Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd be quite delighted with either.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ambrose v McGrath
- Thread starter iamdavid
- Start date
archie mac
International Coach
On the money for mine, I am sick of hearing about how different the pitches are around the world, there are some differences but it is not like the old days when we had matting, un covered pitches, real stickies in Aust as compared to England, when they did not cover the foot marks for the fast bowlers either.
How much flatter could you find pitches around the world than we have in Aust atm?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
None flatter, but that's not the point - it's only the last 6 years that surfaces Worldwide have become universally flat. Before then there was still a huge amount of variation country-to-country, even if not as much as in the days of uncovered surfaces in some countries (and at one point in all) and matting wickets in some countries.
In any case, as has been said so many times, not everything is about the surface, there's more to the difficulties of bowling than purely what the surface is like.
In any case, as has been said so many times, not everything is about the surface, there's more to the difficulties of bowling than purely what the surface is like.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Come on, Richard. The differences in the 90's between countries wasn't that significant. There were just as high scores in South Africa in the 90's as there were in Australia as there were in the WI. Subcontinental pitches haven't changed for many years now and England's decks have improved too but largely due to the time of year Tests are played these days.
In Australia, the only really dramatic change has been how flat the WACA is these days. Aside from that, Adelaide and Tassie are still batting paradises, Melbourne has pace, Sydney still turns and the 'Gabba is green for a session then flattens out for the rest of the Test. Nothing has changed there in years.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The SCG still turns? Hasn't seemed to - anywhere near as much - since about 2002\03 TBH.
And I thought The 'Gabba was supposed to have been a seamer's paradise throughout the 1990s? That's what you always told me when saying Hayden couldn't be a non-seaming-track bully.
TBH, I'd say tracks in India have changed - hugely. You could be almost certain of at least two real, proper turners - quickish, uneven, really offering big turn. Now a whole series can go by without it.
Pitches in West Indies might have started becoming slower and lower in the mid-1990s rather than the early 2000s, true - it's the bowlers rather than the pitches that changed there. The only two that were ever (generally) that quick at any time, though, were Sabina Park and Kensington Oval were they not?
And over here - well, times of play have changed, sure, but if anything you'd expect it to have made things more seam-friendly, not less - Tests in May and September used to be a never-never and almost-never (respectively) before 2000. Between 2001 and 2006, in domestic FC cricket, there was an absurd explosion in runscoring (though that had as much, IMO, to do with balls as pitches). This was mirrored in Tests from 2002. A seaming deck has been a relative rarity here since then - and IMO a non-seaming deck should be the exception not the rule. These isles are supposed to be about a challenge from seam and swing.
There's been immense disquiet over here, and in India, and finally (it seems) in Australia about flat pitches. Sure, there are a few grounds that've remained the same (The Oval's square in 1976 could be transported 30 years on and it'd be almost the same) but I'm surprised anyone would perport that little has changed.
And I thought The 'Gabba was supposed to have been a seamer's paradise throughout the 1990s? That's what you always told me when saying Hayden couldn't be a non-seaming-track bully.
TBH, I'd say tracks in India have changed - hugely. You could be almost certain of at least two real, proper turners - quickish, uneven, really offering big turn. Now a whole series can go by without it.
Pitches in West Indies might have started becoming slower and lower in the mid-1990s rather than the early 2000s, true - it's the bowlers rather than the pitches that changed there. The only two that were ever (generally) that quick at any time, though, were Sabina Park and Kensington Oval were they not?
And over here - well, times of play have changed, sure, but if anything you'd expect it to have made things more seam-friendly, not less - Tests in May and September used to be a never-never and almost-never (respectively) before 2000. Between 2001 and 2006, in domestic FC cricket, there was an absurd explosion in runscoring (though that had as much, IMO, to do with balls as pitches). This was mirrored in Tests from 2002. A seaming deck has been a relative rarity here since then - and IMO a non-seaming deck should be the exception not the rule. These isles are supposed to be about a challenge from seam and swing.
There's been immense disquiet over here, and in India, and finally (it seems) in Australia about flat pitches. Sure, there are a few grounds that've remained the same (The Oval's square in 1976 could be transported 30 years on and it'd be almost the same) but I'm surprised anyone would perport that little has changed.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
3 years ago I think I would have answered Ambrose, and he was one of my favourite bowlers ever as I was brought up as a kid watching him tear batting line-ups apart. I could probably link to a post or two with me choosing Ambrose.
But McGrath's exploits from 2004 till his retirement were amazing, and IMO are enough to edge him ahead of Curtley, just.
But McGrath's exploits from 2004 till his retirement were amazing, and IMO are enough to edge him ahead of Curtley, just.
archie mac
International Coach
Not sure about surfaces changing, we have had 5 Test series in the past all being drawn in India but I remember on one occasion Bill Lawry winning the toss and inserting the Indian team, I can't remember the scores but I do recall it seaming
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
This exact question has been done in the recent past. I've always had Ambrose ahead of McGrath, for much the same reason that Warne provided in his top 50 - they're both exception in very similar ways, but Ambrose was also slightly quicker and had an even greater degree of 'extra bounce' in his deliveries.
Curtley Ambrose for me.
