Ambrose v McGrath

[Arachnodouche]

20 vote differential is crazy. Most people, I included, have this semi-mythical image of Ambrose stuck inside their heads, whereas Mcgrath seems more earthbound but I'd be happy to have either or preferably both in my all-time attack.

 

[Jono]

If those 20 people think Ambrose is better than McGrath by 1%, whereas everyone that voted McGrath thinks he is better by 10%, how does the 20 vote differential show that those voting Ambrose are overrating him?

I really think polls are no good for determining the level/amount people rate someone above someone else.

 

[watson]

If those 20 people think Ambrose is better than McGrath by 1%, whereas everyone that voted McGrath thinks he is better by 10%, how does the 20 vote differential show that those voting Ambrose are overrating him?

I really think polls are no good for determining the level/amount people rate someone above someone else.

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic.

If the bowlers are viewed as equivalent by the CW population then surely the counts should be about the same?

Indeed, any quantitive vote captures the 'mood' of the people and gives a direct opinion of two parties concerned whether they are McGrath and Ambrose, Gillard and Abbott, Conservative and Socialist, or Islamic and Secular.... etc.

 

[Jono]

But your last two comparisons are different extremes aren't they? Well not on asylum seeker policy when it comes to Abbott and Gillard - they're the same. Ohhhhhhhhh i went there.

But anyway - It is rare that you'd have someone say "I think capitalism is JUST SLIGHTLY better than socialism". You'd be a fan of one, the other, or neither you'd think.

Whereas here, you're comparing two fast bowlers who average low 20s with the ball over a long period of time. Who dominated the best batsman in the opposition's team on a regular basis. And a whole bunch of other similarities that I cbf to mention.

So if 20 more people think Ambrose is slightly better than McGrath than vice versa, it doesn't necessarily mean its not a close contest as per the poll.

 

[Ilovecric]

20 vote differential is crazy. Most people, I included, have this semi-mythical image of Ambrose stuck inside their heads, whereas Mcgrath seems more earthbound but I'd be happy to have either or preferably both in my all-time attack.

Mcgrath was just a skilled and discipline bowler. Ambrose was a skillful and disciplined menace - big difference. If you were going to die and could watch only one of these bowlers for the very last time - who would you choose ?

If you the two were on TV at the time - which one would you watch ?

who would you pay to see play ?

I think Ambrose edge him out here - as a bowler worth watching. Ambrose got his wicket cheaper than him even tho he took longer to get each one - it's the tormenting of batsmen that made ambrose special. It's his appeal - pointing to the umpire - everything about this guy was legendary. His high arm action - classical fast bowling... which is why most would prefer watching him before Mcgrath.

PS Marshall is the best fast bowler ever..period..

 

[Arachnodouche]

^^Personally, I found Mcgrath as riveting to watching as any other bowler. Slow burn can be as much fun, you know. Not all that slow either, as you pointed out, seeing how he took fewer balls to get a wicket.

 

[Red]

McGrath was brilliant to watch. Clinical and precise.

 

[smash84]

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic.

If the bowlers are viewed as equivalent by the CW population then surely the counts should be about the same?

Indeed, any quantitive vote captures the 'mood' of the people and gives a direct opinion of two parties concerned whether they are McGrath and Ambrose, Gillard and Abbott, Conservative and Socialist, or Islamic and Secular.... etc.

As Jono pointed out that Islamic and secular are totally opposite philosophies. Comparing McGrath to Ambrose is comparing two very similar. A lot of those 21 people might take McGrath over Ambrose any other day. Or just making decisions on who they enjoyed watching more or whose action they thought was better. Such things don't make Ambrose a better bowler but it gives him an edge in such a poll where people can't really differentiate between their performance and hence look to other factors.

 

[Prot]

Both very disciplined bowlers. Ambrose was more lethal I thought.

 

[Ilovecric]

As Jono pointed out that Islamic and secular are totally opposite philosophies. Comparing McGrath to Ambrose is comparing two very similar. A lot of those 21 people might take McGrath over Ambrose any other day. Or just making decisions on who they enjoyed watching more or whose action they thought was better. Such things don't make Ambrose a better bowler but it gives him an edge in such a poll where people can't really differentiate between their performance and hence look to other factors.

Ambrose had way more bounce - he would hurry the batsman up and make the contest more interesting to watch. It also had an effect of troubling the batsman more. He was cheaper than mcgrath so it's not like he was giving away free runs. He just had a different element to him that mcgrath did not have - more assets and overall better record to back it up. Ofcourse more people should vote him ahead of Mcgrath.

 

[smash84]

Ambrose had way more bounce - he would hurry the batsman up and make the contest more interesting to watch. It also had an effect of troubling the batsman more. He was cheaper than mcgrath so it's not like he was giving away free runs. He just had a different element to him that mcgrath did not have - more assets and overall better record to back it up. Ofcourse more people should vote him ahead of Mcgrath.

Are you trolling or are you serious?

 

[robelinda]

McGrath also did great work in the sub continent, a big plus for McGrath.

