Curtly Ambrose vs Sunil Gavaskar

[subshakerz]

probably because Ambrose is top three tourists to both Australia and England, whom have controlled cricketing narrative until fairly recently.

Ambrose isn't top three in England. There are several others who are more penetrative.

 

[subshakerz]

Average less than 23 maybe a good starting point?? Dude, you can't seriously think Lillee was better in Australia?
Lillee wasn't better than Ambrose in England and NZ were close to Minnows. And he sucked donkey balls in Asia.

No Ambrose was better in Aus but it's not like it's a game set match given Lillee is taking 5WPM there with nearly thrice as many games.

Lillee is better in England, 6WPM at a much better SR.

And Ambrose was slightly underwhelming at home with low penetration which everyone ignores here.

 

[subshakerz]

The other ATG bowlers of the era paled in comparison to how Ambrose performed in Australia, yet managed well enough in the SC.
Pre '95 Ambrose would have been fine.

The other ATG bowlers except for Donald were successful in Aus just not at Ambrose level.

And you dont know how pre 95 Ambrose would do in India but you know for a fact post 95 Ambrose is not succeeding in SC at all.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He played the best teams of his era though.

Australia was it then and England he played most often.

Who else in that era was dominant in or vs Australia?

Donald, Wasim, all of them famously struggled, it wasn't something to just throw under the cover of helpful conditions.

Wasim did not struggle vs Australia at all. Also, after Australia, SA were the strongest team of the era and Ambrose didn't get the opportunity to play them much.

 

[kyear2]

Wasim did not struggle vs Australia at all. Also, after Australia, SA were the strongest team of the era and Ambrose didn't get the opportunity to play them much

He may not have got the opportunity to play against them as much, but what he did so was more than good enough.

He was pretty much seen as the best pacer in the world from about 89 until the surgery. So to go to the 2nd best team to say he didn't play enough, when he did pretty well when he did play is a bit of a reach.

Australia wasn't prime hunting grounds for pavers, it was the ultimate test at the time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He may not have got the opportunity to play against them as much, but what he did so was more than good enough.

He was pretty much seen as the best pacer in the world from about 89 until the surgery. So to go to the 2nd best team to say he didn't play enough, when he did pretty well when he did play is a bit of a reach.

Australia wasn't prime hunting grounds for pavers, it was the ultimate test at the time.

He played 5 games against SA. He literally didn't play them enough, stop talking around what people were talking about with irrelevant fluff. You claimed he played the best teams of his era, so pointing out he barely played one of the two strongest ones is fair. No one said he failed against them or something.

 

[subshakerz]

Australia wasn't prime hunting grounds for pavers, it was the ultimate test at the time.

@kyear2 should stop acting as if Ambrose was the only pacer who succeeded in Australia. Yes, he was perhaps the best there, but pretty much every other ATG pacer in the modern era aside from Donald did succeed.

 

[subshakerz]

I think Ambrose vs Lillee is a lot closer a contest than folks are making it out to be. The overwhelming consensus of Ambrose over him is bizarre frankly.

Lillee unlike Ambrose was simply a much more penetrative and skillful bowler over his entire career. He handled his decline of pace much much better.

 

[DrWolverine]

I think Ambrose vs Lillee is a lot closer a contest than folks are making it out to be.

True
Lillee outside Aus/Eng : 10 Tests. 28 wickets
Ambrose outside WI/Aus/Eng : 12 Tests. 36 wickets

Both Dennis Lillee and Curtly Ambrose played a disproportionately high number of Tests in few places.

 

[DrWolverine]

Pretty much every other ATG pacer in the modern era aside from Donald did succeed.

Outside of Australia, Donald is better than Ambrose.

Even in England which is Ambrose’s second favourite hunting ground, Donald was better.

Donald : 8 Tests. 45 wickets. 5 5-Fers
Ambrose : 20 Tests. 88 wickets. 3 5-Fers

 

[subshakerz]

Outside of Australia, Donald is better than Ambrose.

Even in England which is Ambrose’s second favourite hunting ground, Donald was better.

Donald : 8 Tests. 45 wickets. 5 5-Fers
Ambrose : 20 Tests. 88 wickets. 3 5-Fers

Yeah but Aus was the ultimate challenge and failing that is a big blackmark on Donald. Both succeeded in England.

 

[subshakerz]

True
Lillee outside Aus/Eng : 10 Tests. 28 wickets
Ambrose outside WI/Aus/Eng : 12 Tests. 36 wickets

Both Dennis Lillee and Curtly Ambrose played a disproportionately high number of Tests in few places.

Yes. Normal arguments against Lillee don't work with Ambrose.

 

[Coronis]

@kyear2 should stop acting as if Ambrose was the only pacer who succeeded in Australia. Yes, he was perhaps the best there, but pretty much every other ATG pacer in the modern era aside from Donald did succeed.

He’s got you on ignore mate.

 

[subshakerz]

He’s got you on ignore mate.

Yeah I suspected. Ah well, so much for healthy debate.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yeah but Aus was the ultimate challenge and failing that is a big blackmark on Donald.

Donald’s record against them is pretty much the only flaw in his career. For some strange reason, he never really clicked against them.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Donald’s record against them is pretty much the only flaw in his career. For some strange reason, he never really clicked against them.


View attachment 46016

He averaged 27 vs Australia and usually outperformed McGrath statistically in those series before his last 2 series where he was 35.

He had some pretty leaky spells vs them at times but his struggles against them is highly exaggerated.

 

[subshakerz]

He averaged 27 vs Australia and usually outperformed McGrath statistically in those series before his last 2 series where he was 35.

He had some pretty leaky spells vs them at times but his struggles against them is highly exaggerated.

He played 5 series overall against Aus (not including last test) and was only worldclass really in one. He also had a tendency to drop his game at key moments which is why none of the Aussies of that time even mention him. I think his underperformance cost them the 96 home series.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Donald’s record against them is pretty much the only flaw in his career. For some strange reason, he never really clicked against them.


View attachment 46016

He averages 28 in aus which is what both styen and imran s average in aus too. In fact its in pak where he failed

 

[OverratedSanity]

He averages 28 in aus which is what both styen and imran s average in aus too. In fact its in pak where he failed

Yes under 30 good over 30 bad we get it

 

[OverratedSanity]

He played 5 series overall against Aus (not including last test) and was only worldclass really in one. He also had a tendency to drop his game at key moments which is why none of the Aussies of that time even mention him. I think his underperformance cost them the 96 home series.

Yeah I didn't say Donald was amazing vs them or anything. But he had enough good games that calling his record vs them a blackmark is going pretty overboard imo.