Ambrose vs Warne: Greater Test Bowler?

[subshakerz]

It is though.

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose

Imran
Donald
Lillee
Garner
Wasim
Lindwall
Trueman

Make the argument for anyone below to be objectively better.

Imran was not top 10 great outside of Pakistan, he averaged 25 away from home and didn't average below 24 in any single country except for 3 tests in minnow SL. If Ambrose lacked penetration, with his 54.5 strike rate, Imran couldn't have been much better at 53.7. He averaged 28 in Australia and India and even including his home tests averaged over 24 against 4 out of the 6 test teams he played with a strike rate of over 60 vs 3 of them.

Donald played in the same era of one Mr. Ambrose and a comparison of their records vs Australia is instructive, and he wasn't quite as destructive vs England. But against everyone else he was superb. Like Ambrose he doesn't have a broad overseas portfolio with over 5 tests in only 3 countries and not quite matching the big man in any of those 3. He did perform well in India in his limited opportunities. Donald was brilliant and the most underrated bowler on CW, and probably does deserve to be higher, challenging the 3 above him. But he doesn't come close to Ambrose's performances vs the best team of their era and wasn't quite good vs England. Plus no one from that era placed him above Curtly then or now.

DK lillee was one of the pioneers of the modern fast bowling revolution, he brought passion and fire back into the game and ignited rivalries (and a dynasty, can't win them all, lol). But he's also one of the most over rated players in the history of the game (outside of cw). If Ambrose's over seas resume is light, Lille's is practically non existent. He played all but 10 of his tests in two countries, and 5 of them were in NZ. He also primarily played vs three countries and averaged 30 and 27 vs two of them. In defence of the great man, he too had his health challenges and more than proved his brilliance in WSC cricket and lots of ROW encounters. He was capable of carrying an attack and was lethal when paired with Thompson. He however doesn't have anything on his test record to match what Ambrose did to Australia, though his record vs England is equally impressive.

Garner was always the sidekick, an exceptionally accurate and dangerous one and undoubtedly one of the best in history, but the no. 2 all the same. As excellent and under rated as Garner was, there's no argument here.

Wasim Akram, the enigmatic one. The greatest left handed bowler of all time, quite possibly the greatest proponent of reverse swing and most skilled fast bowler ever. Results wise he's not in Ambrose's class. Again, same era, omitting sample sizes and not even bothering with the home and away comps..... He averaged 25 vs. Australia, 30 vs England and 28 vs India. He did perform very well vs the WI and was known to give Lara and Sachin fits.

Any statistical analysis would be a disservice to Lindwall, and I have no desire to do so, and as brilliant as he was, he can no longer be seen as among the upper echelon of the top 5 / 6 of the game. And Trueman was with all respect was quite useless away from home.

This narrative that any of top dozen or so pacers are all basically the same don't bear or hold merit. The top 3 are quite apart from the rest, and I would be quite willing to demonstrate why, but believe everyone here knows that they had next to no holes and unmatched well rounded records while performing well vs the best batsmen and teams of their eras. Not to mention mastering a variety of skills they exploited better than anyone else, in all conditions. I personally believe the top two further separate themselves, but that's probably more subjective.

For me it's Marshall/McGrath/Hadlee/Imran/Steyn, and then between Ambrose/Lillee/Trueman it's a toss up, then Wasim and Lindwall. Donald and Garner to me don't have great enough reputations to be top 10 material.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

It is though.

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose

Imran
Donald
Lillee
Garner
Wasim
Lindwall
Trueman

Make the argument for anyone below to be objectively better.

Imran was not top 10 great outside of Pakistan, he averaged 25 away from home and didn't average below 24 in any single country except for 3 tests in minnow SL. If Ambrose lacked penetration, with his 54.5 strike rate, Imran couldn't have been much better at 53.7. He averaged 28 in Australia and India and even including his home tests averaged over 24 against 4 out of the 6 test teams he played with a strike rate of over 60 vs 3 of them.

