Ambrose Vs Mcgrath?

[Burgey]

Ambrose easily.

I've never understood why McGrath been so successful. He doesn't have the pace, doesn't swing the ball and isn't an intimidating presence. He just comes in and bowls straight and seems to get wickets, kind of similar to someone like Kumble who also just bowled straight and kept getting wickets. I have seen Andre Nel be more intimidating than McGrath and I've seen Ajit Agarkar swing the ball more than him.

I've seen Graeme Smith play a cover drive better than Allan Border too, but Smith's just a fat **** who doesn't move his feet and isn't fit to carry Border's jock strap.

Horrendous post, utterly horrendous. Behold McGrath, the man who fluked 500 plus test wickets.

You reckon all he did was run up and bowl straight? How much did Ambrose swing it? See McGrath in his early years? He was plenty quick enough. And right up until his retirement, he was still getting blokes like Pietersen and Strauss out by top edging hooks from him. Not bad for a mediocre trundler.

Just an appalling post. Honestly can't believe it. Should be moderated out of existence.

 

[Teja.]

Ambrose easily.

I've never understood why McGrath been so successful. He doesn't have the pace, doesn't swing the ball and isn't an intimidating presence. He just comes in and bowls straight and seems to get wickets, kind of similar to someone like Kumble who also just bowled straight and kept getting wickets. I have seen Andre Nel be more intimidating than McGrath and I've seen Ajit Agarkar swing the ball more than him.

Kumble and McGrath have over 1100 wickets between them, they definitely did something right.

 

[Noble One]

Ambrose easily.

I've never understood why McGrath been so successful. He doesn't have the pace, doesn't swing the ball and isn't an intimidating presence. He just comes in and bowls straight and seems to get wickets, kind of similar to someone like Kumble who also just bowled straight and kept getting wickets. I have seen Andre Nel be more intimidating than McGrath and I've seen Ajit Agarkar swing the ball more than him.

This post is horrible. Discredits both McGrath and Kumble, two of the finest bowlers of all time. Then to talk up Nel and Agarkar.....

I hope the next generation of cricket fans don't follow views like this. Sure a highlights video of a McGrath or Kumble wicket looks nothing extraordinary, it is all about context, watch the previous 30 deliveries pre wicket falling to work out why these bowlers are so great.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ambrose easily.

I've never understood why McGrath been so successful. He doesn't have the pace, doesn't swing the ball and isn't an intimidating presence. He just comes in and bowls straight and seems to get wickets, kind of similar to someone like Kumble who also just bowled straight and kept getting wickets. I have seen Andre Nel be more intimidating than McGrath and I've seen Ajit Agarkar swing the ball more than him.

I think your guide dog has copped a bit of a head-knock! Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the statement, 'he just comes in and bowls straight and seems to get wickets' just boggles the mind...crazy stuff.

 

[Top_Cat]

I've never understood why McGrath been so successful.

Clearly.

 

[GraemeSmith]

I was not saying that Agarkar and Nel are better bowlers than McGrath. They were exaggerated examples, they are bowlers who are ridiculed yet I have seen them swing in Agarkar's case and intimidate in Nel's case more than McGrath. This is not meant to demean McGrath in anyway, just my justification of voting for Ambrose. And yes, in the videos I've watched I haven't seen Ambrose swing the ball but watching him run up and bowl fast is a scary sight.

 

[GotSpin]

Case closed guys. Ambrose was more scary when he ran in.

 

[GraemeSmith]

I think your guide dog has copped a bit of a head-knock! Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the statement, 'he just comes in and bowls straight and seems to get wickets' just boggles the mind...crazy stuff.

I was just saying what I noticed. There are bowlers like Lee, Steyn or Murali whom you watch and you immediately understand why they are successful and then there are bowlers like McGrath and Kumble who in my viewing never do anything extraordinary with the ball other than bowl straight at the same spot over and over again, yet seem to do well. This is not an insult, just an observation.

 

[andyc]

I like this quote from Peter Roebuck about McGrath's bowling:

Some bowlers strike terror in the heart. Others dazzle. This blighter just took your wicket. Cheaply.

Have often seen people say that McGrath would just come in and hit a length ball after ball, as if each one was the same, but that's nowhere near the truth IMO. He would bowl an over all on the same length, but only three or four might be going straight; the others would be seaming in or out, or with a little bit of swing. The difference between a ball hitting the middle of the bat and hitting the edge really isn't that far - a couple of centimetres either way. Why bother seaming the ball a yard or swinging it around corners if all you're going to do is cause the batsman to play and miss?

McGrath bowled the right length to draw batsmen into their shots, make them unsure whether they should play on the front or back foot, and did just enough with the ball to get the edge. Pretty simple to understand how he took his wickets IMO. And like has been said, he wasn't just line and length; even towards the end his bouncer was still a very effective weapon, especially when used as a surprise ball.

