vastu shastra
Banned
Amborose for me
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ambrose Vs Mcgrath?
- Thread starter laksh_01
- Start date
Unattainableguy
State 12th Man
By special skills, I meant he's never had the ability to do what guys like Wasim, Waqar Younis, Donald etc did. Reverse swing, yorkers, pace, etc. So they were definitely more talented and wicket-takers, only not patient enough to bowl say all 6 deliveries on the same spot, whereas McGrath basically stopped batsmen from scoring runs and got wickets as a result.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The biggest myths about Glenn McGrath surrounded his abilities in moving the ball around. He was primarily a seam bowler but there are a litany of examples of him clean-bowling blokes with in-swinging yorkers, getting nicks to out-swingers, using reverse swing (including his amazing ball from around the wicket to knock over Amir Sohail a few years ago) and, well, pretty much doing what great bowlers do. He is on record as saying he just didn't attempt big swingers as often as others because his focus was on getting seam movement. But he could certainly do it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfNLdrHAIJI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhq7cpTauEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLi1qs19BCE
It defies belief that batsmen's techniques are so woeful that they can't keep out a bloke who does nothing with the ball other than bowl straight. Seriously.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
Umm we actually differ on that! Afridi throwing his bat around like a maniac is hardly the sight I want to see...I can watch Dravid bat all day....and score a century with a strikerate of 40...
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
couldnt have agreed more!! I mean I have got nothing against McGrath..He was more consistent than Wasim, Waqar or Donald..and he was also fitter, had a longer career...but at the end of the day....Wasim doing this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-AiDT1Z0Tc to Dravid is something spectacular rather than McGrath doing this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhq7cpTauEg
but then again...this is also subjective..to a lot of people..McGrath maintaining that accuracy and control so consistently is something special too...
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
That's just baloney. May be Mcgrath was not as skillful or perhaps his action was not as demonstrative as Akram's but it's just blasphemy to suggest that the only reason he got the wickets was because he stopped batsmen from scoring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luM0bDPYXlQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myBblNex1N4&feature=related
bagapath
International Captain
very tough call. when this forum selected the best XIs of every 20 years (and then chose an all time XI ultimately) ambrose and mcgrath were selected to lead the pace attack of 1986 to 2006 team. they managed to edge out akram and donald (and slightly lesser contenders like walsh, waqar, akhthar and pollock). to choose between them is going to be mighty difficult because using stats to split them would be pointless.
mcgrath took more wickets per test
had a superior strike rate
amby had the better average
and better economy rate
while mcgrath's great subcontinental record is in his favor, amby's sharper pace added an extra zing to his attacking style.
both took loads of five wicket hauls in crucial sessions and more often than not, got the main batter of the oppsition when it really mattered.
i cant choose immediately. will read all your posts before voting.
mcgrath took more wickets per test
had a superior strike rate
amby had the better average
and better economy rate
while mcgrath's great subcontinental record is in his favor, amby's sharper pace added an extra zing to his attacking style.
both took loads of five wicket hauls in crucial sessions and more often than not, got the main batter of the oppsition when it really mattered.
i cant choose immediately. will read all your posts before voting.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Ind33d.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
While I'm no longer of the belief that this happened for his entire career, there were unquestionably times, plenty of them, when this was indeed true, and it was indeed odd.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You and I clearly differ on the definition of "unquestionably".
bagapath
International Captain
no line-and-length bowler can achieve considerable success in international cricket, leave alone eternal greatness and super stardom. to be a champion bowler at this level, apart from line and length, you need at least three or four of swing, pace, seam and cut, spin, aggression, variety, physical strength, talent for spotting & technical perfection for exploiting batsman's weakness and ability to bowl to a field.
mcgrath is one of the greatest match winners of all time. he was not merely good like mckenzie, srinath, or gough. his success was not sporadic like jeff thomson's or pat patterson's. he was not unnecessarily expensive (3+ economy rate) like waqar, shoaib or lee. he didnt slide downwards like shaun pollock or ray lindwall.
pigeon belongs in the company of best of the best. just because his relentless accuracy was singled out to be feared and appreciated dont let it overshadow his overall greatness. sure he didnt swing the ball like imran, but neither did lillee. he was not as quick as marshall but neither was hadlee. mcgrath achieved what most these champions did in his own style and belongs with them as one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time.
the same holds true for ambrose. but his bad record against india (38 ave) swings my vote in favor of mcgrath.
mcgrath is one of the greatest match winners of all time. he was not merely good like mckenzie, srinath, or gough. his success was not sporadic like jeff thomson's or pat patterson's. he was not unnecessarily expensive (3+ economy rate) like waqar, shoaib or lee. he didnt slide downwards like shaun pollock or ray lindwall.
pigeon belongs in the company of best of the best. just because his relentless accuracy was singled out to be feared and appreciated dont let it overshadow his overall greatness. sure he didnt swing the ball like imran, but neither did lillee. he was not as quick as marshall but neither was hadlee. mcgrath achieved what most these champions did in his own style and belongs with them as one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time.
the same holds true for ambrose. but his bad record against india (38 ave) swings my vote in favor of mcgrath.
Last edited:
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Assuming we are talking about Mcgrath, it is said that batsman stated that the speed gun did not do him justice and that he got 'zip' off the pitch. Rushing the batsman off the pitch could be a reason for them playing the [ever so slightly] wrong line at times,
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You know, I'd honestly never spotted that.
EDIT: just had a look. There's no denying he didn't achieve the success he'd have liked against India (and, unavoidably, the impression you get is that the batsmen simply managed to keep him out, not that he was denied by lack of star-alignment), nor that India were indeed the strongest batting side going around for most if not all his career. Yet what's so frustrating is that he played just a single 5-Test series against India in the time he was the bowler we all knew (his first four series, against Pakistan h, Australia a, England a and India h, produced good results against the weak and poor against the strong, and he had undeniably not yet convinced). He also played just 2 Tests against Zimbabwe, 3 against Sri Lanka, 5 against South Africa and 4 against New Zealand. This compared to 22 and 29 against Australia and England (and another 5 each against both opponents early on). We're talking about a 10-year period here, and this what's come-up. OK, he missed a handful of games - including a 3-Test series in India and a 2-Test one in New Zealand, but the rest were odds against England, Australia and Pakistan who he played plenty anyway.
WTF were West Indies' schedulers playing at?
McGrath benefits from a much more rounded schedule, and during the time he was a good bowler (ie excluding his first 8 games) played 113 Tests, with only Zimbabwe (just a single game) under-represented. McGrath after becoming Test-class played 29 against England, 11 against India, 12 against New Zealand, 15 against Pakistan, 14 against South Africa, 8 against Sri Lanka and 23 against West Indies. And only South Africa ever looked like conquering him.
Last edited: