Ambrose vs Imran, who was better away from home?

[kyear2]

I don't think it's fair to outright dismiss series saying he wasn't of international standards.... Marshall also had a bad record in India in '78, but still he more than make up for that. Also, with due respect to Viv and co; that dominance was due to the bowling attack not the batting.

I can't believe this is still ongoing. All @HouHsiaoHsien is doing at this point is repeating himself, the poll wasn't close and I'm not even addressing it directly anymore.

I understand some of their concerns, but the question wasn't who succeeded in more countries, it was literally who performed better away from home.

Your highlighted points are especially true, Viv was great and Lloyd very good, but Lloyd was gone after '84 and wasn't near his best for a couple years. But that's neither here nor there, very good record none the less.

What bothered me a bit about some of the arguments was the moving of goal posts and the desire to exempt certain performances from records because it was inconvenient, either too early or too late, but at the end of the day, he was selected on merit, that's cricket.
The Marshall India series in '78 he was objectively bad, he was selected after 3 first class games because the entire team was playing for Kerry Packer. And this wasn't a case about being raw, he wasn't ready and shouldn't have been playing. If any record should be exempted, it's that one, but he still managed to improve his record after that.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I can't believe this is still ongoing. All @HouHsiaoHsien is doing at this point is repeating himself, the poll wasn't close and I'm not even addressing it directly anymore.

I understand some of their concerns, but the question wasn't who succeeded in more countries, it was literally who performed better away from home.

Your highlighted points are especially true, Viv was great and Lloyd very good, but Lloyd was gone after '84 and wasn't near his best for a couple years. But that's neither here nor there, very good record none the less.

What bothered me a bit about some of the arguments was the moving of goal posts and the desire to exempt certain performances from records because it was inconvenient, either too early or too late, but at the end of the day, he was selected on merit, that's cricket.
The Marshall India series in '78 he was objectively bad, he was selected after 3 first class games because the entire team was playing for Kerry Packer. And this wasn't a case about being raw, he wasn't ready and shouldn't have been playing. If any record should be exempted, it's that one, but he still managed to improve his record after that.

I have explained why the context is important and specific in Imran’s case, for example the 74 series vs Eng weren’t debutant problems, but he was incompetent to play at that level at the time. If these don’t seem to genuine to you, I am not forcing you to accept it. And Marshall is a better bowler than Imran, and if that is the case, you can exclude the series. I’ll just summarise my position for the last time in this thread:
Imran: ATG in WI, between good and great in Eng, Aus, SL, good in NZ, decent in Ind
Ambrose: ATG in Aus, great in Eng, and elsewhere his record are far too small to interpret and extrapolate anything from them

 

[Coronis]

I have explained why the context is important and specific in Imran’s case, for example the 74 series vs Eng weren’t debutant problems, but he was incompetent to play at that level at the time. If these don’t seem to genuine to you, I am not forcing you to accept it. And Marshall is a better bowler than Imran, and if that is the case, you can exclude the series. I’ll just summarise my position for the last time in this thread:
Imran: ATG in WI, between good and great in Eng, Aus, SL, good in NZ, decent in Ind
Ambrose: ATG in Aus, great in Eng, and elsewhere his record are far too small to interpret and extrapolate anything from them

May I ask if 5 tests for Curtly in Pakistan and 4 tests in South Africa are both “far too small” to interpret why does Imran get credit for 4 tests in New Zealand, or 3 in Sri Lanka? And uh, what is your magic cutoff point for record size?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

May I ask if 5 tests for Curtly in Pakistan and 4 tests in South Africa are both “far too small” to interpret why does Imran get credit for 4 tests in New Zealand, or 3 in Sri Lanka? And uh, what is your magic cutoff point for record size?

I have explained that as well, only if for once you would bother to read my posts. Imran took 18 wickets in 3 tests, indicating a significant level of accomplishment worth meriting consideration. NZ, I took cause he severely outperformed Richard Hadlee in the same tests and still had a better WPM than Ambrose in NZ/SL/SA, but this can be disregarded as too small , since it’s much closer. Ambrose barely took 3 wickets in once match in SL, 5 wickets in 2 matches in NZ, and SA record is too small since there was no extraordinary level of performance in those 4 tests(13 wickets, WPM of barely 3).

