Ambrose v McGrath

[the big bambino]

Anantha's a bit of a joke though. I remember talking about some of his other work on career to date figures in rating innings and someone else mentioned an extrapolated completed score for a not out innings. The verdict is that he is industrious but his stuff irrelevant. He can deliver outcomes that are subjective for all the work he puts in.

Anyone who rates the little Sri Lankan pegger as the best of all time hasn't seen him taken to the cleaners by Australia or India for the majority of his career.

 

[watson]

More meaningless statsmongering. Here's a list of 15 bowlers off the top of my head based on absolutely nothing - and it's better than his.

1. Lillee
2. Marshall
3. Trueman
4. Warne
5. Ambrose
6. McGrath
7. Hadlee
8. Donald
9. Imran
10. Murali
11. Steyn
12. Waqar
13. Roberts
14. Wasim
15. Lindwall

Actually it's not based on absolutely nothing - your brain would have it's own set of algorithms built up over many years of reading cricket articles and watching the game. You feel that your list is 'intuitive' but it really isn't. It can't be.

 

[kyear2]

funny that I saw this thread while im making a KILLER Curtly video....taken me weeks so far, will be spectacular viewing!

Looking forward to it Rob.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Actually it's not based on absolutely nothing - your brain would have it's own set of algorithms built up over many years of reading cricket articles and watching the game. You feel that your list is 'intuitive' but it really isn't. It can't be.

Obviously it's based on following cricket. But the point is it took two minutes and no slide rule. I'm not knocking people who spend their time with a calculator shuffling the same 20 names into a different order but - well I am knocking them because I think it's pointless, but each to their own.

 

[kyear2]

Actually it's not based on absolutely nothing - your brain would have it's own set of algorithms built up over many years of reading cricket articles and watching the game. You feel that your list is 'intuitive' but it really isn't. It can't be.

Good point Watto, never though about it like that.

 

[Geoffboycott]

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.

Well said that man. Totally agree with you that curtlys the number one fast bowler ever. I've got 1.ambrose 2.Marshall 3.Walsh 4.garner then 5.McGrath/holding.

 

[Coronis]

More pace =/= better bowler.

 

[bagapath]

after hearing Watson's logic am tempted to have a go as well. Here is my top 15 pace bowlers post WW2.

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Lillee
Ambrose
Imran
Truman
Donald
Holding
Garner
Steyn
Lindwall
Roberts
Akram
Waqar

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Neither of them ever managed to dismiss me in the nets so I'll say Jimmy Baker.

 

[Slifer]

after hearing Watson's logic am tempted to have a go as well. Here is my top 15 pace bowlers post WW2.

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Lillee
Ambrose
Imran
Truman
Donald
Holding
Garner
Steyn
Lindwall
Roberts
Akram
Waqar

Great List my would be:

Marshall
Mcgrath
Hadlee
Imran
Ambrose

My top 5 followed by in no particular order:

Trueman
Waqar
Lillee
Wasim
Donald
Lindwall
Holding
Garner
Steyn (IMO will be top 5 by the time he's finished)
Davidson

 

[Red]

It's difficult to rank because I like different bowlers for different reasons.

There are at least ten bowlers who I think could be considered the best:


Lillee
Ambrose
McGrath
Trueman
Marshall
Holding
Donald
Steyn
Waqar
Wasim
Imran
Hadlee
Garner
Holding
Lindwall

If I were to have any three of these as an ATG team captain, I'd be very happy.

 

[watson]

There appears to be two main types of evidence that we use to build a bowler's credentials - Raw Stat's & Eyewitness Accounts.

Bowlers like Dennis Lillee and Sydney Barnes seem to climb the ladder higher when more emphasis is placed on Eyewitness Accounts. Although their Raw Stat's are impressive enough.

 

[uvelocity]

well its because of all the variables inherent with being a bowler. who you bowl to, who's behind the wicket, what wicket you're bowling on and so on. it is possible to be a worse bowler with better stats.

 

[watson]

well its because of all the variables inherent with being a bowler. who you bowl to, who's behind the wicket, what wicket you're bowling on and so on. it is possible to be a worse bowler with better stats.

Or a better bowler with worse stat's.

I'm almost sure that the pre-80s Indian and Pakistan bowlers suffered because the catching and fielding was generally poor.

If the likes of Prasanna/Bedi and Sarfraz/Imran had Chappells and Pontings around the wicket then we would have no choice but to put them further up the ATG ladder,

 

[the big bambino]

Don't worry some good ole boy umpiring made good the discrepancy.

 

[watson]

I must say at this point that Ambrose leading by 57-36 is OTT. I can understand a lead by 3 or 4, but 21 votes is just plain silly. Surely their respective talents are more closely aligned than indicated.

 

[smash84]

leading by 21 doesn't show that people think that both of them are very close as bowlers

 

[Khaseer]

nothing between them really. But I can't look past that 8/24 against Pak.

so

McGrath

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'll go McGrath on the basis of the fact that if it's routine to discredit batsmen of the 2000s for making hay in easy conditions, the opposite should be true for bowlers. Both guns ftr.

 

[Jono]

I must say at this point that Ambrose leading by 57-36 is OTT. I can understand a lead by 3 or 4, but 21 votes is just plain silly. Surely their respective talents are more closely aligned than indicated.

leading by 21 doesn't show that people think that both of them are very close as bowlers

Yeah good post smali. A poll doesn't show how much people think one is better than the other.