Shane Warne vs Curtly Ambrose

[smash84]

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.

What do you mean? Your post doesn't make any sense at all. Just looking at raw averages without context? It's like saying Ambrose is atg in Pakistan where he took 14 wickets in 4 matches . He was just tidy in Pakistan without making any impact..Imran had a much higher average (25) vs WI but has 51 wickets and a number of match winning spells against that all ATG side and yet is somehow worse than Ambrose just because he had a lower average? That average of 26 has context. Just a lower bowling average is meaningless. Imran has match winning bowling spells in almost all countries that he bowls in. Ambrose doesn't. Imran's average in India suffers because he bowled in arguably the flattest series of all time there in 1987. So output wise Ambrose doesn't have a very strong case against Imran and hence I don't see how he's better than Warne but Imran isn't. Just going by average and that too clubbing all countries together gives the wrong idea.

 

[Coronis]

What do you mean? Your post doesn't make any sense at all. Just looking at raw averages without context? It's like saying Ambrose is atg in Pakistan where he took 14 wickets in 4 matches . He was just tidy in Pakistan without making any impact..Imran had a much higher average (25) vs WI but has 51 wickets and a number of match winning spells against that all ATG side and yet is somehow worse than Ambrose just because he had a lower average? That average of 26 has context. Just a lower bowling average is meaningless. Imran has match winning bowling spells in almost all countries that he bowls in. Ambrose doesn't. Imran's average in India suffers because he bowled in arguably the flattest series of all time there in 1987. So output wise Ambrose doesn't have a very strong case against Imran and hence I don't see how he's better than Warne but Imran isn't. Just going by average and that too clubbing all countries together gives the wrong idea.

@subshakerz rn

 

[Randomfan]

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.

Ambrose averaging 20-21 away in 40-50 away tests with no sample size in Ind.

Vs

Warne averaging 25-26 with getting thrashed in Ind and WI.


I know who I will be goiong with. I am not willing to make assumptions that Ambrose would have averaged 50 in India. I will simply take it is unproven in India.


There is no need to round. If some one falls between 20-21 then then it captures the outpiut very well. If some one falls in 26-27 then it also captures the output very well.

 

[smash84]

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.

Still doesn't answer the question why is Warne better than Imran but not Ambrose?

Dude. Can you not write another 10 pages beating of beating around the bush and get down to answering the simple question above? I know your ranking of Imran very well. Thats all you regurgitate for the last decade+. But why do you have to be so thick skilled when people are dumbing down the question and asking you very simply? All I am reading is just crap without any mention of Warne

To dumb it down for you further.. First just tell me why you think Warne > Imran ? We'll take it one step at a time.

 

[DrWolverine]

Imran has match winning bowling spells in almost all countries that he bowls in. Ambrose doesn't.

True

 

[subshakerz]

Your post doesn't make any sense at all. Just looking at raw averages without context?

Unfortunately with certain posters it becomes a waste of time to debate this since they are addicted to surface level reading of stats.

 

[subshakerz]

To dumb it down for you further.. First just tell me why you think Warne > Imran ? We'll take it one step at a time.

He actually doesn't really believe Imran is worse than Warne. He has said so before. He just doesn't want to admit it now.

For the guys in the second or in-between tier, it is closer, but then I recalled Warne and Murali's record vs India, Murali vs Australia and what Lara did to both. I'll go with Imran on this one.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose averaging 20-21 away in 40-50 away tests with no sample size in Ind.

Vs

Warne averaging 25-26 with getting thrashed in Ind and WI.


I know who I will be goiong with. I am not willing to make assumptions that Ambrose would have averaged 50 in India. I will simply take it is unproven in India.


There is no need to round. If some one falls between 20-21 then then it captures the outpiut very well. If some one falls in 26-27 then it also captures the output very well.

Thanks for not addressing any actual point as usual.

 

[Randomfan]

What do you mean? Your post doesn't make any sense at all. Just looking at raw averages without context? It's like saying Ambrose is atg in Pakistan where he took 14 wickets in 4 matches . He was just tidy in Pakistan without making any impact..Imran had a much higher average (25) vs WI but has 51 wickets and a number of match winning spells against that all ATG side and yet is somehow worse than Ambrose just because he had a lower average? That average of 26 has context. Just a lower bowling average is meaningless. Imran has match winning bowling spells in almost all countries that he bowls in. Ambrose doesn't. Imran's average in India suffers because he bowled in arguably the flattest series of all time there in 1987. So output wise Ambrose doesn't have a very strong case against Imran and hence I don't see how he's better than Warne but Imran isn't. Just going by average and that too clubbing all countries together gives the wrong idea.

You correct that 14 wickets won't make any one ATG. You got to see entire career against non-minnows.

