Curtly Ambrose vs Sunil Gavaskar

[subshakerz]

Ambrose's highs were higher imo. Him in Australia was better than Donald anywhere.

Succeeding in Aus doesn't mean you don't need to succeed in the SC

 

[Johan]

Lillee outside Aus/Eng/NZ : 5 Tests. 6 wickets
Ambrose outside WI/Aus/Eng : 12 Tests. 36 wickets
Compared to other greats, the proportion is low

this is giving me Willis > Trueman vibes

 

[Johan]

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.

as I told you, Lillee is not even clear of Trueman in actuality of their skill level.

 

[kyear2]

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

And I've consistently said that Donald is very underrated.

So what you're saying is that he has an argument for no. 6 as well?

 

[kyear2]

True. I have always felt Donald was slightly better than Ambrose - Better action, more threatening on a regular basis and very aggressive.

And they played during the same era. I don't recall a single person making that argument.

As has been stated in this thread , Australia was the ultimate test, but even outside of that, Ambrose was generally seen to be the guy, especially pre surgery.

 

[Johan]

True. I have always felt Donald was slightly better than Ambrose - Better action, more threatening on a regular basis and very aggressive.

nah, Ambrose was better, Australia and England are the two countries they both toured frequenly and consistently and Ambrose easily wins there, Donald had far spicier home wickets and Ambrose still averages lower.

 

[subshakerz]

as I told you, Lillee is not even clear of Trueman in actuality of their skill level.

Lol that doesn't address the argument. There isn't some fixed sacred order of bowlers.

 

[Johan]

Lol that doesn't address the argument. There isn't some fixed sacred order of bowlers.

True.

 

[subshakerz]

True.

It's not like Ambrose has a much better rep than Lillee that we are presenting something so contrary to popular opinion.

The common argument against Lillee is usually other ATGs have more varied success especially in the SC. That doesn't apply with Ambrose who pretty much succeeded in Eng and Aus and with small sample everywhere else and nothing really in Ind and SL.

So what is the argument for Ambrose ahead of Lillee then? Because by all accounts Lillee was a more skillful bowler who managed to remain penetrative even after he lost his pace, and has a much better WPM and SR.

 

[Johan]

It's not like Ambrose has a much better rep than Lillee that we are presenting something so contrary to popular opinion.

The common argument against Lillee is usually other ATGs have more varied success especially in the SC. That doesn't apply with Ambrose who pretty much succeeded in Eng and Aus and with small sample everywhere else and nothing really in Ind and SL.

So what is the argument for Ambrose ahead of Lillee then? Because by all accounts Lillee was a more skillful bowler who managed to remain penetrative even after he lost his pace, and has a much better WPM and SR.

averages 20 odd in comparison to Lillee's 24 odd (WSC combined), wrecked stuff up at the home base of the strongest enemy while Lillee averages 30+ in West Indies and had some really weak lineups to feast on in England and New Zealand.

 

[subshakerz]

averages 20 odd in comparison to Lillee's 24 odd (WSC combined), wrecked stuff up at the home base of the strongest enemy while Lillee averages 30+ in West Indies and had some really weak lineups to feast on in England and New Zealand.

Ambrose has a better average but worse SR and much worse WPM. Your issue is you never look at Ambroses lack of penetration as an issue as long as he has a cheap average.

And you were the one who convinced me Lillee did well in WI and to not include his 73 test with injury.

the WSC series was in West Indies, Lillee proved himself there against an absolute ATG batting attack, deal with it.

Ambrose also feasted on poor Eng lineups and Lillee was just better in England.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose doesn't take 4WPM at home and has a high SR there. This includes some odds phases where he was just not taking many wickets at home, including during his peak. Why isn't this an issue?

 

[Johan]

Ambrose has a better average but worse SR and much worse WPM. Your issue is your never look at Ambroses lack of penetration as an issue as long as he has a cheap average.

And you were the one who convinced me Lillee did well in WI.and to not include his 73 test with injury.

I do agree that Lillee's ability gets overlooked in regards to how much bowling he could do, but overall, I think Ambrose's average edge is more substantial than Lillee's WPM edge.

fair, but even with WSC it was 28 in average, which was decent/good but doesn't really compare to Ambrose in Australia.

Ambrose also feasted on poor Eng lineups and Lillee was just better in England.

Yeah, but regardless, I think Ambrose's record against Australia triumphs Lillee's against the West Indies, home or away, and that's more or less the deciding factor between the two.

I do think Lillee, Ambrose, Fred, Donald, Imran (I know you'd disagree) are all reasonably close anyway, after the top 4 (or top 3 for you), I'm of the opinion that all pacers are very close and there isn't much seprating them, feel like the gaps in batters ranking are much more visible/discernible.

 

[subshakerz]

I do agree that Lillee's ability gets overlooked in regards to how much bowling he could do, but overall, I think Ambrose's average edge is more substantial than Lillee's WPM edge.

I'm not sure why though. Ambrose post 94 could simply be played out without taking wickets at the same level. Whereas Lillee was pretty much taking 5 WPM every stage of his career. If he had Ambroses level of penetration he may never have taken 300 wickets. But it's your choice I guess. But I wonder if you apply that to Steyn vs Ambrose too.

fair, but even with WSC it was 28 in average, which was decent/good but doesn't really compare to Ambrose in Australia.

