Imran Khan vs Curtley Ambrose

[DrWolverine]

@Johan
Vijay Merchant? He played just 10 Tests.
Otherwise that’s the team I would select as well

 

[kyear2]

It's not similar because for one, Australia in Ambrose's time was disticntly the best batting lineup. Lillee played one test in the West Indies. 2nd Ambrose actually did great in Australia something only Akram amongst his contemporaries managed. 3rd Ambrose wasn't piss poor in his limited sample size in Asia like Lillee was. It's not farfetched to assume given more tests in South Africa and NZ Ambrose would clean up, he has good records in both countries. And with more matches in Asia i don't see him averaging much more than say around 25 with his sr and wpm suffering. That's it.

Imo, you can't hold it against Ambrose's over something he had no control over. He missed the only opportunity to tour India in 1994; he was injured. Even in the countries he played extensively, let's not just assume that he played only on favorable wickets. For example, in the WI he would've played at two of the flattest wickets on earth: ARG and Bourda. In Australia: Sydney. In England Kensington etc.

No, because Australia was the best team during Ambrose's time where as England/NZ were not remotely so in Lillee's. Ambrose is one of two bowlers from the 90s who can claim to have been great in Australia. That's not by coincidence. It's no wonder the last time a team beat Aus in Aus for 15 years was mostly due to Ambrose.

He skips the point that the toughest challenge was Australia.

And yes there's been a trend here if late to reduce everything to the SC is the ultimate litmus test for a bowler.

The SC doesn't hold a monopoly on flat pitches, and you've highlighted quite a few he would have played on. He's more than tested in flat conditions and vs the best team of his era.

What more is there?

 

[kyear2]

Bumrah’s Overseas performance better than Waqar already.

Bumrah is already better than and should be rated ahead of Waqar imo. Easily makes a SC XI for me.

 

[Van_Sri]

Can’t compare Ambrose and Imran Khan- Ambrose was better, Ambrose mostly played in Australia and England cannot make him any inferior player. As having good record in these countries is considered prestigious.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

When Imran played SL were minnows, and he didn't succeed in India.

Where did Imran succeed that Ambrose didn't?

He wasn't as good as Ambrose in Australia nor England. Similar small sample size in NZ and was moderate there as well.

This well rounded argument is not nearly accurate. Over his career without cherry picking (for which you don't allow for Ambrose), he didn't average below 24 in any country. His strike rate away from home is 60.

And for the peer rating person, and for the talk of rating with Lillee, there isn't a batsman who faced them both who rates Imran above Lillee.... Not a single one. So if anyone should be rated with Lillee, it is Imran, and that's exactly where I group him. With Lillee, Donald, Lindwall, Holding and Garner.

But feel free to share in which country did Imran perform better than Ambrose.

He can't. Subz is on his usual narrow minded crusade. Today it's Ambrose, tomorrow it'll be Lara or Kallis or Ashwin or insert great cricketer with a irrelevant flaw.

Imran played in Australia, England and extensively as well and was great in 2 of three but not remotely close to the level Ambrose was. I don't think Ambrose would've dominated in Asia given more matches but that wouldn't detract from his overall greatness. McGrath, his great contemporary was mediocre in Pakistan and SL over 9 tests only great in india. And nobody rates Walsh amongst the best even though he was great in : Eng, RSA, NZ, Pak and Ind. I don't see Ambrose doing much worse especially not average wise.

 

[subshakerz]

And yes there's been a trend here if late to reduce everything to the SC is the ultimate litmus test for a bowler.

The SC doesn't hold a monopoly on flat pitches, and you've highlighted quite a few he would have played on.

Then Lillee > Marshall.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think Ambrose would've dominated in Asia

Thank you for that concession.

Can you agree that Ambrose taking 90 percent of his wickets in Aus, Eng and WI and only 36 wickets in 12 outside that is a legitimate point against him?

 

[DrWolverine]

Ambrose has 90 percent of his wickets in the friendly conditions of Aus, Eng and home, and in the small samples outside of that he accomplished little.

Lillee gets penalised because he didn’t play much outside Aus, Eng & NZ. Then it should be fair that Ambrose should also be penalised for the same.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Then Lillee > Marshall.

And Walsh>Lillee, McGrath, Ambrose, Trueman etc.

 

[subshakerz]

And Walsh>Lillee, McGrath, Ambrose, Trueman etc.