I think there are circumstances where cricket fans recall the highs and lows of cricketers such as Brian Lara, and they'll judge him harshly because they remember the lows. Then there are times when cricket fans only remember the highs of great cricketers, and I think Glenn McGrath is an example of this.
McGrath is a great, but when people say he didn't need pace or swing etc I think their memory is somewhat selective. I can recall times when I thought McGrath was lacking... granted there were very few moments when that happened... but if McGrath was doing poorly on a bouncey wicket, I could say to myself "Curtley Ambrose could've gotten a wicket here with some extra bounce" or "There's a chance for swing, but McGrath doesn't swing the ball." There have been times when I didn't think McGrath was all too threatening as well.
Curtley, in my opinion, looked more threatening as was more successful in moments where McGrath was suceptable to failure. I think people also tend to forget that whilst McGrath's main bo was his unbelievable accuracy, there's a few bowlers in history who fall into the same category of accuracy... among McGrath are players like Hadlee and yes, Curtley Ambrose.
Curtley never gave interviews during his career, but I was interested to see him interviewed not long ago and aside from the fact that he seemed like a very nice fellow (which his field presence didn't indicate), what intrigued me was that Ambrose didn't consider himself as fast bowler. He said Brett Lee was fast, he wasn't. Ambrose said his greatest attribute was accuracy... and I agree completely with that.
I think that's what made him so special. The great pace was delivered the ball with was simply a given because he was a great athlete. So was the bounce he extracted... that was a given because he was so tall. But his accuracy is what made him great. One of the freak athletes of cricket.
All that said, I think McGrath has a greater legacy than Ambrose. As well as Australia performed against Sri Lanka, their dominance, I think, will mostly be attributed to Warne and McGrath. Ambrose has a great legacy, and as a kid he was the number one bananna in a West Indian side still considered the best in the world... but I think McGrath will be better associated with cricket glory.
I think there are circumstances where cricket fans recall the highs and lows of cricketers such as Brian Lara, and they'll judge him harshly because they remember the lows. Then there are times when cricket fans only remember the highs of great cricketers, and I think Glenn McGrath is an example of this.
McGrath is a great, but when people say he didn't need pace or swing etc I think their memory is somewhat selective. I can recall times when I thought McGrath was lacking... granted there were very few moments when that happened... but if McGrath was doing poorly on a bouncey wicket, I could say to myself "Curtley Ambrose could've gotten a wicket here with some extra bounce" or "There's a chance for swing, but McGrath doesn't swing the ball." There have been times when I didn't think McGrath was all too threatening as well.
Curtley, in my opinion, looked more threatening as was more successful in moments where McGrath was suceptable to failure. I think people also tend to forget that whilst McGrath's main bo was his unbelievable accuracy, there's a few bowlers in history who fall into the same category of accuracy... among McGrath are players like Hadlee and yes, Curtley Ambrose.
Curtley never gave interviews during his career, but I was interested to see him interviewed not long ago and aside from the fact that he seemed like a very nice fellow (which his field presence didn't indicate), what intrigued me was that Ambrose didn't consider himself as fast bowler. He said Brett Lee was fast, he wasn't. Ambrose said his greatest attribute was accuracy... and I agree completely with that.
I think that's what made him so special. The great pace was delivered the ball with was simply a given because he was a great athlete. So was the bounce he extracted... that was a given because he was so tall. But his accuracy is what made him great. One of the freak athletes of cricket.
All that said, I think McGrath has a greater legacy than Ambrose. As well as Australia performed against Sri Lanka, their dominance, I think, will mostly be attributed to Warne and McGrath. Ambrose has a great legacy, and as a kid he was the number one bananna in a West Indian side still considered the best in the world... but I think McGrath will be better associated with cricket glory.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Same with Curtly, though. There were times when he was quite impotent and completely disinterested. He was fairly ineffective in all bar one Test of the 1995 win by the Aussies for example. Ditto the follow-up series in Australia in 1996/97. Didn't give away many runs of course but didn't look like taking wickets either.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's true, though, virtually no-one ever talks about that. Sure, it happened, as did McGrath's failures here and there (every game on a non-seaming pitch between 2001 and 2004\05 for instance 
)
Whereas with Allan Donald, oh no, all anyone ever wants to talk about is the bad points.
If it's not that hook by Elliott, it's the run-out in WC99; if it's not that it's those last 3 infernal Tests that I so, so wish he hadn't played; if it's not those it's WC2003 which is pretty similar; if not that it's something else.
)Whereas with Allan Donald, oh no, all anyone ever wants to talk about is the bad points.
If it's not that hook by Elliott, it's the run-out in WC99; if it's not that it's those last 3 infernal Tests that I so, so wish he hadn't played; if it's not those it's WC2003 which is pretty similar; if not that it's something else.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Care to explain? I think I know what you're referring to, but I'd like to be sure.It's true, though, virtually no-one ever talks about that. Sure, it happened, as did McGrath's failures here and there (every game on a non-seaming pitch between 2001 and 2004\05 for instance
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Lol, fair enough too.Disagree.
Look, a month from now I'll probably throw in my old Frank Worrell Trophy DVDs from the 90s and change my mind again and select Ambrose.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
McGrath...because of Richard's ridiculous idea that about 3 years of his life was spent getting wickets through luck...would prefer to be Ambrose though if I could pick between the two. A scarier bowler.
biased indian
International Coach
Ambrose all the way