and have a better grasp of cricket stats than you could ever appreciate. I don't make my judgements purely on stats unless I haven't witnessed players in action and I have watched both over many years.
You say, "This argument is too dumb to address." Well at least I have taken the time and courtesy to address your argument even though I could dismiss it as "Irrelevant" as you so bluntly dismissed one of my factual points.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I'll address your highlighted question first.
We are comparing two bowlers and their away from home records. Because of scheduling, Ambrose never played in India where Imran played 10 Tests. We are left with the fact that, apart from England and Australia, there are no common away countries that both have played any significant number of Tests in to make a valid comparison based on facts.
I grant you that Imran performed well on Ambrose's home turf while Ambrose's performances in Pakistan, although similar in raw average, is inferior in terms of WPM and overall effectiveness.
Of the other common countries played in (SL and NZ) the tests played by each in both countries are too few for a valid comparison. Ambrose played 1 and 2 Tests in these countries while Imran play 3 and 4.
Back to your question, Tests against England and Australia (34 by Ambrose and 25 by Imran) provide the only significant common ground for a valid comparison.

You accuse me of having to 'resort to raw averages without looking into countries'. Well, I have looked into countries and have a better grasp of cricket stats than you could ever appreciate. I don't make my judgements purely on stats unless I haven't witnessed players in action and I have watched both over many years.
You say, "This argument is too dumb to address." Well at least I have taken the time and courtesy to address your argument even though I could dismiss it as "Irrelevant" as you so bluntly dismissed one of my factual points.

It is unfair to Imran that the only grounds for comparison are in the counties where Ambrose did well. The fact Ambrose doesn’t have an away record worth considering outside Aus and Eng in any single country, is to his detriment, even if through no fault of his own. I’ll grant Ambrose is a better thab Imran in Aus and Eng, but the fact that Imran bowled enough in other countries as well is an advantage to him, and one of the things that builds an extensive record. So this is to Imran’s advantage and Curtly’s detriment. Curtly’s away record is lease than Imran’s away record cause Curtly rarely bowled in away countries outside Aus and Eng. Imran should get an advantage for having bowled in more countries away, atleast to have a more extensive record. And Imran has 18 wickets in 3 wickets in SL, that indicates a brilliant performance in a limited of tests. Ditto Nz, where his stats aren’t as great, but where he outperformed Richard Hadlee by a significant margin. The latter is enough for me to rate him as good in NZ. Ambrose’s record in certain countries is really empty, 5 wickets in 2 matches, 3 wickets in one. So I’ll sum it up as:
Imran: ATG in WI, brilliant(not great) in Aus and Eng, SL, good in Ind and Nz
Ambrose: ATG in Aus, great in Eng, good in SA(to some extent, but debatable, since for a small record, his WPM is too low to merit consideration unlike say Immy in SL)
So by virtue of Imran having had more of an extensive away record than the concentrated brilliance of Ambrose, I think he is better away. Ambrose is still a top 6 bowler of all time for me. We can’t directly compare Imran and Ambrose country by country, but that doesn’t mean Imran gets an advantage for having a valid record across more countries