Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn

[subshakerz]

Wasim Akram. He took 154 wkts at home in 41 tests.

Exactly who I want Ambrose grouped with.

 

[Slifer]

Exactly who I want Ambrose grouped with.

You can want that all you want but if the community disagrees, which they appear to do that's ok. Fwiw, we critique his wpm and sr but how many fast bowlers average less than Curtly. Us whatever cutoff you like. For me, he gets major credit for that.

 

[subshakerz]

You can want that all you want but if the community disagrees, which they appear to do that's ok. Fwiw, we critique his wpm and sr but how many fast bowlers average less than Curtly. Us whatever cutoff you like. For me, he gets major credit for that.

Sure but some of us like more than shiny averages in our ATGs

 

[kyear2]

Exactly. In absense of India and with not much in Pakistan, questionmarks will remain on Ambrose as far as SC goes.

You missed my point, India isn't the testing ground you're making it out to be, of the top 6 bowlers only Imran "failed" there. And while not good enough for your standards, Ambrose didn't fail in Pakistan. But again, is this about flat wickets or an arbitrary SC test, because Ambrose performed quite well on flat ones. And failed no where he played.

Someone said it a few weeks or months back, rating by checklist is going too far. He performed well on flat pitches, he performed well everywhere he played and he performed brilliantly vs the best team of his era. But none of that id good enough for you, he must complete the checklist.

 

[Slifer]

Sure but some of us like more than shiny averages in our ATGs

Ambrose is not making most people's atg, so I fail to see the issue. Mine fwiw would be:

Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman*
Viv
Sachin
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne


Most others would likely include McGrath, Akram for his left handed variety), Murali but rarely Ambrose. So again, what is your issue?

 

[kyear2]

Sure but some of us like more than shiny averages in our ATGs

What is an average and how is it calculated? More importantly why is it seen and used as the primary assessor / value of a cricketer. It's how many wickets you take vs how much runs you cost your team. Our next step after that is strike rate, to determine how quickly those wickets were taken. 54 isn't great, it's actually average at best for ATGs.

His average is almost peerless, which means even when he wasn't taking wickets he managed to keep it tight, harder to do, but hey. His strike rate isn't great, but most of that was due to his shoulder injury. My question is, if he is a tier below (which you established from your very first post on the Warne / Ambrose thread), why is his average still way better than Imran's, while the s/r is less than a point apart?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Just for the record, the community, which isn't quite as clueless as subs believe does rate him above Steyn and Imran, but that's besides the point.

We cite India, and I believe Peterhrt referenced this, as a graveyard, but most of the great fast bowlers performed well there. Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, actually it's only Imran who didn't. So don't know why we would believe Ambrose couldn't have done well.

But again conjecture, which is as much conjecture as to suggest that he wouldn't have.

When I say could have, I mine with definitive surety rated as a tier above. Now its very close between the three, and for me, its ok if you go for anyone among the 3 for the spot number 4

 

[kyear2]

That is untrue. I was downgrading Ambrose respective to Warne and you went all sourpuss, and you brought Imran vs. Ambrose more in relation to a separate posters's arguments, not mine. I wasn't even wanting to bring Imran up then, except in the separate Imran vs Ambrose thread.

Come on, man, people can revisit the original thread and see who is mischaracterizing. But at least you seem to admit that my argument wasn't Ambrose vs Imran to begin with as you originally said.

I found and reposted then for you btw

 

[subshakerz]

Someone said it a few weeks or months back, rating by checklist is going too far. He performed well on flat pitches, he performed well everywhere he played and he performed brilliantly vs the best team of his era. But none of that id good enough for you, he must complete the checklist.

Sorry but this is disingenuous. Marshall is up there because of 'rating by checklist'. You are just against applying the same standards. A better showcase across countries is a better record.

What is an average and how is it calculated? More importantly why is it seen and used as the primary assessor / value of a cricketer. It's how many wickets you take vs how much runs you cost your team. Our next step after that is strike rate, to determine how quickly those wickets were taken. 54 isn't great, it's actually average at best for ATGs.

Yup 54 is slightly below average for a too tier ATG.

His average is almost peerless, which means even when he wasn't taking wickets he managed to keep it tight, harder to do, but hey. His strike rate isn't great, but most of that was due to his shoulder injury. My question is, if he is a tier below (which you established from your very first post on the Warne / Ambrose thread), why is his average still way better than Imran's, while the s/r is less than a point apart?

Missing the point again. His average is so good because for large parts of his career when his pace left him he focused on just defensively holding up one end even if it meant he would take less wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose is not making most people's atg, so I fail to see the issue. Mine fwiw would be:

Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman*
Viv
Sachin
Sobers
Gilchrist +
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne


Most others would likely include McGrath, Akram for his left handed variety), Murali but rarely Ambrose. So again, what is your issue?

It's not really a big issue. I believe Ambrose belongs a couple of places down in the ATG bowlers scale compared to CW consensus but still solidly top ten.