 

[Days of Grace]

My thoughts on McGrath exactly. Excellent post.

 

[zaremba]

I like this quote from Peter Roebuck about McGrath's bowling:



Have often seen people say that McGrath would just come in and hit a length ball after ball, as if each one was the same, but that's nowhere near the truth IMO. He would bowl an over all on the same length, but only three or four might be going straight; the others would be seaming in or out, or with a little bit of swing. The difference between a ball hitting the middle of the bat and hitting the edge really isn't that far - a couple of centimetres either way. Why bother seaming the ball a yard or swinging it around corners if all you're going to do is cause the batsman to play and miss?

McGrath bowled the right length to draw batsmen into their shots, make them unsure whether they should play on the front or back foot, and did just enough with the ball to get the edge. Pretty simple to understand how he took his wickets IMO. And like has been said, he wasn't just line and length; even towards the end his bouncer was still a very effective weapon, especially when used as a surprise ball.

Still quite hard to nail down exactly why he was so good though. Basically if you list his merits, you get the picture of a very accurate and consistent seamer. Which essentially is what he was, but that just doesn't seem to do justice to the presence that he had and the threat that he constantly offered. A great, great bowler. I voted Ambrose in this poll (on the usual basis that unless he's 10% better than the other guy, I'm always going to vote against the Convict), but I'm still not sure which was the right way to go.

He went up in my estimation a hell of a lot on the final day of the '05 Ashes. I was in the crowd and he was fielding in front of us for some of the day, Brett Lee at other times. They both copped so much stick but both dealt with it with real (or at least well-feigned) good humour at what must have been a pretty depressing time for them as the Ashes were slipping away from them. He ended up getting genuine applause from the crowd at the end of a spell (all very easy to do when you're winning, admittedly) which a few years before would have been unthinkable.

 

[Burgey]

Well, he had bounce to start with, always a great attribute. He was generally very durable too.

He just bowled so many balls in the right areas, and got them to move just enough to catch the edge, or to beat it on the inside.

His genius was his subtlety, imo. Some guys blast you out, McGrath dissected you like a surgeon. Was almost a spinner's approach to fast bowling - relying on subtle variations, and of course with incredible control. His hat trick in Perth was a microcosm of his career - two decent and one great batsman, taken apart with three completely different balls, put exactly where he wanted them.

What a bowler he was. Honestly, losing him, Warne and Dizzy all within 2 years of each other, Australias done pretty well to only fall as far as they have.

 

[Top_Cat]

Still quite hard to nail down exactly why he was so good though. Basically if you list his merits, you get the picture of a very accurate and consistent seamer.

Which would be under-selling him, tbh. I look at it this way; let's suppose McGrath only moved the ball 2". If he bowled two balls in the exact same spot, depending on what ball he was trying to bowl, that's an area of 4" of lateral movement by the time the ball gets to the batter. At the pointy end, if someone moved it that far off the seam all the time and, of course, you don't know which way it's going to go until he lets go of the ball, it's actually quite a bit to deal with. If you combine that sort of movement with always being in the area where you're not sure whether to go forward/back or play inside/outside the line + movement off the seam, it's a heck of a threat. But, even with HD cameras, from 100m away, it's hard to pick up that movement unless you either slow it down or have a really, really close look.

Basically, guys like McGrath have a little bit on the ball every ball and, when he was really trying, could zip it all over the place. McGrath did seem to build his game around pin-point accuracy, no doubt. But couple that with judicious use of bouncer and yorker and some reverse swing and you have a multi-skilled, very tough bowler to face.

 

[zaremba]

Yep but the seam movement is what all seamers ought to be able to get. I think it's probably true that he hit the seam more than most. He also got a lot of bounce. And also for the larger part of his career his pace was pretty sharp.

As for subtle variations, yes he produced them but I'm not entirely sure how deliberate they would have been (reverse-swing etc excepted). I don't know that someone like McGrath could choose which way the ball was going to seam - his seam position for both the ball that moves away and the ball that moves in is identical and it just depends on which way the ball happens to go when it hits the seam.

I remember Angus Fraser once saying his own stock ball was the off-cutter (ie seamer that moves in from the off) - "I try to bowl leg-cutters but usually they don't work and come out as off-cutters instead" - I thought that was quite revealing about the art.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Ambrose easily.

I've never understood why McGrath been so successful. He doesn't have the pace, doesn't swing the ball and isn't an intimidating presence. He just comes in and bowls straight and seems to get wickets, kind of similar to someone like Kumble who also just bowled straight and kept getting wickets. I have seen Andre Nel be more intimidating than McGrath and I've seen Ajit Agarkar swing the ball more than him.

