Battle of the Test Bowling

[Jono]

Ambrose, simply stunning effort.

 

[GIMH]

Ambrose

 

[Matteh]

Ambrose- for essentially the reasons Haakon stated.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ambrose. An absolutely blistering spell. I remember listening to it on my radio in a service station I used to work at. I really thought we were going to win. Athers was plumb lbw first ball & it set the tone.

 

[Slifer]

Curtly

 

[a massive zebra]

Ambrose

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

McGrath had 500+ to play with, and his 8-for was partly due to Gillespie not being able to take any.

Any bowler who takes 8-9 wickets has to have an unsuccessful partner at the other end, but I'd say it's less worthy of comment when the opposition is bowled out in 30 overs than in just about any other 8-9 wicket haul you could care to name, so what's the point of bringing it up?

Anyway, Gillespie actually bowled brilliantly that day, probably the best in any test since the tour of India. Obviously you wouldn't have seen the game, but I'm sure if you dug up a report about it or something you'd find that he was incredibly unlucky and beat the bat a couple of times an over. If McGrath hadn't taken a wicket every 10 balls or so, or if he'd had a bit more luck, Gillespie could have had several.

It's McGrath for me, though either could win reasonably enough. Both are obviously great spells, but Pakistan had a solid batting linup, and the WACA pitch was pretty dead for the most part. A bit of swing around and some poor application from the batsmen, and he knocks over 8 in 16 overs. A McGrath special.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Any bowler who takes 8-9 wickets has to have an unsuccessful partner at the other end, but I'd say it's less worthy of comment when the opposition is bowled out in 30 overs than in just about any other 8-9 wicket haul you could care to name, so what's the point of bringing it up?

Mainly because he is notched up two wides - (and when I looked in the commentary everything said "back of a length, defended back to the bowler".)

 

[aussie]

Ambrose here, that spell defending a small total was totally devastating, i saw McGrath spell live & even though it was superb i reckon his spells at lord's in 97 & 2005 where much better.

 

[aussie]

It's McGrath for me, though either could win reasonably enough. Both are obviously great spells, but Pakistan had a solid batting linup, and the WACA pitch was pretty dead for the most part. A bit of swing around and some poor application from the batsmen, and he knocks over 8 in 16 overs. A McGrath special.

From what i remember of that game, Pakistan's batting wasn't solid at all, they were awful in that test even though they improved as the series went on.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

From what i remember of that game, Pakistan's batting wasn't solid at all, they were awful in that test even though they improved as the series went on.

No, they didn't bat well, but they had a solid batting lineup. In other words, the team contained good batsmen, who played completely awfully against McGrath.

 

[Anil]

ambrose without a doubt

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Mainly because he is notched up two wides - (and when I looked in the commentary everything said "back of a length, defended back to the bowler".)

It did? I just looked at the cricinfo commentary for Gillespie's overs. He bowled 12 overs, and I can see 8 plays and misses, 4 outside edges to the slip area (two for boundaries) and one dropped catch by Ponting. That might happen to any bowler on any given day, but there's no way Gillespie bowled badly at all - on a normal day he could have had 2 or 3 wickets. Incidentally, that's not just my opinion, the television commentators were going on and on about how unlucky Gillespie was, and McGrath mentioned in an interview after the game that he was hard done by.

Anyway, it just seems like strange logic. If McGrath took his 8 in 40 overs and nobody else got any, you'd obviously say that he might not have got that many if he'd had good bowling support. But the innings only lasted 30 overs in total, and McGrath bowled unchanged until it finished.

 

[aussie]

No, they didn't bat well, but they had a solid batting lineup. In other words, the team contained good batsmen, who played completely awfully against McGrath.

fair enough.

 

[alternative]

Ambrose for sure..

 

[Dasa]

Ambrose.

 

[steds]

Mainly because he is notched up two wides

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Anyway, it just seems like strange logic. If McGrath took his 8 in 40 overs and nobody else got any, you'd obviously say that he might not have got that many if he'd had good bowling support. But the innings only lasted 30 overs in total, and McGrath bowled unchanged until it finished.

Point.

So did Ambrose.

 

[Nedved's Fan]

Ambrose

 

[oz_fan]

Ambrose