The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s

[Top_Cat]

All I want to say is the quality of wicket a bowler takes should matter, and because ambrose has taken more wickets of really good players he would more likely do better in an all time 11 game than mcgrath.

DWTA. McGrath knocked over the best of his time consistently. Both indisputably great bowlers, Ambi probably under-rated in all-time stakes. They're at least equal.

 

[SJS]

I look at the players, not records so much. McGrath = Ambrose in my book.

Thats a fair assessment. I think so too.

 

[SJS]

There are two ways to look at records, you can look at the overall record and look at the details.

Check Dale steyn's record he's currently running circles around all batting line-ups, but the fact is most batsman these days don't avg 40 or above in test cricket, so the quality of wicket he's taking is very much under-valued.

Really ?

 

[Ilovecric]

The bowler I feared the most when India was playing, was McGrath. So yeah, imo McGrath > Ambrose.

Well ambrose only played India in 2 series, one in 89 and one in 97. Both series WI won, actually in 97 WI won the 5 match series 1-0. So i'm not sure what you're talking about.

How can you fear him when he didn't play against india much ? and even when they played the games were mostly drawn ?

 

[stephen]

All I want to say is the quality of wicket a bowler takes should matter, and because ambrose has taken more wickets of really good players he would more likely do better in an all time 11 game than mcgrath.

McGrath dominated in an era that we have had the highest batting averages and strike rates in history.

He targeted the oppositions top batsmen and more often than not won.

He took a disproportionately high number of top order wickets (as Warne tended to clean up the tail).

Pitches were flatter in McGrath's era.

He took a five wicket haul every time he stepped out onto the Lords pitch.

He averaged 21 in India.

His worst average against any country is 27.

His bowling average was marginally better in the second innings than the first.

He dismissed Lara 15 times in 24 matches.

His bowling average against Tendulkar was 22.

He dismissed Smith 5 times in 6 innings at under 7.



Ambroses record has more holes than McGraths, in an era that was generally easier on the fast bowlers as well.

EDIT: Interesting that both of them had Atherton as their top scalp.

 

[Ilovecric]

McGrath dominated in an era that we have had the highest batting averages and strike rates in history.

He targeted the oppositions top batsmen and more often than not won.

He took a disproportionately high number of top order wickets (as Warne tended to clean up the tail).

Pitches were flatter in McGrath's era.

He took a five wicket haul every time he stepped out onto the Lords pitch.

He averaged 21 in India.

His worst average against any country is 27.

His bowling average was marginally better in the second innings than the first.

He dismissed Lara 15 times in 24 matches.

His bowling average against Tendulkar was 22.

He dismissed Smith 5 times in 6 innings at under 7.



Ambroses record has more holes than McGraths, in an era that was generally easier on the fast bowlers as well.

Seriously, bowling and batting after 2000 had been very poor. Thats why Mcgrath could take wickets so easily, because batsmen playing after 2000 weren't use to bowlers bowling a good line and lenght - they just couldn't handle that.

If you check all levels of cricket around the world today the quality is poor - domestically, I know there have been alot of talks about English country cricket being poor etc.

Bowlers aren't running in, batsmen aren't discipline so ofcourse the only bowler who is from probably the last great decade of cricket knocked everyone over in this decade.

Check dale steyn, he only has consistent speed, and all these 30s avg batsmen are just falling over. I think steyn's strike rate is in the 30s, which is crazy!!! THats because batsmen aren't use good bowling these days. At the end of the day anything after 2000 should be taken with a grain of salt.


But in anycase, please list the holes in ambrose's record.

 

[SJS]

In the 1990's

• 49 batsmen averaged 40 or more
• Of these 12 averaged 50 or more

In the current decade

• 65 batsmen have averaged 40 or more
• Of these 26 have averaged 50 or more

So more runs are being scored today than before. Although I do not think this necessarily shows that batting standards have improved.

 

[stephen]

In the 1990's

• 49 batsmen averaged 40 or more
• Of these 12 averaged 50 or more

In the current decade

• 65 batsmen have averaged 40 or more
• Of these 26 have averaged 50 or more

So more runs are being scored today than before. Although I do not think this necessarily shows that batting standards have improved.

It does, however, show what an acheivement McGrath's was.

Seriously though, I don't think that world bowling standards have ever been as high as they were in the 80s and 90s, nor will be again too soon.

 

[Ilovecric]

In the 1990's

• 49 batsmen averaged 40 or more
• Of these 12 averaged 50 or more

In the current decade

• 65 batsmen have averaged 40 or more
• Of these 26 have averaged 50 or more

So more runs are being scored today than before. Although I do not think this necessarily shows that batting standards have improved.

Wait, how manny of those players began playing after 2000 or 1998 onwards ?

and how many other players avg less than 40 ? or thats too hard to figure out ? Might take alot of work. lol.

 

[stephen]

Seriously, bowling and batting after 2000 had been very poor. Thats why Mcgrath could take wickets so easily, because batsmen playing after 2000 weren't use to bowlers bowling a good line and lenght - they just couldn't handle that.

If you check all levels of cricket around the world today the quality is poor - domestically, I know there have been alot of talks about English country cricket being poor etc.

Bowlers aren't running in, batsmen aren't discipline so ofcourse the only bowler who is from probably the last great decade of cricket knocked everyone over in this decade.