Donald played in the same era of one Mr. Ambrose and a comparison of their records vs Australia is instructive, and he wasn't quite as destructive vs England. But against everyone else he was superb. Like Ambrose he doesn't have a broad overseas portfolio with over 5 tests in only 3 countries and not quite matching the big man in any of those 3. He did perform well in India in his limited opportunities. Donald was brilliant and the most underrated bowler on CW, and probably does deserve to be higher, challenging the 3 above him. But he doesn't come close to Ambrose's performances vs the best team of their era and wasn't quite good vs England. Plus no one from that era placed him above Curtly then or now.

DK lillee was one of the pioneers of the modern fast bowling revolution, he brought passion and fire back into the game and ignited rivalries (and a dynasty, can't win them all, lol). But he's also one of the most over rated players in the history of the game (outside of cw). If Ambrose's over seas resume is light, Lille's is practically non existent. He played all but 10 of his tests in two countries, and 5 of them were in NZ. He also primarily played vs three countries and averaged 30 and 27 vs two of them. In defence of the great man, he too had his health challenges and more than proved his brilliance in WSC cricket and lots of ROW encounters. He was capable of carrying an attack and was lethal when paired with Thompson. He however doesn't have anything on his test record to match what Ambrose did to Australia, though his record vs England is equally impressive.

Garner was always the sidekick, an exceptionally accurate and dangerous one and undoubtedly one of the best in history, but the no. 2 all the same. As excellent and under rated as Garner was, there's no argument here.

Wasim Akram, the enigmatic one. The greatest left handed bowler of all time, quite possibly the greatest proponent of reverse swing and most skilled fast bowler ever. Results wise he's not in Ambrose's class. Again, same era, omitting sample sizes and not even bothering with the home and away comps..... He averaged 25 vs. Australia, 30 vs England and 28 vs India. He did perform very well vs the WI and was known to give Lara and Sachin fits.

Any statistical analysis would be a disservice to Lindwall, and I have no desire to do so, and as brilliant as he was, he can no longer be seen as among the upper echelon of the top 5 / 6 of the game. And Trueman was with all respect was quite useless away from home.

This narrative that any of top dozen or so pacers are all basically the same don't bear or hold merit. The top 3 are quite apart from the rest, and I would be quite willing to demonstrate why, but believe everyone here knows that they had next to no holes and unmatched well rounded records while performing well vs the best batsmen and teams of their eras. Not to mention mastering a variety of skills they exploited better than anyone else, in all conditions. I personally believe the top two further separate themselves, but that's probably more subjective.

Imran vs Ambrose: both nearly equally great at home, Imran slightly ahead here cause of a better WPM and average(and the flat tracks factor), Imran in WI is better than Ambrose in Pak, and vaguely on a similar level as Ambrose in Aus(Imran’s average is high in WI cause of a near total lack of support in his first tour, plus the WI sides he dominated were better batting wise compared to early and mid 90s Aus, and his insane WPM and SR compensate for this to an extent), Ambrose is better in Aus and Eng than Imran. Not comparing for other countries since Ambrose didn’t play there enough(like NZ, SA, SL).So very touch and go. But Ambrose is in the top 6 for me.

 

[ataraxia]

Anyone can pick loads of wicket by tampering the ball. In my locality, my rubbing the ball we swing it more than Anderson. So for me imran khan is not more than shardul. Okay let's be kind to him he is not more than kallis the bowler

I actually agree: Imran is a worse bowler than Kallis, but a slightly better batter IMO. You really have to adjust for era – you'll find that Kallis was a genuine all-rounder, equally strong in both suits – and Imran, who in his peak already averaged 60, was unlucky to not be able to face a very bad Pakistani attack himself.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

It is though.

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose

Imran
Donald
Lillee
Garner
Wasim
Lindwall
Trueman

Make the argument for anyone below to be objectively better.