You completely miss the point then.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Apart from accuracy, seam movement, extra bounce and the ability to alter his delivery late if the batsman moved, he also had the priceless ability of getting inside the heads of a great number of the batsman he played.....exploiting both mental and technical weaknesses to the zenith.

Some batsman have a bogeyman. McGrath could seem like he was every batsman's bogeyman.

 

[Burgey]

Yep but the seam movement is what all seamers ought to be able to get. I think it's probably true that he hit the seam more than most. He also got a lot of bounce. And also for the larger part of his career his pace was pretty sharp.

As for subtle variations, yes he produced them but I'm not entirely sure how deliberate they would have been (reverse-swing etc excepted). I don't know that someone like McGrath could choose which way the ball was going to seam - his seam position for both the ball that moves away and the ball that moves in is identical and it just depends on which way the ball happens to go when it hits the seam.

I remember Angus Fraser once saying his own stock ball was the off-cutter (ie seamer that moves in from the off) - "I try to bowl leg-cutters but usually they don't work and come out as off-cutters instead" - I thought that was quite revealing about the art.

Its interesting, I've thought that myself about seamers at times. Instructive footage was McGrath to Warner in an Allstars T20 last summer - tightened him up with two balls moving into him, then says over the mic - I'll take this one away here, its coming straight to you at slip Warnie.

Sure enough, next ball, moves away, Warner nicks it and Gilly takes it in front of Warne.

Footage is probably on YouTube if you want to have a look at it.

 

[Cevno]

Which would be under-selling him, tbh. I look at it this way; let's suppose McGrath only moved the ball 2". If he bowled two balls in the exact same spot, depending on what ball he was trying to bowl, that's an area of 4" of lateral movement by the time the ball gets to the batter. At the pointy end, if someone moved it that far off the seam all the time and, of course, you don't know which way it's going to go until he lets go of the ball, it's actually quite a bit to deal with. If you combine that sort of movement with always being in the area where you're not sure whether to go forward/back or play inside/outside the line + movement off the seam, it's a heck of a threat. But, even with HD cameras, from 100m away, it's hard to pick up that movement unless you either slow it down or have a really, really close look.

Basically, guys like McGrath have a little bit on the ball every ball and, when he was really trying, could zip it all over the place. McGrath did seem to build his game around pin-point accuracy, no doubt. But couple that with judicious use of bouncer and yorker and some reverse swing and you have a multi-skilled, very tough bowler to face.

AWTA.

That basically sums up Mcgrath. To add to that he could get swin in the air too in helpful conditions.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yep but the seam movement is what all seamers ought to be able to get. I think it's probably true that he hit the seam more than most. He also got a lot of bounce. And also for the larger part of his career his pace was pretty sharp.

As for subtle variations, yes he produced them but I'm not entirely sure how deliberate they would have been (reverse-swing etc excepted). I don't know that someone like McGrath could choose which way the ball was going to seam - his seam position for both the ball that moves away and the ball that moves in is identical and it just depends on which way the ball happens to go when it hits the seam.

I remember Angus Fraser once saying his own stock ball was the off-cutter (ie seamer that moves in from the off) - "I try to bowl leg-cutters but usually they don't work and come out as off-cutters instead" - I thought that was quite revealing about the art.

Going back to Lords 05 again- McGrath bowled to the 3 right-handers short deliveries that were wide of off-stump and staying low. If he didn't know which way he was seaming them they may have gone away from the right-hander and would have ended up trickling wide to slip having bounced at least twice.

Of course they didn't in reality - they moved in towards the right-handers and knocked the stumps over, all 3 of them - within a few minutes of each other.

Granted, it's very difficult for mere mortals like me and no doubt you to hold a cricket ball and think about not only hitting the seam 20 yards down the track but hitting one side of it.....but he and others can and do do it.

 

[Top_Cat]

As for subtle variations, yes he produced them but I'm not entirely sure how deliberate they would have been (reverse-swing etc excepted). I don't know that someone like McGrath could choose which way the ball was going to seam - his seam position for both the ball that moves away and the ball that moves in is identical and it just depends on which way the ball happens to go when it hits the seam.

Yeah and I guess that's where the accuracy comes into it; put it in the right spot and if the ball is just nibbling a bit, probably doesn't matter too much which way it goes. But when you have so much success with it, probably wouldn't even care that much; be hard to convince yourself you should listen to the fans who reckon if you don't have an out-swinger, you're nothing. Lift was another huge factor and Gus is another good example; saw him play live when he played some grade cricket in NSW and, as with McGrath, the amount of bounce he got off a length was unbelievable.

As it was, he demonstrated many times he had just about every other trick, albeit not as exaggerated as others, when he needed it. Wasn't just a nagging seamer in my book, bit more aggressive than that even when he wasn't terribly quick.