Shane Warne vs Curtly Ambrose

[smash84]

I thought it was answered. It's due to away record of Ambrose.

I am going to rate any pacer taking 200 away wickets at avg of 20-21 over Warne specially if they have a great record against top sides of their era. I won't bother to look into any further details because averaging 20-21 away with 200 plus wickets and performance against top sides puts you in a different league. Just a cursory look makes it clear that Ambrose, Hadlee, Marshall and McGrath makes the cut easily over Warne.

That's what puzzles me though. Imran was stellar against the best team of his era. Ambrose was stellar against the best team of his era. Warne was atrocious against the best team of his era, so how does he come out ahead of Imran?

It's important to look at breakdown of averages because they provide a lot of detail. Ambrose was great against England and Australia with very good output but wasn't that amazing against others, especially really bad against India. Imran wasn't bad that bad against any opposition. Just a simple 26 average is too simplistic and doesn't offer any nuance.

 

[Johan]

That's what puzzles me though. Imran was stellar against the best team of his era. Ambrose was stellar against the best team of his era. Warne was atrocious against the best team of his era, so how does he come out ahead of Imran?

Warne was pretty great against South Africa.

 

[smash84]

Warne was pretty great against South Africa.

I'd say the best team of Warne's era, barring his own of course, was India and not South Africa.

 

[Johan]

I'd say the best team of Warne's era, barring his own of course, was India and not South Africa.

really? I'd give it to Saffers but put India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka ahead in term of skill against spin, he did fail against the best players of spin though.

 

[Coronis]

During Warne’s career…

#2 in win % and W/L ratio

SA 145 matches 65/37/43

2nd in batting average

SA 35.97

2nd in bowling average

SA 29.81 (not counting ICC - who is number 1)

 

[Sliferxxxx]

During Warne’s career…

#2 in win % and W/L ratio

SA 145 matches 65/37/43

2nd in batting average

SA 35.97

2nd in bowling average

SA 29.81 (not counting ICC - who is number 1)

Wait, South Africa had the 2nd best batting average wise? I would have never guessed that. I just assumed with India having Sachin, Dravid, Lax, Ganguly and later Sehwag they'd be a clear #2 in batting.

 

[Coronis]

Wait, South Africa had the 2nd best batting average wise? I would have never guessed that. I just assumed with India having Sachin, Dravid, Lax, Ganguly and later Sehwag they'd be a clear #2 in batting.

Very very slight. 35.97 vs 35.93

Though looking at individual batting (so not team total, and ignores extras) it swings slightly in India’s favour 33.70 to 33.66

 

[Sliferxxxx]

really? I'd give it to Saffers but put India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka ahead in term of skill against spin, he did fail against the best players of spin though.

In general, I'd say Ambrose was woeful vs India and never played them away. Warne sucked vs India home and away and also away to the WI.

Of course, as stated, Ambrose never played India away, with his only opportunity coming in 1994. He was away having surgery that greatly reduced his effectiveness. My personal opinion is that given more games in India i could see Ambrose averaging around 30 odd and sr around 60 or so. Mediocre for sure but also in the same breath, give him more matches away to South Africa and NZ and especially at reasonable fitness my feelings are he'd clean both those teams up. So he'd still have an overall amazing record home and away.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Very very slight. 35.97 vs 35.93

Though looking at individual batting (so not team total, and ignores extras) it swings slightly in India’s favour 33.70 to 33.66

I still didn't expect it to be that close. Really can't just go by names on a teams sheet.

 

[Coronis]

I still didn't expect it to be that close. Really can't just go by names on a teams sheet.

Yep. And also unsurprisingly - SA was a better batting team away, India better at home.

 

[Johan]

In general, I'd say Ambrose was woeful vs India and never played them away. Warne sucked vs India home and away and also away to the WI.

imo Warne was fine in West Indies barring one series when he was injured.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Yep. And also unsurprisingly - SA was a better batting team away, India better at home.

That make sense

 

[Sliferxxxx]

imo Warne was fine in West Indies barring one series when he was injured.