One could definitely make a case for any of Imran, Akram and Lillee to be above Ambrose.

Imran more proven, Akram played far longer, Lillee better strike bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

One could definitely make a case for any of Imran, Akram and Lillee to be above Ambrose.

Imran more proven, Akram played far longer, Lillee better strike bowler.

Yup. It should be clear Ambrose has his own flaws.

 

[OverratedSanity]

One could definitely make a case for any of Imran, Akram and Lillee to be above Ambrose.

Imran more proven, Akram played far longer, Lillee better strike bowler.

Lillee was the prototype modern fast bowler most others were inspired by too, and picked up over 5 wickets a game despite strong competition for wickets unlike Hadlee. Could also argue Donald's numbers could've been even better if he hadn't lost some of his peak pace years to isolation too. Ambrose has a very strong case over those bowlers but it's hardly impossible to make a solid argument for them over Curtly (or Steyn or imran tbh)

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee was the prototype modern fast bowler most others were inspired by too, and picked up over 5 wickets a game despite strong competition for wickets unlike Hadlee. Could also argue Donald's numbers could've been even better if he hadn't lost some of his peak pace years to isolation too. Ambrose has a very strong case over those bowlers but it's hardly impossible to make a solid argument for them over Curtly (or Steyn or imran tbh)

Lillee's lack of SC, and even WI, experience, is a major issue. I think he might have a case against Ambrose since his foreign experience also is not too vast either.

 

[kyear2]

One could definitely make a case for any of Imran, Akram and Lillee to be above Ambrose.

Imran more proven, Akram played far longer, Lillee better strike bowler.

One can, that's the joy of sports. I said make the case. For me it's a stretch, you can disagree. But it's not like these guys are ranked far apart. The part that disappoints me is that no one brings up Donald, but hey.

For the record Imran is just one spot below big Curtly, but don't see how he's more proven. I would say more consistent, his average vs every team is between 24 and 28, but outside of the friendly confines of Pakistan, he was notably average for an ATG. His one stand out was obviously his performance vs the WI, specifically in Pak, and he gets his flowers for that. But again, outside of Pakistan over the course of his career his wasn't ATG level anywhere.

Akram, does playing longer mean playing better? He was objectively worse vs England and Australia, neither good vs India and Akram stat corrected with Zim and SL. Where Ambrose proved himself vs the best of the era, Akram was not in the same league vs them and made it for it elsewhere.

Lillee is the trickiest, but the s/r wasn't any better, but Lillee would go all day. Additionally Lillee basically played double digit tests vs only 3 teams in 2 counties, even worse than Ambrose btw, and only did well vs one of them. High averages vs Pakistan and WI, did well vs England and NZ. Yes he had a higher WPM, so yes he gets credit for consistently running in. But in their respective primes, we're choosing between the two, yeah Lillee could take off your head, but Ambrose was more accurate and while both would be candidates to take you out, Lillee gave more balls to hit to possibly relieve the pressure. I'm taking Ambrose, I know who you would take.

 

[subshakerz]

One can, that's the joy of sports. I said make the case. For me it's a stretch, you can disagree. But it's not like these guys are ranked far apart. The part that disappoints me is that no one brings up Donald, but hey.

For the record Imran is just one spot below bug Curtly, but don't see how he's more proven. I would say more consistent, his average vs every team is between 24 and 28, but outside of the friendly confines of Pakistan, he was notably average for an ATG. His one stand out was obviously his performance vs the WI, specifically in Pak, and he gets his flowers for that. But again, outside of Pakistan over the course of his career his wasn't ATG level great level anywhere.

Akram, does playing longer mean playing better? He was objectively worse vs England and Australia, neither good vs India and Akram stat corrected with Zim and SL. Where Ambrose proved himself vs the best of the era, Akram was not in the same league vs them and made it for it elsewhere.