Check dale steyn, he only has consistent speed, and all these 30s avg batsmen are just falling over. I think steyn's strike rate is in the 30s, which is crazy!!! THats because batsmen aren't use good bowling these days. At the end of the day anything after 2000 should be taken with a grain of salt.


But in anycase, please list the holes in ambrose's record.

In 9 tests vs India he averaged 38.

 

[Ilovecric]

In 9 tests vs India he averaged 38.

Thats it ?

Did you check to see in those 9 test he only bowled 14 times and bowled less than 15 overs over 50% of the time ?

That avg is misleading to be honest,

Check his Econ rates in the games he did bowl long but didn't pick up any wickets, very low.

In the game georgetown game, ambrose and walsh bowled 57 overs combine and only picked up 1 between them, but carl hooper bowled 18 overs and picked up three wickets.

Come on.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

I check the details - the truth is always there.

 

[stephen]

Thats it ?

Did you check to see in those 9 test he only bowled 14 times and bowled less than 15 overs over 50% of the time ?

That avg is misleading to be honest,

Check his Econ rates in the games he did bowl long but didn't pick up any wickets, very low.

In the game georgetown game, ambrose and walsh bowled 57 overs combine and only picked up 1 between them, but carl hooper bowled 18 overs and picked up three wickets.

Come on.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

I check the details - the truth is always there.

It's still a bigger gap than any in McGrath's record.

 

[Ilovecric]

It's still a bigger gap than any in McGrath's record.

okay, no prob with that.

Some how ambrose ended up with a better overall avg.

 

[honestbharani]

The bowler I feared the most when India was playing, was McGrath. So yeah, imo McGrath > Ambrose.

Probably because we played so very little of the Windies in the 90s.


Personally, I always felt Ambrose was more of a threat than McGrath. I have seen McGrath dominated more often by batsmen than Ambrose. Same reason why I rate Ambrose over Donald.


But really, don't have any qualms with others choosing them ahead because it is very close between them... I do think Ambrose had to bowl at better batsmen than McGrath but then again, he also get better wickets to bowl on than McGrath did, iin the early 90s...

 

[The Sean]

okay, no prob with that.

Some how ambrose ended up with a better overall avg.

So now it's the general overall average, rather than the details, that matter?

 

[Ilovecric]

So now it's the general overall average, rather than the details, that matter?

Not saying that, just pointing out that 38 avg against india doesn't say much because ambrose ended up with the better avg. The details tell a different story from what Ambrose's overall 38avg against India is saying, but he dooesn't want to agree with that so I want to end the argument.

 

[SJS]

Wait, how manny of those players began playing after 2000 or 88 onwards ?

and how many other players avg less than 40 ? or thats too hard to figure out.

Look here I dont disagree with the point you are trying to make that current bowling standards are low but you are not going to win an argument based on the premise that fewer runs are being scored this decade.

I can inundate you with stats to prove that

Okay let me tell you something else.

Every single Test playing country (not counting Bangladesh and Zimbabwe)has had a good increase in average runs scored per wicket. Only West Indies have remained at the same level and the reasons are nor difficult to see.. Have a look.

Batting averages

[B]Country	1990's	2000's[/B]

AUS	33.1	40.5
ENG	28.0	32.3
IND	33.1	35.3
NZL	27.4	29.7
PAK	29.0	32.9
SAF	31.6	35.9
SRL	28.9	34.8
WIN	27.9	27.9

[B]OVERALL	29.8	33.6[/B]

Of course these are figures concerning all batsmen including tailenders. The figures of batsmen from number 1 to 7 in the batting order are even more impressive in their positive change.

The number of centuries are now coming 38 % faster (in terms of innings) than they were in the previous decade.

Centuries per 100 innings

[B]Country	1990's	2000's	% change[/B]

AUS	5.9	9.6	61.1
ENG	4.1	6.1	49.4
IND	6.5	6.1	-6.0
NZL	3.0	4.3	43.7
PAK	4.7	6.8	43.0
SAF	4.7	6.8	45.5
SRL	4.4	6.7	52.3
WIN	3.9	4.6	18.3

[B]OVERALL	4.6	6.4	38.4[/B]

Trust me there is no criteria by which you can show that batsmen were faring better in the 90's compared to the current decade.

Good night.

 

[Ikki]

SJS and his stats

 

[honestbharani]

It's still a bigger gap than any in McGrath's record.

Gaps in records are always misleading. As I said, I have seen Lara, Sachin and a few others as well dominate and get on top of McGrath's bowling and have seen him even wilt a little bit under that threat, which was not the case with Ambrose, at least not as many times as McGrath.


Obviously, I am speaking without any real stats basis for this for I cbf checking these stuff. I have seen enough of them playing and I have enough belief in my memory to know that McGrath was dominated more often by some of the great opposition batsmen than Ambrose was.


As I said, the main factor where McGrath scores would be that he has had to bowl on much flatter tracks (post 2000) and this is something Ambrose didn't face as he retired in 2000. Apart from that, for me, Ambrose scores over McGrath in every respect. (only by tiny bits, but between all time greats that is all there is generally.... ) .

 

[SJS]

SJS and his stats

Thats because I have long back decided that there is absolutely no point in discussing anything here except stats ......Or quotes from cricketing greats.

Any thing that is your own thinking(subjective no doubt) is most likely to be ridiculed and rubbished without so much as giving it a proper reading (if the poster has a different opinion) and , conversely, to be acclaimed as gospel (again not necessarily with a proper reading) if the poster has the same final conclusion

Kidding.....almost