 

[kyear2]

May I ask if 5 tests for Curtly in Pakistan and 4 tests in South Africa are both “far too small” to interpret why does Imran get credit for 4 tests in New Zealand, or 3 in Sri Lanka? And uh, what is your magic cutoff point for record size?

Yes, it's things like this.

I also agree that you can't extrapolate anything from too small sample size, but it has to go both ways.

And 5 matches for me is a decent cut off point, probably still to small but at least a full test series. Seems fair.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Finally, I would like to say that I understand why people could chose Ambrose in this poll, and find the context in Imran’s career that I presented as not entirely genuine. It’s a close thing, and I respect the opinions of everyone here

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Yes, it's things like this.

I also agree that you can't extrapolate anything from too small sample size, but it has to go both ways.

And 5 matches for me is a decent cut off point, probably still to small but at least a full test series. Seems fair.

Seems logical, but in certain cases, context can change this theory. For example 18 wickets in 3 matches is more complete a record than 13 in 4, as the prior shows a significant(tho concentrated level of achievement) enough to merit consideration in my view. You can decide for yourself.

 

[kyear2]

Seems logical, but in certain cases, context can change this theory. For example 18 wickets in 3 matches is more complete a record than 13 in 4, as the prior shows a significant(tho concentrated level of achievement) enough to merit consideration in my view. You can decide for yourself.

Why I disagree is, you can't change perspective based on if the performance was good or bad. It can't be used if it's good, but disregarded if it bad. It's the opening for inconsistency. But understand your perspective

 

[subshakerz]

Seems logical, but in certain cases, context can change this theory. For example 18 wickets in 3 matches is more complete a record than 13 in 4, as the prior shows a significant(tho concentrated level of achievement) enough to merit consideration in my view. You can decide for yourself.

I agree with Kyear2 in the sense that we should just simplify it with a cut off point to make it easier for both sides. And I agree with the 5 test cut off point.

In which case, we consider Australia, England and Pakistan for Ambrose and Australia, England, WI and India for Imran.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

And we're also comparing him to the bowler with the absolute worst home / away split of any ATG fast bowler

Sadly, going purely off stats this is probably Woakes. Away stats don't do justice to his abilities.

 

[kyear2]

Finally, I would like to say that I understand why people could chose Ambrose in this poll, and find the context in Imran’s career that I presented as not entirely genuine. It’s a close thing, and I respect the opinions of everyone here

Oh, and don't take things here personally. Hardly anyone here has genuine ill intent, and none of the ones opposing you on this topic.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Sadly, going purely off stats this is probably Woakes. Away stats don't do justice to his abilities.

Why didn’t he make the squad for India? Would have been a great opportunity to have an ATG away series

 

[subshakerz]

Oh, and don't take things here personally. Hardly anyone here has genuine ill intent, and none of the ones opposing you on this topic.

Even Kyear2 and I get along at points.

 

[kyear2]

At points

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Why didn’t he make the squad for India? Would have been a great opportunity to have an ATG away series

BCCI conspiracy.

 

[Line and Length]

Seems logical, but in certain cases, context can change this theory. For example 18 wickets in 3 matches is more complete a record than 13 in 4, as the prior shows a significant(tho concentrated level of achievement) enough to merit consideration in my view. You can decide for yourself.

For every logical argument there is a contradicting counterpoint. For example, in 4 Tests in England Bob Massie took 23 wickets at 17.78 but nobody would ever suggest that Massie was in the same league as either Ambrose or Imran.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Genuine question, do we believe he was helped or hindered by the lack of tests?

Given his work load, it may have been an assitance, but also didn't get to show fully what he could do?

Played a huge number of first class matches with a big bowling workload and didn't slacken off in those matches. I've read a couple of his books and it wasn't like he was put in cottonwool and just brought out for tests like Jimmy Anderson for the last 6-7 years.

 

[Migara]

Same cliches we heard for Lillee. 'Oh yeah, Lillee would have wrecked India'. You're judged by what you did, mate.

And no, he didnt lack penetration late in his career, it was half way through his career. And his small series haul samples are from that era.

