Curtly Ambrose vs Sunil Gavaskar

[Coronis]

Ambrose was more of a “lazy” bowler at times when it came to taking wickets but perhaps the toughest to score runs against

@kyear2

 

[Bolo.]

WPM
Steyn : 4.72
Donald : 4.58
McGrath : 4.32
Ambrose : 4.13

Strike rate
Steyn : 42.3
Donald : 47.0
McGrath : 51.9
Ambrose : 54.5

Even while watching them bowl, there was a difference.

Steyn and Donald were aggressive and all out attacking bowlers who didn’t mind going to runs if there was a chance to get wickets.
Ambrose was more of a “lazy” bowler at times when it came to taking wickets but perhaps the toughest to score runs against

Mcgrath is 4.54 WPM.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose was more of a “lazy” bowler at times when it came to taking wickets but perhaps the toughest to score runs against

Ambrose was pretty one dimensional. It's just that when he had pace with his bounce and accuracy it was a nightmare for bats.

 

[Johan]

Not just then.

Ind 89, Pak 93, Aus 95, Ind 97 and a few other low yield series.

India 89 was illness influenced, everyone has some dry home serieses, it happens. the fact of the matter is, besides his debut series and his second home series where he was not at 100%, he averages 19 at home with 4.24 WPM, that's enough for an ATG pacer.

 

[Johan]

Ok but if he struggled with wickets at reduced pace in mid career onwards then I don't think he will end up at Donalds home numbers. Though certainly better than in WI true.

If you seam it well enough, are very accurate and so forth, you can find success in South Africa even without pace.

 

[subshakerz]

India 89 was illness influenced, everyone has some dry home serieses, it happens.

Sure. It's just that he doesn't have an impressive home record with slightly more dry spells.

 

[Johan]

Sure. It's just that he doesn't have an impressive home record with slightly more dry spells.

other than his debut series and the series against India, he has 191 wickets @ 19 in 45 games, it's not as poor as you and Wolverine make it sound considering he didn't have helpful home wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

other than his debut series and the series against India, he has 191 wickets @ 19 in 45 games, it's not as poor as you and Wolverine make it sound considering he didn't have helpful home wickets.

It isn't a poor home record just not as impressive as other ATGs he is competing with. Should be productive enough that we don't need to exclude series to make it seem better.

 

[Johan]

It isn't a poor home record just not as impressive as other ATGs he is competing with. Should be productive enough that we don't need to exclude series to make it seem better.

debut series and a series where he wasn't at 100% isn't a big deal if cut off, averaging 19 for a decade in unhelpful home conditions is a big deal.

 

[subshakerz]

debut series and a series where he wasn't at 100% isn't a big deal if cut off, averaging 19 for a decade in unhelpful home conditions is a big deal.

Yeah but other ATGs we are talking about have the same handicaps of debut series and the occasional playing when injured perhaps and still manage better productivity in their overall home samples without cutting them out.

 

[Johan]

Yeah but other ATGs we are talking about have the same handicaps of debut series and the occasional playing when injured perhaps and still manage better productivity in their overall home samples without cutting them out.

what was Donald's home series not at 100%

 

[Coronis]

debut series and a series where he wasn't at 100% isn't a big deal if cut off, averaging 19 for a decade in unhelpful home conditions is a big deal.

Unhelpful is a big stretch.

 

[Johan]

Unhelpful is a big stretch.

definitely won't describe them as helpful, neutral at best.

 

[subshakerz]

definitely won't describe them as helpful, neutral at best.

Really? In the 80s and early 90s they weren't helpful? I get that they slowed as 90s went on.

 

[Johan]

Really? In the 80s and early 90s they weren't helpful? I get that they slowed as 90s went on.

You have to specify in relativity to what, in relativity to Asia? Yeah, some of the pitches like Barbados and Sabina had pace, and the slower wickets like Bourda and Port of Spain had uneven bounce.

the actual conversation was about South Africa? then pretty much Yeah, Windies on average isn't anywhere near as helpful as in South Africa.

this goes back to the analogy I made earlier, Bowling pace in 90s South Africa is like bowling spin in current India or being a swinger in England, it's practically a paradise. Bowling pace in West Indies is like bowling spin in England, there's something there, but compared to South Africa? it's basically nothing.

 

[subshakerz]

Bowling pace in West Indies is like bowling spin in England, there's something there, but compared to South Africa? it's basically nothing.

Yeah I disagree from the 80s/90s era it would be net pace supportive, just not a paradise.

 

[kyear2]

Regardless of where they played, they would have ended up with similar numbers - Ambrose with better average & ER and Donald with better strike rate and WPM.

Their bowling styles were vastly different - Donald was looking forward to attack and get wickets even if he leaked runs similar to Steyn. Ambrose was similar to McGrath in a few ways - Very difficult to score runs against but not cunning enough to get wickets.

Really?

Not cunning enough?

Does anyone remotely remember that Ambrose had shoulder surgery midway through his career?

 

[kyear2]

I should have phrased it better.

Ambrose was similar to McGrath but unlike him he did not pressurise enough to take wickets

Genuine question, did you see Ambrose at the start of his career? Like through '89 to '92?

Like Lillee post injury, they adapted the best they could to maximize their capabilities.

Pace was down, and he still was unhittable and he maintained his numbers. Don't think some realise how difficult that is to do.

 

[kyear2]

WPM
Steyn : 4.72
Donald : 4.58
McGrath : 4.32
Ambrose : 4.13

Strike rate
Steyn : 42.3
Donald : 47.0
McGrath : 51.9
Ambrose : 54.5

Even while watching them bowl, there was a difference.

Steyn and Donald were aggressive and all out attacking bowlers who didn’t mind going to runs if there was a chance to get wickets.
Ambrose was more of a “lazy” bowler at times when it came to taking wickets but perhaps the toughest to score runs against

I'm not going to disparage Donald, think he's a brilliant and underrated bowler. Easily has an argument to be ahead of Imran and Lillee.

Re the bolded part, I encourage you to watch him in his earlier years.

He was never going to approach Steyn's s/r, but in a weak batting squad that struggled to score at times, giving away runs was never the best M.O.

Yeah, later career he did drag back the length a bit, but no one beat the bat more, and he did lack the pace of his earlier years.

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2

Why do you all do this, lol