Who is better McGrath or Ambrose

[aussie]

geeeeeeez, these two are magnificent the two best of the last decade or so, both similar in most ways, deadly accurate, ecominical, wicket-taking and both hae destroyed many a batting line.

Who do you blokes think is better, its two hard for me

 

[membersstand]

Pidgeon

 

[aussie]

Pidgeon

why do you think so mate?

 

[a massive zebra]

Great thread. Really difficult question. Tough one.

I'd say Ambrose was slightly more accurate and more deadly at his best, but McGrath is wonderfully consistent and has had success everywhere around the world unlike a certain more celebrated colleague.

On batting its a no brainer which reeks of irrelevance.

 

[Top_Cat]

Too hard. Curtly was more mencing and was able to just flick aside batting line-ups on his day (both England and Australia know this one all too well!) but McGrath is just a champion who destroys batting lineups too. Curtly was a far more menacing prospect in general and probably bowled better than McGrath in helpful conditions. In non-helpful conditions, they are probably on par. McGrath is certainly bowling far better in his later years than Curtly did in his.

Ideally, I'd have both in the side..............

If someone pointed a gun at me and said "CHOOSE!", at their best, I'd go for Curtly on gut instinct. But wow, what a tough choice!

 

[membersstand]

why do you think so mate?

I think Curtly was more naturally talented, and McGrath has had to work harder for his success. Curtly was faster and scarier, but McGrath has amazing control and can do almost anything with the ball

 

[a massive zebra]

I think Curtly was more naturally talented, and McGrath has had to work harder for his success. Curtly was faster and scarier, but McGrath has amazing control and can do almost anything with the ball

Ambrose's control was as good if not better, but he failed in the subcontinent unlike McGrath who has had success everywhere. If both on top form I would prefer Ambrose, but McGrath is for me the more consistent of the two.

Set up a poll.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Very, very close. My personal feeling is that Ambrose is a better bowler in helpful conditions, where he was virtually unplayable. The third test in the 1995 series against Australia might be remembered mainly for Steve Waugh's amazing 63 and the photograph of him standing up to Ambrose when they had their confrontation, but Curtley was simply awesome in that game. Then there's his spell at Perth a couple of years earlier, which was one of the best I have ever seen.

McGrath is better on flat pitches in my opinion, where he is one of the best ever. He also seems to be adding more strings to his bow as he gets older, while Curtley didn't have quite the longevity. I rate McGrath a touch higher, with the gap opening up a bit more the longer McGrath goes on and the better he gets.

Agreed with Corey though, I'd want both in my side.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'd go for Curtly when looking for a bit of menace to go along with wicket taking ability, if it was purely wickets I was after then maybe McGrath. Curtly always looked more destructive when wreaking havoc, but McGrath is uncannily effective.

The largest difference in their career stats (McGrath 109 matches to Curtly 98) is SR with McGrath at 51.1 to Curtly 54.57, average and economy are within .3 of each other.

In short, I'm off to hospital now to get a fence paling removed from my backside - I can't decide one way or the other.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah this one is just like Warne vs Murali.

@ AMZ

 

[aussie]

i think both were equally has good in most conditions and most surfaces around the world except the sub-continent (India) where McGrath has been excellent and where Ambrose has hardly bowled in his career, but McGrath for sure has bowled much better has he has get older. I for one give pigeon the edge, but only by a wisker

 

[cricket player]

I think you should have compared courtney walsh with mcgrath,walsh was much more deadlier then ambrose when he was in form.

 

[Smudge]

On purely emotional reasons, I would go for Curtly. I used to get genuinely excited when he took his jersey off to start a new spell (or his sweatbands, in Dean Jones' case). McGrath is a bowler who, I feel, is more likely to take wickets two or three overs into a new spell after wearing the batsman down, whereas Curtly was more likely to send down an absolute snorter the second ball into his spell.

Just my thoughts, and if anyone tries to bring up stats to dispute that, I have the right to ignore them.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

For the sake of comparison...

McGrath
Matches 109
Wickets 499
WPM 4.58
Average 21.23
SR 51.12
Eco 2.49
5WI 26
10WM 3
MotM Awards 10

Ambrose
Matches 98
Wickets 405
WPM 4.13
Average 20.99
SR 54.58
Eco 2.31
5WI 22
10WM 3
MotM Awards 14


And just for the hell of it in case anyone is including them, ODI stats.
McGrath
Matches 205
Wickets 315
Average 22.05
SR 34.16
Eco 3.87
4WI 16
MotM Awards 11

Ambrose
Matches 176
Wickets 225
Average 24.13
SR 41.57
Eco 3.48
4WI 10
MotM Awards 5

 

[aussie]

Yeah this one is just like Warne vs Murali.

@ AMZ

dito topcat, hollywood wins that battle for me

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think you should have compared courtney walsh with mcgrath,walsh was much more deadlier then ambrose when he was in form.

LOL!

 

[vic_orthdox]

curtly for me. did it against the best.

 

[Top_Cat]

McGrath is a bowler who, I feel, is more likely to take wickets two or three overs into a new spell after wearing the batsman down, whereas Curtly was more likely to send down an absolute snorter the second ball into his spell.

There's a reason he was always called the bowler who bowled the best first over in Test cricket. Let's not forget how many times he took first-ball wickets too. I remember quite a few. This is a really good point, actually.

 

[Blaze]

Ambrose

 

[cricket player]

LOL!

Nothing funny about that As far as I am concern