Ambrose - 45 tests 199 wickets avg 20.9 SR 53
Imran - 47 tests - 184 wickets avg 26.3 SR 60

Both are in different tier.

Can you find any great pacers in that era averaging 26-27? We can add lots of context, but when all said and done, he is averaging 26-27 away against non-minnows when many of his peers averaged cloer to 20-21. You are citing good spells in different countries, if he did not have he won't be rated even among the top 15. So fans do give him credit for good spells. That's the reason he makes a case for tiop 10 pacers.

 

[subshakerz]

You correct that 14 wickets won't make any one ATG. You got to see entire career against non-minnows.

Ambrose - 45 tests 199 wickets avg 20.9 SR 53
Imran - 47 tests - 184 wickets avg 26.3 SR 60

Both are in different tier.

Can you find any great pacers in that era averaging 26-27? We can add lots of context, but when all said and done, he is averaging 26-27 away against non-minnows when many of his peers averaged cloer to 20-21. You are citing good spells in different countries, if he did not have he won't be rated even among the top 15. So fans do give him credit for good spells. That's the reason he makes a case for tiop 10 pacers.

Stop repeating yourself mindlessly every post and please engage in arguments.

 

[Johan]

Well this is funny

 

[subshakerz]

True

If the goal is to have a bowler who is just miserly without taking wickets with higher penetration across conditions, then Ambrose might be the best bowler of all time.

 

[Coronis]

Dude. Can you not write another 10 pages beating of beating around the bush and get down to answering the simple question

I think you already know whether he can or not

 

[smash84]

You correct that 14 wickets won't make any one ATG. You got to see entire career against non-minnows.

Ambrose - 45 tests 199 wickets avg 20.9 SR 53
Imran - 47 tests - 184 wickets avg 26.3 SR 60

Both are in different tier.

Can you find any great pacers in that era averaging 26-27? We can add lots of context, but when all said and done, he is averaging 26-27 away against non-minnows when many of his peers averaged cloer to 20-21. You are citing good spells in different countries, if he did not have he won't be rated even among the top 15. So fans do give him credit for good spells. That's the reason he makes a case for tiop 10 pacers.

You literally didn't address any of my points.

You start talking about context and then go back to the same argument that I had just pointed out was flawed

 

[The Sean]

Hey, does anyone know what Imran's career average away from home is, if you remove Sri Lanka? I literally can't find any reference to it anywhere.

 

[Randomfan]

He actually doesn't really believe Imran is worse than Warne. He has said so before. He just doesn't want to admit it now.

Why not allow pople to speak for themselves. You have some reading comprehension issue.

Entire discussion started from why a bowler can be better than IK but not better than Ambrose. Simple answer is that Ambrose and IK are in different tier for me. So equivalence does not exist. If it exist for some one then that point is valid. Is it so hard to accept that many may not rate Ambrose and IK in the same tier and see a decent gap between these two?

Warne and IK are lot closer to each other than Ambrose. It's perfectly fine in my mind for anyone to say that they rate Warne over IK or vise versa.

 

[subshakerz]

Why not allow pople to speak for themselves.

I did. I literally quoted his own words on a thread where he picked Imran over Warne.

 

[smash84]

Entire discussion started from why a bowler can be better than IK but not better than Ambrose.

No, you read that question all wrong. It wasn't about why ANY bowler could be better than IK but worse than Ambrose.

It was explicitly about why SHANE WARNE was better than IK but not better than Ambrose.

I know very well that there could THEORETICALLY be a bunch of bowlers better than Imran and worse than Ambrose (assuming we rank Ambrose higher than Imran), but I asked specifically about Warne. I didn't want a theoretical discourse of why A could be better than B but not better than C but a case of why Warne was better than Imran and then use those arguments to see why he wasn't better than Ambrose. That question has not been addressed once.

 

[smash84]

I think you already know whether he can or not

I know, this is so frustrating. Even when I have dumbed it down so much, I have almost no hope of getting the question answered

 

[Randomfan]

No, you read that question all wrong. It wasn't about why ANY bowler could be better than IK but worse than Ambrose.

It was explicitly about why SHANE WARNE was better than IK but not better than Ambrose.

I know very well that there could THEORETICALLY be a bunch of bowlers better than Imran and worse than Ambrose (assuming we rank Ambrose higher than Imran), but I asked specifically about Warne. I didn't want a theoretical discourse of why A could be better than B but not better than C but a case of why Warne was better than Imran.

I don't see large enough gap between IK and Warne.
I see large enough gap between Ambrose and IK/Warne.

Once you stick to that, there is no need to explain why Warne can be better than IK but not better than Ambrose. You going in circles here, it's not that hard.

Now if you don't see it that way then we just have to agree to disagree.