Lillee is the trickiest, but the s/r wasn't any better, but Lillee would go all day. Additionally Lillee basically played double digit tests vs only 3 teams in 2 counties, even worse than Ambrose btw, and only did vs one of them. High averages vs Pakistan and WI, did well vs England and NZ. Yes he had a higher WPM, so yes he gets credit for consistently running in. But in their respective primes, we're choosing between the two, yeah Lillee could take off your head, but Ambrose was more accurate and while both would be candidates to take you out, Lillee gave more balls to hit to possibly relieve the pressure. I'm taking Ambrose, I know who you would take.

Do notice here in the analysis how Imran and Wasim get immediately written off for perceived stats gaps compared with Ambrose, whereas Lillee's are downplayed somewhat based on his bowling style and it becomes a toss-up.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

One can, that's the joy of sports. I said make the case. For me it's a stretch, you can disagree. But it's not like these guys are ranked far apart. The part that disappoints me is that no one brings up Donald, but hey.

For the record Imran is just one spot below big Curtly, but don't see how he's more proven. I would say more consistent, his average vs every team is between 24 and 28, but outside of the friendly confines of Pakistan, he was notably average for an ATG. His one stand out was obviously his performance vs the WI, specifically in Pak, and he gets his flowers for that. But again, outside of Pakistan over the course of his career his wasn't ATG level anywhere.

Akram, does playing longer mean playing better? He was objectively worse vs England and Australia, neither good vs India and Akram stat corrected with Zim and SL. Where Ambrose proved himself vs the best of the era, Akram was not in the same league vs them and made it for it elsewhere.

Lillee is the trickiest, but the s/r wasn't any better, but Lillee would go all day. Additionally Lillee basically played double digit tests vs only 3 teams in 2 counties, even worse than Ambrose btw, and only did well vs one of them. High averages vs Pakistan and WI, did well vs England and NZ. Yes he had a higher WPM, so yes he gets credit for consistently running in. But in their respective primes, we're choosing between the two, yeah Lillee could take off your head, but Ambrose was more accurate and while both would be candidates to take you out, Lillee gave more balls to hit to possibly relieve the pressure. I'm taking Ambrose, I know who you would take.

It’s very close but atleast for Imran you can make a case, I’ve earlier in this thread

 

[kyear2]

It’s very close but atleast for Imran you can make a case, I’ve earlier in this thread

They are close
Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Donald. - Lillee, Garner, Lindwall / Wasim a bit further behind.

Contrary to the trolling above, how can I say Imran isn't close, how can he be immediately written off when he's the one right below Ambrose and higher than Lillee. But that's what happens when you try to misrepresent what people are saying.

The difference between you and I is that you are comparing these guys to average players, I'm comparing them to each other and the top 3.

So when you look at an average of in each country of

Australia - 28
India - 28

Look at what Marshall and Hadlee averaged in those same countries in the same era, can't call that great or even good. That's average at best, and depending on context below average.

England - 24
West Indies -25

In England he was good, WI, very good, and the very good is fully based on context.

Not going to list all of the overall averages again, but the only country that he was great against, like GREAT, was the West Indies.

For those saying Ambrose also has his holes, yes, I never said he doesn't..... So does Steyn, that's why they're in this group and not the top one. The simple reason they are even slightly, and I mean slightly above the other 2 or 3 is points of excellence. Steyn's s/r and ability to rip through sides and Ambrose because of that ****ing ridiculous average and his performance vs Australia.

I know you give Imran credit for performing well at home, but two points there.
1. Everyone does, you adapt to your home conditions. For persons who say look at Kapil, he wasn't a great bowler and others came into India and dominated on said pitches.

2. The flat pitch argument. Not every pitch in Pakistan is flat, and only 2 of the 5 in the Caribbean wasn't. Ambrose actually performed better on the flat ones at home than the quick ones. The belief that in 98 matches he never encountered and produced on a flat pitch is far fetched. And on Imran's India argument, yes he played there, but averaging 28 isn't a plus.

