Ambrose v McGrath

[watson]

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?

If the question of the thread is who is 'the better bowler' and the voting is 60:40 in favour of Ambrose, then there can only be one conclusion - CW currently believes that Ambrose is a 'better bowler' than McGrath.

We can then argue by how much, or why people voted the way they did. But the fact remains, a significant amount of people think that Ambrose is a 'better bowler' than McGrath - right here, right now. This stand alone fact, independent of everything else, is ODD given the facts of their respective careers.

 

[bagapath]

am wondering... if ambrose and mcgrath were to open the bowling for a dream XI, could any other team produce a better opening combo ever?

sure lillee and marshall would be more exciting to watch. holding and imran would be faster. donald and waqar may strike quicker. akram and barnes may produce more variety. truman and garner would be more intimidating. hadlee and roberts may be more clinical. but can any other pair be actually better than ambrose and mcgrath taking the new ball? you can match them by pitting the other champion pairs against them. but i guess, they both as a combo can never be bettered as fast bowlers.

 

[smash84]

am wondering... if ambrose and mcgrath were to open the bowling for a dream XI, could any other team produce a better opening combo ever?

sure lillee and marshall would be more exciting to watch. holding and imran would be faster. donald and waqar may strike quicker. akram and barnes may produce more variety. truman and garner would be more intimidating. hadlee and roberts may be more clinical. but can any other pair be actually better than ambrose and mcgrath taking the new ball? you can match them by pitting the other champion pairs against them. but i guess, they both as a combo can never be bettered as fast bowlers.

Depends on where they are playing. They would falter somewhat in the SC compared to a pair of let's say Hadlee and Marshall.

 

[uvelocity]

its not right here right now, votes have been coming in for 6 years ****s. and how much voting is down to nationalistic bias ffs

 

[Satyanash89]

Depends on where they are playing. They would falter somewhat in the SC compared to a pair of let's say Hadlee and Marshall.

Why would Ambrose and McGrath falter in the SC?

 

[smash84]

Why would Ambrose and McGrath falter in the SC?

From what I recall McGrath was ok but not that great in Pakistan and Amby not so good against India.

 

[robelinda]

Ambrose never played in India in tests did he? Only a few tests in 1990 vs Pakistan, or so I thought. Kinda like how Holding never played a single test vs Pakistan, weird.

edit- yep http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/51107.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling

Curtly's average of 38 vs India (overall) is the stand out bad team for him, bit like Donald 33 vs Aus, Wasim 32 vs England. does McGrath have a +30 team (overall)?

 

[smash84]

I don't think he has a 30+ team overall

 

[Justo]

McGrath's highest average was 27 against South Africa. Averaged 23 in South Africa though so it's South Africa at home where he has any real problems statistically.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Top_Cat]

Can be at least partially explained by playing against them on some really flat decks where they abolutely stone-walled him. Didn't even try to look for runs sometimes which helped Warne clean up at the other end.

 

[coolkuna]

Ambrose never played in India in tests did he? Only a few tests in 1990 vs Pakistan, or so I thought. Kinda like how Holding never played a single test vs Pakistan, weird.

edit- yep Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Curtly's average of 38 vs India (overall) is the stand out bad team for him, bit like Donald 33 vs Aus, Wasim 32 vs England. does McGrath have a +30 team (overall)?

If we look closely at stats of Ambrose against India, they are totally opposite to what one would expect. He played only 2 series against India. Both at home. Once in 88 when he averaged 50+ (as a bowler), and another 9 years later in 97 when he averaged 30.

Interestingly, in 88, when Ambrose averaged a miserable 54, Indian batting was at one of it's weakest phases (Gavaskar retired, no Tendulkar).

In that particular series, not one Indian batsman averaged above 40. India's highest innings total in the entire series was 321. India lost the 4 Test series 3-0 (the remaining Test was drawn because 3 days of play were washed out). And pitches in the Caribbean were very quick in that series, especially in Barbados and Jamaica. Marshall, Walsh and Bishop shared most of the Indian wickets between themselves.

And when Ambrose averaged a not-so-bad 30 against India in 1997, India had a much better batting line-up, the pitches were practically dead (exception of Barbados), and 4 of the 5 Tests ended in draws.

 

[kyear2]

am wondering... if ambrose and mcgrath were to open the bowling for a dream XI, could any other team produce a better opening combo ever?

sure lillee and marshall would be more exciting to watch. holding and imran would be faster. donald and waqar may strike quicker. akram and barnes may produce more variety. truman and garner would be more intimidating. hadlee and roberts may be more clinical. but can any other pair be actually better than ambrose and mcgrath taking the new ball? you can match them by pitting the other champion pairs against them. but i guess, they both as a combo can never be bettered as fast bowlers.

Gun post, though I belive the ultimate combination is Marshall and Mcgrath and they would compliment each other splendidly

 

[watson]

The most lethal pair of new-ball bowlers in actual Test match cricket (cut-off 100 wickets each) has been Marshall and Garner;

Tests = 23
Wickets = 230
Average = 20.16
(Period average = 32.63)
Strike Rate = 44.77

Stats from the Past: The best new-ball pairs in Test cricket | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

I'm not sure how those numbers can be improved given the obvious class of both Marshall and Garner. And if you think about it, their actions do complement each other perfectly. Marshall's deliveries 'skidded' through to the batsman while Garner's deliveries 'climbed' off a steep bounce.

Although yes, I'm certain that Marshall-McGrath or Marshall-Lillee would also form lethal pairings as well.

 

[kyear2]

The most lethal pair of new-ball bowlers in actual Test match cricket (cut-off 100 wickets each) has been Marshall and Garner;

Tests = 23
Wickets = 230
Average = 20.16
(Period average = 32.63)
Strike Rate = 44.77

Stats from the Past: The best new-ball pairs in Test cricket | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

I'm not sure how those numbers can be improved given the obvious class of both Marshall and Garner. And if you think about it, their actions do complement each other perfectly. Marshall's deliveries 'skidded' through to the batsman while Garner's deliveries 'climbed' off a steep bounce.

Although yes, I'm certain that Marshall-McGrath or Marshall-Lillee would also form lethal pairings as well.

I always bring this up when people say that they would pair Hobbs with Sutcliffe in an All World XI, that by the same measure they should also pick Garner with Marshall.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I always bring this up when people say that they would pair Hobbs with Sutcliffe in an All World XI, that by the same measure they should also pick Garner with Marshall.

An opening pair in the batting isn't just about stats, it's about an understanding between the two players - especially running between the wickets.

 

[kyear2]

And an opening bowling pair is also about complimenting each other.

 

[Red]

An opening pair in the batting isn't just about stats, it's about an understanding between the two players - especially running between the wickets.

Just pick your preferred two opening batsmen or bowlers I reckon.

 

[the big bambino]

Ambi and Bambi. Its true he'd take all the wickets and I'd concede all the runs but I can just hear Michael Holding praising that duo. "Maan, whatta doo oh"

 

[Coronis]

I always bring this up when people say that they would pair Hobbs with Sutcliffe in an All World XI, that by the same measure they should also pick Garner with Marshall.

I'd choose Hobbs and Sutcliffe everytime, not because of their partnership, but because imo they are the two greatest openers in the history of the game (blah blah Hutton yeah I rate him 3rd, just behind Sutcliffe). The fact that they played together in tests and are the most successful opening partnership is just a bonus. If I thought Garner was the 2nd or 3rd best fast bowler he would be in the XI.

 

[kyear2]

Fair enough, but there are some who choose Sutcliffe because he actually opened with Hobbs, and I just never understood that.