Holding. Garner. Donald.

[DrWolverine]

Rank them

 

[Johan]

Holding > Garner > Donald

Holding is just Donald but better, Garner is Ambrose but worse.

 

[subshakerz]

Donald by virtue of longer career.

Then Holding by virtue of dominant performances and destructiveness.

Then Garner.

 

[subshakerz]

Holding > Garner > Donald

Holding is just Donald but better, Garner is Ambrose but worse.

Why is Garner worse than Ambrose aside from shorter career.

 

[Johan]

Why is Garner worse than Ambrose aside from shorter career.

Many kmph slower, he was generally even slower than even 1999-2000 Ambrose.

 

[sayon basak]

Donald by virtue of longer career.

Then Holding by virtue of dominant performances and destructiveness.

Then Garner for his batting.

Ftfy.

 

[subshakerz]

Many kmph slower, he was generally even slower than even 1999-2000 Ambrose.

I used to say that but got a fair degree of pushback. Someone showed a clip where late 80s Ambrose is called slower than Garner by Aussie cricketers.

I tend to think they are same range.

 

[subshakerz]

Ftfy.

You'll never let this meme go.

 

[Johan]

I used to say that but got a fair degree of pushback. Someone showed a clip where late 80s Ambrose is called slower than Garner by Aussie cricketers.

I tend to think they are same range.

Wisden reckoned that Garner bowled somewhere between 75 and 80 miles per hour

Garner, in fact, is not really fast. The top men generate speed through the air of between 90 and 95 miles an hour, if the scientific measurements are to be believed. Garner would be between 75 and 80.

surely, on average Ambrose was faster even if Garner can tap into higher speeds at maximum.

 

[Coronis]

Donald by virtue of longer career.

Then Holding by virtue of dominant performances and destructiveness.

Then Garner.

I mean, they all played for 10 years

 

[Bolo.]

IDK about Garner/Donald, but Holding is last.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, they all played for 10 years

Donald has a bigger sample. I make a clear line at 300 wickets to establish the top tier of bowling quality.

 

[subshakerz]

Wisden reckoned that Garner bowled somewhere between 75 and 80 miles per hour

Garner, in fact, is not really fast. The top men generate speed through the air of between 90 and 95 miles an hour, if the scientific measurements are to be believed. Garner would be between 75 and 80.

surely, on average Ambrose was faster even if Garner can tap into higher speeds at maximum.

Yes. But as posters here point out, the eye test showed he to be more fast medium.

 

[Thala_0710]

Many kmph slower, he was generally even slower than even 1999-2000 Ambrose.

I mean if he produces better results, why does that really matter?

 

[Johan]

I mean if he produces better results, why does that really matter?

He doesn't, Ambrose is the better bowler

 

[Thala_0710]

He doesn't, Ambrose is the better bowler

Ambrose yes, Holding no

 

[subshakerz]

He doesn't, Ambrose is the better bowler

Um but I asked why you think Ambrose was better and you said pace.

 

[Johan]

Ambrose yes, Holding no

arguable both ways, I go Holding because of ATG tours of all of the big three, other than his debut series he also averages 21-22.

 

[Johan]

Um but I asked why you think Ambrose was better and you said pace.

yeah, I do think Ambrose was a lot quicker on average, so overall that allowed him to be more destructive than Garner

 

[DrWolverine]

How does one define an ATG series?
In this case for a bowler?