Yeah, but regardless, I think Ambrose's record against Australia triumphs Lillee's against the West Indies, home or away, and that's more or less the deciding factor between the two.

No doubt Ambrose was awesome in Aus. Lillee did well just not as well against WI. I get that. And I could accept that as a dividing line if Lillee didn't have an overwhelmingly better home record than Ambrose. It's really much better.

I do think Lillee, Ambrose, Fred, Donald, Imran (I know you'd disagree) are all reasonably close anyway, after the top 4 (or top 3 for you), I'm of the opinion that all pacers are very close and there isn't much seprating them, feel like the gaps in batters ranking are much more visible/discernible.

Well my opinion was that Marshall/McGrath/Hadlee are pretty clearly the top three. After that it's up in the air. I do have Steyn and Imran at 4 and 5 since they have the next most well varied success including against their top opposition.

After that I had Ambrose, Lillee and Akram but lately I think Lillee should be higher than Ambrose.

 

[Johan]

I'm not sure why though. Ambrose post 94 could simply be played out without taking wickets at the same level. Whereas Lillee was pretty much taking 5 WPM every stage of his career. If he had Ambroses level of penetration he may never have taken 300 wickets. But it's your choice I guess. But I wonder if you apply that to Steyn vs Ambrose too.

well Ambrose's WPI from 95 to 2000 is about 2.11 which is average indeed, though I think I'd in most scenarios say their WPI gap is neutralised by a decent average gap existing between them especially when the WSC is taken into account, which it should be. Ambrose vs Steyn is an interesting conversation to me, generally tend to go Ambrose considering Steyn's average being >28 is something that's present in more venues than I'd like, rate Steyn's work in India as elite ATG stuff though.

No doubt Ambrose was awesome in Aus. Lillee did well just not as well against WI. I get that. And I could accept that as a dividing line if Lillee didn't have an overwhelmingly better home record than Ambrose. It's really much better.

Yeah but then on paper, Ambrose's away record reads as much superior. Performance against the best batting lineups of the time are very important to me.

Well my opinion was that Marshall/McGrath/Hadlee are pretty clearly the top three. After that it's up in the air. I do have Steyn and Imran at 4 and 5 since they have the next most well varied success including against their top opposition.

After that I had Ambrose, Lillee and Akram but lately I think Lillee should be higher than Ambrose.

Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Barnes as the greatest of all times. Steyn/Ambrose/Imran I've always had above Dennis/Freddie/Donald but starting to think the separation between the tier 2 and 3 existed mostly on arbitrary things tbh. Steyn because of era, Ambrose because performance against best team of the time and Imran because of the insane prime.

 

[subshakerz]

well Ambrose's WPI from 95 to 2000 is about 2.11 which is average indeed, though I think I'd in most scenarios say their WPI gap is neutralised by a decent average gap existing between them especially when the WSC is taken into account, which it should be. Ambrose vs Steyn is an interesting conversation to me, generally tend to go Ambrose considering Steyn's average being >28 is something that's present in more venues than I'd like, rate Steyn's work in India as elite ATG stuff though.

Ambrose low average isn't the real asset we are presenting it as though because in reality he was played out so they could attack the rest of the attack. You could argue he built pressure but unlike McGrath that pressure wasn't threatening to take wickets in that phase.

Yeah but then on paper, Ambrose's away record reads as much superior. Performance against the best batting lineups of the time are very important to me.

Ambrose in Aus is indeed an awesome achievement but it would be more definitive if Lillee had failed against or in WI. But he did well and was better in Eng. But home record is a huge sample of a career and there is a big difference there.

 

[DrWolverine]

So what you're saying is that Donald has an argument for no. 6 as well?

Outside of Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath and Steyn; Donald has a good argument against everyone else imo

 

[DrWolverine]

nah, Ambrose was better, Australia and England are the two countries they both toured frequenly and consistently and Ambrose easily wins there, Donald had far spicier home wickets and Ambrose still averages lower.

Yes Ambrose was better in Australia.

In England; Donald has a better strike rate, more wickets per match and more 5-Fers.

Ambrose : 20 Tests. 88 wkts. Avg of 20.7. SR of 55. 3 5-Fer

Donald : 8 Tests. 45 wkts. Avg of 23.6. SR of 43. 5 5-Fer.

 

[subshakerz]

Outside of Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath and Steyn; Donald has a good argument against everyone else imo

Not so much for me.

His career is a bit too convenient since outside Eng and Aus he had only single tours of the other places and two small series in India. A shorter career focused on his peak and with a higher than usual number of home tests. I would prefer multiple tours and him being better tested over a stretch.

Against Ambrose and Wasim he loses because of Australia and also lack of peer rating too.

 

[DrWolverine]

How is Ambrose’s record better at home than Donald’s record at home?

Ambrose
52 matches. 203 wickets.
Avg of 21.20. SR of 55.79.
11 5-Fer

Donald
38 matches. 177 wickets.
Avg of 21.64. SR of 45.
12 5-Fer