Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

[Coronis]

CW conveniently avoided discussions about Ambrose's low WPM so far. But always questioned Akram's low WPM, which is actually better (WPI) than Ambrose's despite playing much more longer

Probably because Ambrose’s average amongst ATG fast bowlers is at the top, whilst Wasim’s is at the bottom, yet relatively Wasim was rated higher by peers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Probably because Ambrose’s average amongst ATG fast bowlers is at the top, whilst Wasim’s is at the bottom, yet relatively Wasim was rated higher by peers.

Some of this is because Wasim had an inordinately long career by fast bowling standards. Debuted as a 19 year old. He played 18 years and Ambrose played 13. In the span of his career which overlapped with Ambrose he picked up more WPM at a lower SR and averaged 1 run more.

 

[Slifer]

Some of this is because Wasim had an inordinately long career by fast bowling standards. Debuted as a 19 year old. He played 18 years and Ambrose played 13. In the span of his career which overlapped with Ambrose he picked up more WPM at a lower SR and averaged 1 run more.

Not Ambrose's fault that Akram supposedly played longer than he should. And since when do we filter out particular parts of a player's career? Overall, Ambrose's career was better than Akram. Hadlee ie the person he's actually being compared to in this discussion, no. He's a shade above The big Antiguan.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not Ambrose's fault that Akram supposedly played longer than he should. And since when do we filter out particular parts of a player's career?

I do it when its much longer than the other players because it gives a fairer indication of their levels when at similar ages. For Ambrose's entire career span, Akram's stats are as good if not marginally better WPM/SR wise.

Its not Akram's fault he was good enough to get selected at 19 when Ambrose was at home playing with his dick.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

The fact that Ambrose didn't really take up cricket seroiusly until fairly late imo counts in his favour, not against it.

He played a bit of youth cricket in Antigua as a middle order bat, genuinely wasn't a fast bowler until his late teens, and even then his dream for a while was going stateside to play basketball for 2-3 years past that

 

[Slifer]

I do it when its much longer than the other players because it gives a fairer indication of their levels when at similar ages. For Ambrose's entire career span, Akram's stats are as good if not marginally better WPM/SR wise.

Its not Akram's fault he was good enough to get selected at 19 when Ambrose was at home playing with his dick.

Umm it's not much longer. Akram played 104 tests, Ambrose 98. Difference of 6 tests. And since we're nit picking all of a sudden, I'm willing to bet that Akram played many more tests in the 90s vs Zimbabwe and 90s SL. While Ambrose was busy taking the likes of Australia apart.

Ps Ambrose debuted later FYI, because he wasn't particularly interested in cricket. He only played to please his mom.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Umm it's not much longer. Akram played 104 tests, Ambrose 98. Difference of 6 tests.

? Im talking career span here. Surely you can agree 18 years way different to 13. Pakistan just played way fewer tests or Akram might've ended up with McGrath level wicket tally.

 

[Slifer]

Well yeah 18 > 13. But over the course of their respective careers Ambrose was able to condense more or less the same number of tests. Works out to Ambrose playing roughly two more tests per year than Akram. Less time to recover in between tests. More chances for wear and tear. Tbh I'm trolling with that last few points but I'm more curious to know how did Akram come into a Hadlee/Ambrose discussion??

 

[OverratedSanity]

The fact that Ambrose didn't really take up cricket seroiusly until fairly late imo counts in his favour, not against it.

Hmm, its admirable but I'm not sure there's a great argument that not playing cricket as a teenager is better than playing cricket as a teenager and actually doing alright , dont you think.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well yeah 18 > 13. But over the course of their respective careers Ambrose was able to condense more or less the same number of tests. Works out to Ambrose playing roughly two more tests per year than Akram. Less time to recover in between tests. More chances for wear and tear. Tbh I'm trolling with that last few points but I'm more curious to know how did Akram come into a Hadlee/Ambrose discussion??

Its kinda tangentially related since Coronis brought it up. Hadlee's career length/trajectory is similar to Akram's.

 

[Zinzan]

Yep, I agree that Marshall > Steyn

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Hmm, its admirable but I'm not sure there's a great argument that not playing cricket as a teenager is better than playing cricket as a teenager and actually doing alright , dont you think.

I see your point, but can't say I agree with it

The fact that Ambrose became as good as he was without the sort of background in the game from a young age that most greats do is commendable imo

 

[Slifer]

What i find hard to understand, is people nit picking particular phases of a players career to somehow make a particular player look good and the other not so much. Don't remember who brought it up, but someone mentioned phases of his career where Ambys wpm or whatever were lower and sr. That happens to all bowlers.

Since you lot brought up Akram, pre Ambrose Akram was averaging less than 3 wickets per test, striking at almost 70 and averaging around 28.

 

[OverratedSanity]

.

Since you lot brought up Akram, pre Ambrose Akram was averaging less than 3 wickets per test, striking at almost 70 and averaging around 28.

Well yeah that's the point. At that age Akram was picking up 3 wickets a test averaging 28 in test cricket while Ambrose was picking up 0 wickets playing no tests averaging N/A. And somehow the latter is better? Genuinely don't get it.

 

[Slifer]

Well yeah that's the point. At that age Akram was picking up 3 wickets a test averaging 28 in test cricket while Ambrose was picking up 0 wickets playing no tests averaging N/A.

No. My point is Akram had as bad a beginning to his career as Ambrose his end. Overall Ambrose's career > Akram.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I do it when its much longer than the other players because it gives a fairer indication of their levels when at similar ages. For Ambrose's entire career span, Akram's stats are as good if not marginally better WPM/SR wise.

Its not Akram's fault he was good enough to get selected at 19 when Ambrose was at home playing with his dick.

1988-2000

Ambrose
98 matches, 405 wickets @ 21, SR 54.5
22 x 5, 3 x 10

Akram
78 matches, 344 wickets at 22.4, SR 51.4
21 x 5, 3 x 10
Applying these numbers to Ambrose's tally of 98 tests to understand the actual difference,

432 wickets, 26 x 5, 5 x 10.

 

[harsh.ag]

 

[Slifer]

1988-2000

Ambrose
98 matches, 405 wickets @ 21, SR 54.5
22 x 5, 3 x 10

Akram
78 matches, 344 wickets at 22.4, SR 51.4
21 x 5, 3 x 10
Applying these numbers to Ambrose's tally of 98 tests to understand the actual difference,

432 wickets, 26 x 5, 5 x 10.

Now post their actual career figures.

 

[Slifer]

Actual stats:

Akram 104 tests 414 wkts at 23.62 SR 54.6
Amby 98 tests 405 wkts at 20.99 SR 54.5

In away conditions that they had in common:

Akram 40 tests 176 wkts at 23.48
Amby 41 tests 187 wkts at 20.43

 

[ankitj]

Biggest thing against Akram is that he picked a much higher proportion of tail wickets and still ended up with inferior average to most other greats.