Ambrose was also injured in some of his away series as well, missing games in Australia 1997, Pakistan 1997 and south africa 1998:

Injuries worry West Indies as they win three-day game

"Curtly Ambrose, a destructive force in three previous series against Pakistan, was a shadow of his old self, taking just one wicket for 139 runs in the first two Tests, before injury forced him out of the Third. "

Redirect Notice

 

[Johan]

Ambrose was also injured in some of his away series as well, missing games in Australia 1997, Pakistan 1997 and south africa 1998:

Injuries worry West Indies as they win three-day game

"Curtly Ambrose, a destructive force in three previous series against Pakistan, was a shadow of his old self, taking just one wicket for 139 runs in the first two Tests, before injury forced him out of the Third. "

Redirect Notice

Yeah he should get some leniency on them as well

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Yeah he should get some leniency on them as well

Some imo.

 

[kyear2]

That's what puzzles me though. Imran was stellar against the best team of his era. Ambrose was stellar against the best team of his era. Warne was atrocious against the best team of his era, so how does he come out ahead of Imran?

It's important to look at breakdown of averages because they provide a lot of detail. Ambrose was great against England and Australia with very good output but wasn't that amazing against others, especially really bad against India. Imran wasn't bad that bad against any opposition. Just a simple 26 average is too simplistic and doesn't offer any nuance.

Yes, Ambrose was stellar vs and in Australia. He averaged sub 20 in Australia. In what was the ultimate test for his era, he averaged sub 20 in 14 tests. Versus his no. 1 rival and the country in which he played the most he averaged just over 20 in the UK.

Pakistan was supposedly the most difficult place to bowl, yet over his career and even during his peak Imran averaged 5 points more away from home.

In the Caribbean, Imran was damn good, he wasn't stellar to the extent that Ambrose was in Australia. 25 isn't 19. Versus his number one rival in India he averaged 28. In Australia, even if one removes the final series as Subz demands, he averaged 27.

Over his career, and taking away his teenaged series vs England, the only country he excelled in was said England and minnow SL.

That's it.

That's not top 5 ATG fast or bowler period performances.

Imo he's not better than Warne, Murali, Ambrose nor Steyn. All those guys were at multiple points in their career the best in world.

 

[BazBall21]

Very tough call.

 

[Randomfan]

That's what puzzles me though. Imran was stellar against the best team of his era. Ambrose was stellar against the best team of his era. Warne was atrocious against the best team of his era, so how does he come out ahead of Imran?

If you are stellar against best team of your era and yet average 26-27 against non-minnows, what does that tell you? Ambrose was stellar against best team and with over all avg of 20-21. Two situations are not the same.

Fans can surely make a case of IK vs Warne with the points you raised, but I don't see parallel with IK and Ambrose when comparing them with Warne.

 

[subshakerz]

So what is it that makes warne better than Imran but not better than Ambrose?

Raw stats presented without context and cherrypicked.

 

[subshakerz]

I thought it was answered. It's due to away record of Ambrose.

I am going to rate any pacer taking 200 away wickets at avg of 20-21 over Warne specially if they have a great record against top sides of their era. I won't bother to look into any further details because averaging 20-21 away with 200 plus wickets and performance against top sides puts you in a different league. Just a cursory look makes it clear that Ambrose, Hadlee, Marshall and McGrath makes the cut easily over Warne.

I am not taking simply sorted avg to rank bowlers here. I rate IK over Pollock. I also rate IK over Wasim. I am simply pointing out that when gap is massive, no need to drill down in details. When gap is not massive then drilling down can give more idea. In case of Ambrose and Warne, gap is just massive.

Without going into trouble with filtering minnows or top sides, over all away record makes it obvious why there is no parallel in comparison between Ambrose-Warne and IK-Warne.

View attachment 46163

Your raw stat approach is quite one dimensional sorry.

Fact is that Warne succeeded in more places than Ambrose with bigger samples. He is better away slightly than Ambrose.

Ambrose has no sample in SL, India, mixed results in Pak, SA, NZ, very good in England (Warne was better though) and ATG in Australia which is frankly what everybody goes to.

Warne was great in SL, Pak/UAE, SA, Eng, NZ. Yes his massive problem is India (WI not so much with context) but Ambrose never even toured there. He is simply more accomplished.

But please stick to looking at rounded averages.