Curtly Ambrose vs Steven Smith

[DrWolverine]

Top 5 fast bowler vs Top 5 batsman

 

[Johan]

Top 5 fast bowler vs Top 5 batsman

Nein

 

[Coronis]

Bottom 5 comparison

 

[govinda indian fan]

In my atg fast bowlers lidt Sir curtly @5 and atg batsman list smith @6

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Top 5 fast bowler

Probably.

Top 5 batsman

Probably not.

 

[kyear2]

Going by the amount of persons saying they wouldn't trade Bumrah for Bradman, this should be an interesting result.

 

[kyear2]

For the record, I have Ambrose 5th and Smith 6th in their respective rankings.

 

[DrWolverine]

Probably.

Probably not.

Smith is competing with the likes of Hobbs from 1900s & Don from 1930s. Ambrose is not competing with the likes of Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes etc for some reason

 

[capt_Luffy]

Smith is competing with the likes of Hobbs from 1900s & Don from 1930s. Ambrose is not competing with the likes of Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes etc for some reason

How tf Ambrose isn't competiting with Barnes?? I have Barnes ahead

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Smith is competing with the likes of Hobbs from 1900s & Don from 1930s. Ambrose is not competing with the likes of Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes etc for some reason

Smith really isn't competing with Don; no one is. Hobbs though is legit. And lohmann and spofforth had ridiculously short careers. Compared to the likes of Hobbs, Hutton etc. For example, Lohmann played 18 tests vs 61 for Hobbs. Ambrose and co are competing with the Lindwalls, Davidson etc.

Barnes imo is in his own special category 27 tests isnt enough but he did so amazing that you can't ignore him.

 

[Coronis]

Lohmann imo is in his own special category 18 tests isnt enough but he did so amazing that you can't ignore him.

Smith is competing with the likes of Hobbs from 1900s & Don from 1930s. Ambrose is not competing with the likes of Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes etc for some reason

But on a more serious note - I find it hard particularly to rate 19th century players because of how differently balanced the game was then, and how few tests were being played. Even with cricketers in the 20th century pre WWI there is a vast discrepancy. Its hard to figure out where to rank them for me at least. Barnes is often excluded from lists for this reason, alongside the often ambiguous nature of his bowling.

Hobbs did transcend the war period, being just as great afterwards, despite his age, which is why he’s included in such exercises, along with his pre-war eminence.

Unfortunately, the best bowlers of the interwar period also have low sample sizes, especially when compared to the best bats of the period, and in this case, especially the fast bowlers, which makes them harder to fairly compare to Ambrose - plus the best bowlers of that period were spinners.

 

[Thala_0710]

Going by the amount of persons saying they wouldn't trade Bumrah for Bradman, this should be an interesting result.

Won't trade Bumrah for Bradman because Bumrah is our first ATG pacer, we have had great batsman before...not because Bumrah is a better cricketer

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Smith is competing with the likes of Hobbs from 1900s & Don from 1930s. Ambrose is not competing with the likes of Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes etc for some reason

Agree with responses above on this - Ambrose is competing with those guys, we just think he's better than them (apart from maybe Barnes).

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Won't trade Bumrah for Bradman because Bumrah is our first ATG pacer, we have had great batsman before...not because Bumrah is a better cricketer

Great answer. Because at the end of the day, imo taking 20 wkts to win a test is probably more valuable. And as you stated, India has no shortage of class batsmen.

 

[Coronis]

Great answer. Because at the end of the day, imo taking 20 wkts to win a test is probably more valuable. And as you stated, India has no shortage of class batsmen.

iirc it was specifically for the recent time period - where Indias bowling has far outstripped their batting - not in an ATG context.

 

[kyear2]

Smith really isn't competing with Don; no one is. Hobbs though is legit. And lohmann and spofforth had ridiculously short careers. Compared to the likes of Hobbs, Hutton etc. For example, Lohmann played 18 tests vs 61 for Hobbs. Ambrose and co are competing with the Lindwalls, Davidson etc.

Barnes imo is in his own special category 27 tests isnt enough but he did so amazing that you can't ignore him.

Did he though?

It's like if Bumrah played 30 games vs Australia and 7 vs the WI and went even wilder.

Or if Sachin played 20 games vs England and 7 vs Bang and Zim and averaged 100 vs them.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[kyear2]

But on a more serious note - I find it hard particularly to rate 19th century players because of how differently balanced the game was then, and how few tests were being played. Even with cricketers in the 20th century pre WWI there is a vast discrepancy. Its hard to figure out where to rank them for me at least. Barnes is often excluded from lists for this reason, alongside the often ambiguous nature of his bowling.

Hobbs did transcend the war period, being just as great afterwards, despite his age, which is why he’s included in such exercises, along with his pre-war eminence.

Unfortunately, the best bowlers of the interwar period also have low sample sizes, especially when compared to the best bats of the period, and in this case, especially the fast bowlers, which makes them harder to fairly compare to Ambrose - plus the best bowlers of that period were spinners.

Genuinely agree with every part of this, excellent post and perfectly contextualizes the difficulty in ranking pre WWI players with more modern ones.

I saw this the NBA graphic the other day and think it isn't the worst way to frame older players.



And congrats on 15k posts and the HOF member status.

 

[kyear2]

Great answer. Because at the end of the day, imo taking 20 wkts to win a test is probably more valuable. And as you stated, India has no shortage of class batsmen.

As is my point. It is more valuable, not disproportionately so, but definitely is.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

iirc it was specifically for the recent time period - where Indias bowling has far outstripped their batting - not in an ATG context.

Oh....

 

[Johan]

Smith is competing with the likes of Hobbs from 1900s & Don from 1930s. Ambrose is not competing with the likes of Spofforth, Lohmann, Barnes etc for some reason

Bradman is obviously a universe ahead.

Hobbs often beats everyone not named Bradman, Hutton beat Smith twice I think before Narayana multi arc, Sobers obliterated Smith, Sachin always beats Smith, and that's 5.