And you are literally giving our point: he didn't have enough of a complete sample away from home to make his case.

You're whole argument is 'Look how great he did in Australia, I bet he would have done the same everywhere else.'

Lillee could not wreck even minnow SL on a Asgiriya pitch where Wasim, Waqar and Vaas have run circles around batsmen. Nevermind wrecking India or Pakistan.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

For every logical argument there is a contradicting counterpoint. For example, in 4 Tests in England Bob Massie took 23 wickets at 17.78 but nobody would ever suggest that Massie was in the same league as either Ambrose or Imran.

Perhaps because we are comparing a person with a very sample size, to individuals who maintained records for longer periods. 23 wickets in 4 matches suggests Massie could bowl well in Eng tho, as 18 wickets in 3 matches suggest Imran could bowl well in SL.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

I don't want to name names but there's a certain poster here in this thread who shall remain unnamed whose first letter is "H" and whose last letter is "n" who has been saying that Imran outperformed Hadlee bowling-wise in NZ. As in kicked Hadlee's hiney. Stuff like "He was goodish in NZ(clearly outperformed Hadlee)", "Also Imran's average is good for NZ. He outperformed Hadlee by far in those tests.", "goodish in NZ(far better than Hadlee)", "outperformed someone like Richard Hadlee in NZ by far", "goodish in Ind, NZ (only 4 matches, but he outperformed Hadlee by a lot)", "Ditto Nz, where his stats aren’t as great, but where he outperformed Richard Hadlee by a significant margin." and "NZ, I took cause he severely outperformed Richard Hadlee in the same tests". I don't want to name and shame this fellow and try to embarrass him simply because he has made one or two (or seven, at last count) apparently outlandish statements. Instead of sinking this low, I thought I would look into the stats to see if there's any truth in these grotesque utterances. I went to ESPN Statsguru of which I am not a master as I principally reside in a quagmire, and this is what I found:

Hadlee (in common tests in NZ):

4 matches 6 innings 15 wickets 29.20 Ave Econ 2.56 SR 68.4 5WI 1

Imran (in common tests in NZ):

4 matches 7 innings 17 wickets 26.64 Ave Econ 2.11 SR 75.4 5WI 1

Imran's average is better by about 10%. Hadlee's SR is better by about 10%. Consequently, Imran's economy rate is better by about 20%.

Imran took two more wickets so has a better WPM of 4.25 cf. Hadlee's 3.75 but he had one more bowling innings so working out WPI instead, we have Hadlee at 2.50 and Imran at 2.43: very similar.

I thought a more comprehensive sleuthing routine was in order so I looked at the individual scoreboards:

1979 second test: PAK 360 & 234/3d, NZ 402
1979 third test: PAK 359 & 8/0, NZ 254 & 281/8d

(Imran did not play in the first test of the 1979 series but Hadlee performed very well in that test: 5/62 and 3/83; eight-ball overs were used in this test series which might have reduced SR a bit)

1989 second test: PAK 438/7d, NZ 447 & 186/8
1989 third test: PAK 616/5d, NZ 403 & 99/3

(the first test was abandoned without a ball being bowled)

Hadlee took 15 of the 35 PAK wickets to fall so 42.9% cf. test career % of 34.2%.
Imran took 17 of the 59 NZ wickets to fall so 28.8% cf. test career % of 26.8%.

Hadlee did about 50% "better" here but I'm not sure how much this really means. Maybe that NZ really needed another penetrative bowler to partner Hadlee as they found the Pakistani wickets hard to come by.

Now a breakdown of the wickets taken by batting order:

Hadlee: 1-6: 9 so 60%, 1-7: 10 so 67%
Imran: 1-6: 9 so 53%, 1-7: 11 so 65%

Hadlee took a slightly larger % of higher-order wickets but I don't think this means much.

Overall, I think their bowling stats are similar in quality: neither dominated the other. The sample size is small so it's hard to draw any definite conclusions. I have not taken TFGF into account though so that might tilt things towards Imran (TFGF = The Fred Goodall Factor).

P.S.: I've done some of this manually so it might be wise to check out some of my numbers for yourself.