 

[Jono]

McGrath was awesome. I have no doubt that, as brilliant as people view him now, his reputation will increase over time just like Curtley's has. Aussies are well aware of how amazing he was but because he was so often a dickwad on the field (as opposed to a great bloke off it), it coloured people's views of him.

People appreciate him more and more now that he's gone. And this will continue.

 

[Arachnodouche]

They also made for differing kinds of drama. With Mcgrath, there were so many conflicting emotions. You hated the **** out of him and were always wishing for his comeuppance but you also grudgingly conceded that you were witnessing a true great. I doubt anybody ever "hated" Ambrose, though. Feared, regarded with awe, but universally admired also.

 

[Top_Cat]

Would argue not in Australia, tbh. Barely ever gave interviews and to the Aussie press and Aussies in general, that's a big minus for your public CV. Wouldn't go so far as to say he was hated but wasn't liked either. Like McG, though, once he opened up a bit late career, he got some brownie points.

 

[watson]

I guess if emotional content was part of the assessment then I would prefer Ambrose because he was more engaging and more fun to watch.

However, the question is not who is the more entertaining or fun, but who is the better bowler? - that is, who is more likely to put the ball in the right spot the most often to pick-up wickets under varying conditions and circumstances more frequently.

In other words, if your life depended on either Ambrose of McGrath bowling a side out, who would you choose?

 

[watson]

But your last two comparisons are different extremes aren't they? Well not on asylum seeker policy when it comes to Abbott and Gillard - they're the same. Ohhhhhhhhh i went there.

But anyway - It is rare that you'd have someone say "I think capitalism is JUST SLIGHTLY better than socialism". You'd be a fan of one, the other, or neither you'd think.

Whereas here, you're comparing two fast bowlers who average low 20s with the ball over a long period of time. Who dominated the best batsman in the opposition's team on a regular basis. And a whole bunch of other similarities that I cbf to mention.

So if 20 more people think Ambrose is slightly better than McGrath than vice versa, it doesn't necessarily mean its not a close contest as per the poll.

If the choices involve 'different extremes' in bowling talent then you would expect a large swing in a poll one way or the other. For example, Curtly Ambrose V Martin Sneddon.

Likewise, if the voting population is 'inherently biased' then you would also expect a large swing in the poll one way or the other. For example, Sachin Tendulkar V Ricky Ponting in downtown Mumbai, or Viv Richards V Ricky Ponting in uptown St Johns, Antigua.

Because there is about a 30% difference in the voting I expect one of the above two scenarios to be taking place.

So which one then is it? 'Different extremes' or 'Inherently biased'? I don't think that the CW population is 'inherently biased' because we are pretty well educated in cricket, and quite diverse culturally. So we can discount that explanation.

Rather, I think that Ambrose and McGrath DO represent two different extremes and that is the reason for the large difference in the voting. However, not in respect to bowling talent, but rather in the context of showmanship.

Put simply, Ambrose hits positive emotional chords that McGrath can't hope to reach because of his own negative persona/personality.

 

[Jono]

So you admit that a poll saying 60-40 (which is what this poll says) can mean a lot of things, and does not necessarily mean that CW believes Ambrose is much better than McGrath?

My point is it is wrong to see a 60-40 poll and immediately assume that CW overrates Ambrose or underrates McGrath. You would need more data, such as perhaps if everyone gave a score/rating for both bowlers from 1-10. If the overall average, or the median score, or whatever stat you wanted to think of - came up Ambrose 9 and McGrath 7 - then you could argue that CW has Ambrose as "too much higher than McGrath".

I haven't voted, but if I voted one of these, I would honestly have them almost equal and whatever separated them would be incredibly miniscule (they both make my All-time World XI). So if I happened to vote Ambrose and made the score 61-40, are you going to say that I am one of those people that incorrectly views Ambrose as way way better than McGrath?

 

[Coronis]

McGrath was awesome. I have no doubt that, as brilliant as people view him now, his reputation will increase over time just like Curtley's has. Aussies are well aware of how amazing he was but because he was so often a dickwad on the field (as opposed to a great bloke off it), it coloured people's views of him.

People appreciate him more and more now that he's gone. And this will continue.

Quite right. A poll conducted now (6 years after this one) would no doubt have different results.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So you admit that a poll saying 60-40 (which is what this poll says) can mean a lot of things, and does not necessarily mean that CW believes Ambrose is much better than McGrath?

My point is it is wrong to see a 60-40 poll and immediately assume that CW overrates Ambrose or underrates McGrath. You would need more data, such as perhaps if everyone gave a score/rating for both bowlers from 1-10. If the overall average, or the median score, or whatever stat you wanted to think of - came up Ambrose 9 and McGrath 7 - then you could argue that CW has Ambrose as "too much higher than McGrath".

I haven't voted, but if I voted one of these, I would honestly have them almost equal and whatever separated them would be incredibly miniscule (they both make my All-time World XI). So if I happened to vote Ambrose and made the score 61-40, are you going to say that I am one of those people that incorrectly views Ambrose as way way better than McGrath?

This is what always happens with polls on here because a small number of people don't grasp how close each individual thinks the two players are. If you did Hadlee v Garner, Hadlee would get all the votes until a few people decide the result needs to be closer and start giving Garner sympathy votes.