Ambrose v McGrath

[Craig]

Ambrose never bowled in India.. would that count against him?

That is very surprising

Although he did average 21.5 against Australia and 18.8 v England.

 

[Perm]

Ambrose never bowled in India.. would that count against him?

IMO, yes. But not because he didn't play there. My reasoning would be that because McGrath performed similarly well in other countries, and also in India. It's not Ambrose's fault, but I think McGrath could be put above him because he did play and perform in India.

 

[burr]

I'm surprised that so many rate Ambrose ahead of McGrath. If I had to have one on my team I'd choose McGrath any day of the week.

 

[bond21]

McGrath, I didnt have to think twice about it.

McGrath is the best ever, hes probably the most accurate bowler of all time. Hes gotten the most wickets in test cricket for a fast bowler, one of the best averages and strike rates in history....

 

[pasag]

At the peak of their powers, big Ambi just shades McGrath because he was just so destructive. There was a palpable tension when Ambi was bowling well whereas with McGrath, it was all part of the plan. Ambi was positively dangerous on occasion. Vastly under-rated bowler except when he was playing and by those who played against him. McGrath was very clinical, Ambi was a menace. It's been said so many times but he did indeed bowl the best first over of any bowler and it was not just the accuracy but the probability of getting a wicket which made people say that I reckon.

But if we're talking all-wicket ability, longevity and overall achievement, I'd have to put McGrath a little higher. Ambi also had a greater propensity to lose his temper and try to hit the batsmen rather than get them out and there were some real lulls in his career post 1994 when he bowled with less pace whereas McGrath was far more consistent. I guess to give an example, McGrath bowled one of his best ever spells in 2005 at Lords when he was only a year away from finishing whereas Ambi's best was well behind him when he gave it up although part of me suspects it was a motivation thing rather than loss of ability. SO yeah, for consistency, McGrath but both bowlers at peak, Ambi. Just.

Yeah agree with this. Splitting hairs with all time greats but Ambrose for me just, as well.

 

[Craig]

Can batting ability come into play?

 

[The_Bunny]

Can batting ability come into play?

Would be a bit unfair on poor Ambrose

 

[iamdavid]

Can batting ability come into play?

T'would favour Ambrose

 

[Craig]

T'would favour Ambrose

Ah.

So Ambrose > McGrath now then.

 

[Ikki]

McGrath. Very similar records, but for his longevity and the way he adapted and was still consistent, it puts him ahead of Ambrose, and most other fast bowlers with similar records too.

 

[UncleTheOne]

at their best, ambrose. the same traits, but more aggression and more pace, after bradman he is the first name on my all time 11 team sheet. a fast bowling god. mcgrath is in my top 3 quicks of all time though, just that curtly is number one for my money.

 

[Richard]

ITSTL, not heard many place Ambrose ahead of Marshall.

 

[stephen]

I had to place McGrath ahead of Amby.

My all time quick bowling attack would be McGrath, Ambrose and Marshall.

McGrath really won me over with his propensity for taking wickets on the flattest of flat decks. When he did get something with a bit of juice in it (Lords for example) he was positively dangerous. Ambrose had a stronger aura about him, but bowled in a more bowler-friendly era.

 

[Richard]

Just because Ambrose bowled more in a time when there were more seam-friendly pitches doesn't mean he didn't get plenty of flat surfaces - and do well on plenty of them.

 

[Ikki]

Just because Ambrose bowled more in a time when there were more seam-friendly pitches doesn't mean he didn't get plenty of flat surfaces - and do well on plenty of them.

I love how this coincides with our debate in the other thread.

 

[Richard]

Amazingly enough I've just said exactly what I said about Ambrose here about Tendulkar there.

 

[Ikki]

Amazingly enough I've just said exactly what I said about Ambrose here about Tendulkar there.

And it's not like Kallis never got bowlers bowling brilliantly or the pitch being lively and still made runs...

 

[Richard]

Indeed he did, because Kallis is a good player, something I've never countenanced saying otherwise to.

 

[stephen]

Just because Ambrose bowled more in a time when there were more seam-friendly pitches doesn't mean he didn't get plenty of flat surfaces - and do well on plenty of them.

Aye, but who would be your first pick quick for taking on a tour to India? McGrath for mine.

 

[Slifer]

Aye, but who would be your first pick quick for taking on a tour to India? McGrath for mine.

When did India become the sole proving ground for being a great fast bowler? I think we place too much emphasis on how a fast bowler does in India versus ne where else. For me the ultimate proving ground these days for fast bowlers is Australia, as they are by far the best players of pace bowling. I too chose Mcgrath over Ambrose (slightly) but not because of ne India factor