But yes, that's my reasons for slightly elevating Steyn and Ambrose. s/r and average respectively, with Ambrose's Aussie performance giving him that extra push.

Why I don't have Imran with them, and this isn't new. The home away delta of 19 - 25 is huge and not repeated among any of the others in this list. Even the 25 away average in isolation is higher than anyone in contention, especially for that era. And if Pakistan was so dead and England and Australia are so helpful, why couldn't he reproduce his results there?

But remember, he's right there, 4 - 5 - 6, so no one is saying he wasn't great.

 

[subshakerz]

They are close
Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Donald. - Lillee, Garner, Lindwall / Wasim a bit further behind.

Contrary to the trolling above, how can I say Imran isn't close, how can he be immediately written off when he's the one right below Ambrose and higher than Lillee. But that's what happens when you try to misrepresent what people are saying.

Dude, you were categorical in how you put Imran and Wasim below and then said 'Lillee is the trickiest'. I am not making it up.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

They are close
Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Donald. - Lillee, Garner, Lindwall / Wasim a bit further behind.

Contrary to the trolling above, how can I say Imran isn't close, how can he be immediately written off when he's the one right below Ambrose and higher than Lillee. But that's what happens when you try to misrepresent what people are saying.

The difference between you and I is that you are comparing these guys to average players, I'm comparing them to each other and the top 3.

So when you look at an average of in each country of

Australia - 28
India - 28

Look at what Marshall and Hadlee averaged in those same countries in the same era, can't call that great or even good. That's average at best, and depending on context below average.

England - 24
West Indies -25

In England he was good, WI, very good, and the very good is fully based on context.

Not going to list all of the overall averages again, but the only country that he was great against, like GREAT, was the West Indies.

For those saying Ambrose also has his holes, yes, I never said he doesn't..... So does Steyn, that's why they're in this group and not the top one. The simple reason they are even slightly, and I mean slightly above the other 2 or 3 is points of excellence. Steyn's s/r and ability to rip through sides and Ambrose because of that ****ing ridiculous average and his performance vs Australia.

I know you give Imran credit for performing well at home, but two points there.
1. Everyone does, you adapt to your home conditions. For persons who say look at Kapil, he wasn't a great bowler and others came into India and dominated on said pitches.

2. The flat pitch argument. Not every pitch in Pakistan is flat, and only 2 of the 5 in the Caribbean wasn't. Ambrose actually performed better on the flat ones at home than the quick ones. The belief that in 98 matches he never encountered and produced on a flat pitch is far fetched. And on Imran's India argument, yes he played there, but averaging 28 isn't a plus.

But yes, that's my reasons for slightly elevating Steyn and Ambrose. s/r and average respectively, with Ambrose's Aussie performance giving him that extra push.

Why I don't have Imran with them, and this isn't new. The home away delta of 19 - 25 is huge and not repeated among any of the others in this list. Even the 25 away average in isolation is higher than anyone in contention, especially for that era. And if Pakistan was so dead and England and Australia are so helpful, why couldn't he reproduce his results there?

But remember, he's right there, 4 - 5 - 6, so no one is saying he wasn't great.

Agreed, and Ambrose, Steyn and Imran are in the same range for me(4-6), in a different order. I see where you are coming from, and have no problem with your ranking. I'd still say Imran was the better bowler at home, due to better WPM, average, although Ambrose was great at home as well. Imran in WI was clearly better than Ambrose in Pak. Ambrose was better than in Eng than Imran in Eng, and clearly ahead of him in Australia. So marginal. Imran was brilliant or at least very good in Eng, although not Marshall or Murali level. He averaged under 25 there, despite the atrocious performances in 1975, when he was wrongly played and not ready for the international level(an extreme case, Kapil said he was below a club level bowler). Ambrose, Steyn and Imran are at a similar level for me.

