Curtly Ambrose vs Sunil Gavaskar

[Johan]

O’Reilly only when Warne & Murali are mentioned
Barnes comes up a few times for some reason but much less than his teammate Jack Hobbs

Barnes is weird.

I rate Hobbs above Barnes, but there was always debate on who the best Batsmen of all time was, ignoring the monster that was Bradman, many rated Grace above Hobbs, Hammond before the war was also seen as someone who will overtake Hobbs one day, some do rate Hutton higher, Trumper was also rated alongside Hobbs by many.

on Barnes, there was really no argument, for the first 100 years of international Cricket he was more or less unanimously seen as the greatest of all time, there was chatter of O Reilly vs Barnes but think Barnes was still rated above.

Barnes was even more of a freak of nature than Hobbs, Hobbs was finished by 47/48, Barnes was bowling on par with a young 31 year old Learie Constantine when Barnes was 60 year old, a feat that is more or less unheard of in cricket in like 200 years.

 

[kyear2]

I have Warne, Murali, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Imran above Ambrose.



That just makes it more impressive that doesn't it. He's the best player at his position over the last 70 years of the sport imo.

I agree with practically nothing you've posted there, and it will just degenerate the thread, so I'll just peacefully agree to disagree.

 

[kyear2]

Why?

He was great vs Australia, destroyed SA.

It's the equivalence of Bumrah playing 20 matches vs England and 7 vs WI.

It greatly skews the record.

Or Sachin 20 matches vs any of his opponents and then 7 vs only Zim and Bang.

And of course I don't rate players from before WWI.

 

[Johan]

South African batting was fine.

 

[sayon basak]

He was great vs Australia, destroyed SA.

It's the equivalence of Bumrah playing 20 matches vs England and 7 vs WI.

It greatly skews the record.

Or Sachin 20 matches vs any of his opponents and then 7 vs only Zim and Bang.

O'Reilly maintained the same/even worse ratio, no?

 

[DrWolverine]

O'Reilly maintained the same/even worse ratio, no?

 

[kyear2]

O'Reilly maintained the same/even worse ratio, no?

O'Reilly played in the flattest batting era in history along with the 2000's.

He faced off against some of the greater batsmen in history

He played post WWI

His first class record is near perfect

That's no comparison for me between the two.

 

[kyear2]

View attachment 45895

I literally only rate O'Reilly on his ashes tests.

I've said that in the past.

 

[Johan]

for example of how good Barnes was, here's a 60 year old Barnes casually outperforming a Learie Constantine (a great bowler, late 80s mph, everything considered) when he's 30. Credit to @peterhrt obviously.

Barnes 284 wickets @ 8.25. 4.2 wickets per match. Age 60 during 1933 season.
Constantine 278 @ 8.55. 3.8 wpm. Age 31.
Nobby Clark 176 @ 8.73. 3.5 wpm. Age 30 in 1932. (1931 and 1932 seasons only).

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Gavaskar easily.

Gavaskar - elite ATG, amongst very best batsmen.

Ambrose - slightly lesser category to the likes of Hadlee, Steyn.. Etc

 

[ataraxia]

No need to just limit it to fast bowlers imo. Overall as a bowler, I'd put Ambrose around 8-9. About the same as Gavaskar who for me is around 10 as a batsman (and that's because Bradman exists).

If Ambrose is a top 5 fast bowler, I'd say Gavaskar is a top 3 opener. Find the latter more impressive personally because it's a more difficult job.

So basically batter v. bowler comparisons boil down to "my criteria is 'I like him'" even more than usual.

 

[Coronis]

So basically batter v. bowler comparisons boil down to "my criteria is 'I like him'" even more than usual.

tbh its the only fair way to compare them.

 

[Prince EWS]

Barnes is weird.

I rate Hobbs above Barnes, but there was always debate on who the best Batsmen of all time was, ignoring the monster that was Bradman, many rated Grace above Hobbs, Hammond before the war was also seen as someone who will overtake Hobbs one day, some do rate Hutton higher, Trumper was also rated alongside Hobbs by many.

on Barnes, there was really no argument, for the first 100 years of international Cricket he was more or less unanimously seen as the greatest of all time, there was chatter of O Reilly vs Barnes but think Barnes was still rated above.

Barnes was even more of a freak of nature than Hobbs, Hobbs was finished by 47/48, Barnes was bowling on par with a young 31 year old Learie Constantine when Barnes was 60 year old, a feat that is more or less unheard of in cricket in like 200 years.

I think Barnes would probably be rated higher if there was more consensus over what he actually bowled, and/or if he bowled a style easier to fit into a modern bowling attack.

When we all spend too much time thinking about irrelevant and impractical time-travelling composite teams, he can be more easily ignored.

 

[Johan]

I think Barnes would probably be rated higher if there was more consensus over what he actually bowled, and/or if he bowled a style easier to fit into a modern bowling attack.

When we all spend too much time thinking about irrelevant and impractical time-travelling composite teams, he can be more easily ignored.

Yeah that is definitely true. his own fault really, got grumpy about people saying Tate was a similar bowler so decided to tell the media dumb stories about "spin" or whatever when he was just an Alec Bedser style bowler multiplied by 100 (not literally) in competency

 

[kyear2]

I think Barnes would probably be rated higher if there was more consensus over what he actually bowled, and/or if he bowled a style easier to fit into a modern bowling attack.

When we all spend too much time thinking about irrelevant and impractical time-travelling composite teams, he can be more easily ignored.

Where do you rate him?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Yeah that is definitely true. his own fault really, got grumpy about people saying Tate was a similar bowler so decided to tell the media dumb stories about "spin" or whatever when he was just an Alec Bedser style bowler multiplied by 100 (not literally) in competency

Tate breaking his record by taking 38 wicket in Australian soil probably got him mad. That’s what you probably expect from a guy as self will as Barnes.