Walsh isn't an ATG bowler and isn't part of these discussions. You know that is a strawman. Stick to the point.

 

[smash84]

I must say subz has made some decent arguments against Ambrose.

I think we've been overrating him.

As in Lillee gets heavily penalized for his SC record, the same should apply to Ambrose.

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee gets penalised because he didn’t play much outside Aus, Eng & NZ. Then it should be fair that Ambrose should also be penalised for the same.

And the other part of that argument is that in what little Lillee did play outside, he didn't do much, which applies to Ambrose.

It would entirely differently if Ambrose won several games in those few tests but he had little impact.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Lillee gets penalised because he didn’t play much outside Aus, Eng & NZ. Then it should be fair that Ambrose should also be penalised for the same.

Yeah that's fine but none of those teams was the best of their times. Why are we missing that point. Again, between 1993 and 2007 (i believe) Australia didn't lose a series at home. Ambrose was the main culprit behind that last series loss.

 

[Randomfan]

Yeah, it's literally the countries decide where they're going based on finances, the better draw and the best teams of the time.

It's not to satisfy someone's checklist 30 years later.

For us, it was Australia and England. Think it's PEWS who said it wasn't so much that Lillee didn't play as much everywhere, but that he wasn't better considering where he played.

Yah, for example 30 years later some one may argue that Bumrah should be docked lots of points due to not playing in Pakistan while comapring to some one else who played in Pakistan. I don't think he will ever play in Pakistan. Focus should't be where he did not play. Focus should be to see where he played a lot alongside other top bowlers and how he compares where sample size is a large one for many top bowlers. If he stands out in that large sample size then he stands out and him not playing in Pakistan is a non-issue.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Walsh isn't an ATG bowler and isn't part of these discussions. You know that is a strawman. Stick to the point.

Bro you brought in other players and have done so extensively all the time why can't I do the same? Therefore Walsh > Ambrose, McGrath, Lillee etc.

 

[kyear2]

Idk why you keep mentioning Lillee, who holds anything against Lillee? Pundits usually have him as the greatest, i disagree but that's how it is.

Anyway, in NZ he literally played that series right after injury and in South Africa he wasn't poor. The WI team was poor.

You say Ambrose only played/did well in conditions that favored seam/pace but I'm curious. Imran played in NZ, Australia, WI and England and those places favor pace as well no? Yet collectively over 37 matches in those countries, Imran went at 26 with a SR of 60. Oh also fwiw, Imran didnt do that well in Asia per se. He was great at home like any other cricketer but was so so in India (nobody counts SL because they were minnows). I know you well though, you'll argue "context," Imran wasn't ready in the 70s, he was injured, his mom died bla bla bla. But won't afford any context to Curtly like the fact that he too was injured which affected him post 1994 or that he had no control over WI scheduling.

All of this.

For him context is a one way street and it's nonsense.

He says Imran did well in Asia but failed in India by ATG context.

He says Ambrose wasn't adaptable, nonsense he reinvented himself at least once, and again after the injury to ensure he didn't hurt his team.

There are multiple reasons for Imran's struggles outside of Pakistan and one was because he had one thing, inswing.

Of course there was the tampering and the umps, but if you can't consistently threaten the outside edge, you're going to struggle in some conditions. You have to pitch the ball up further and that can present other issues.

If you can threaten the outside edge, you're more a consistent threat.

Imran was an ATG bowler, let's not pretend that he was consistently excellent away from home with a perfect well rounded record. And certainly wasn't excellent in the SC.

 

[subshakerz]

Bro you brought in other players and have done so extensively all the time why can't I do the same? Therefore Walsh > Ambrose, McGrath, Lillee etc.

Lillee and Marshall are ATGs as is Ambrose.

 

[kyear2]

Why is Pant playing at number 7 position? He plays best at number 5.

Becuse the batsmen ahead of him are better?

 

[subshakerz]

Yah, for example 30 years later some one may argue that Bumrah should be docked lots of points due to not playing in Pakistan while comapring to some one else who played in Pakistan. I don't think he will ever play in Pakistan. Focus should't be where he did not play. Focus should be to see where he played a lot alongside other top bowlers and how he compares where sample size is a large one for many top bowlers. If he stands out in that large sample size then he stands out and him not playing in Pakistan is a non-issue.

Bumrah already has reasonably large samples in four countries.

 

[kyear2]

Actually Bumrah or Waqar makes little difference in this team as both are great bowlers.

Bumrah is just better dude.