 

[subshakerz]

Agreed, and Ambrose, Steyn and Imran are in the same range for me(4-6), in a different order. I see where you are coming from, and have no problem with your ranking. I'd still say Imran was the better bowler at home, due to better WPM, average, although Ambrose was great at home as well. Imran in WI was clearly better than Ambrose in Pak. Ambrose was better than in Eng than Imran in Eng, and clearly ahead of him in Australia. So marginal. Imran was brilliant or at least very good in Eng, although not Marshall or Murali level. He averaged under 25 there, despite the atrocious performances in 1975, when he was wrongly played and not ready for the international level(an extreme case, Kapil said he was below a club level bowler). Ambrose, Steyn and Imran are at a similar level for me.

Ambrose wasn't particularly great at home for me.

 

[howitzer]

One can, that's the joy of sports. I said make the case. For me it's a stretch, you can disagree. But it's not like these guys are ranked far apart. The part that disappoints me is that no one brings up Donald, but hey.

For the record Imran is just one spot below big Curtly, but don't see how he's more proven. I would say more consistent, his average vs every team is between 24 and 28, but outside of the friendly confines of Pakistan, he was notably average for an ATG. His one stand out was obviously his performance vs the WI, specifically in Pak, and he gets his flowers for that. But again, outside of Pakistan over the course of his career his wasn't ATG level anywhere.

Akram, does playing longer mean playing better? He was objectively worse vs England and Australia, neither good vs India and Akram stat corrected with Zim and SL. Where Ambrose proved himself vs the best of the era, Akram was not in the same league vs them and made it for it elsewhere.

Lillee is the trickiest, but the s/r wasn't any better, but Lillee would go all day. Additionally Lillee basically played double digit tests vs only 3 teams in 2 counties, even worse than Ambrose btw, and only did well vs one of them. High averages vs Pakistan and WI, did well vs England and NZ. Yes he had a higher WPM, so yes he gets credit for consistently running in. But in their respective primes, we're choosing between the two, yeah Lillee could take off your head, but Ambrose was more accurate and while both would be candidates to take you out, Lillee gave more balls to hit to possibly relieve the pressure. I'm taking Ambrose, I know who you would take.

Might have to start doing this a bit. Bloke was a monster.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Ambrose wasn't particularly great at home for me.

Averages sub 21.5. And one thing that’s true is that Ambrose a fair amount of flat pitches at home.

 

[kyear2]

Agreed, and Ambrose, Steyn and Imran are in the same range for me(4-6), in a different order. I see where you are coming from, and have no problem with your ranking. I'd still say Imran was the better bowler at home, due to better WPM, average, although Ambrose was great at home as well. Imran in WI was clearly better than Ambrose in Pak. Ambrose was better than in Eng than Imran in Eng, and clearly ahead of him in Australia. So marginal. Imran was brilliant or at least very good in Eng, although not Marshall or Murali level. He averaged under 25 there, despite the atrocious performances in 1975, when he was wrongly played and not ready for the international level(an extreme case, Kapil said he was below a club level bowler). Ambrose, Steyn and Imran are at a similar level for me.

Yeah, think Donald is also in there with those 3. Probably last, but there.

Just hard to get past Steyn's s/r and Curtly's average. If it were that easy to maintain, everyone would have done it. Those 2 just stands out.

 

[subshakerz]

Averages sub 21.5. And one thing that’s true is that Ambrose a fair amount of flat pitches at home.

Yup at less than 4WPM and at SR of 56. Many series were he was missing too, though of course in his prime many great spells as well.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Yup at less than 4WPM and at SR of 56. Many series were he was missing too, though of course in his prime many great spells as well.

Agreed but for the flat pitches(include his home pitch) faced, and the great average and ER, it compensates to a good extent. Imran’s slightly better at home tho for me

 

[Bolo.]

All of you are putting way too much stock in stats in or against a particular country. Variance is far too high. Both statistically and in terms of the circumstances the tests are played under.

See Ashraful or S Pollock charting on highest batting averages in countries from the other thread for why.