Who is better McGrath or Ambrose

[Richard]

where do you read these reports???

CricInfo, Times Of India Online, The Age Online, The Daily Telegraph Online, NZ Herald Online, Telegraph India Online, SL Daily News Online, South Africa Mail&Guardian Online, those sorts of places.
Come to think of it, where else would you read them?

 

[Swervy]

CricInfo, Times Of India Online, The Age Online, The Daily Telegraph Online, NZ Herald Online, Telegraph India Online, SL Daily News Online, South Africa Mail&Guardian Online, those sorts of places.
Come to think of it, where else would you read them?

well its just that I would be surprised if those reports (maybe on average 1000 words a day each) go into that much detail so that you can figure out whether a bowler bowls many 'wicket taking deliveries' as you call them

 

[Richard]

Almost every time you can get an exact description of every wicket, and once you read it 2 or 3 times you get a good idea of whether or not something's an accurate description.

 

[aussie]

CricInfo, Times Of India Online, The Age Online, The Daily Telegraph Online, NZ Herald Online, Telegraph India Online, SL Daily News Online, South Africa Mail&Guardian Online, those sorts of places.
Come to think of it, where else would you read them?

well i am amazed u read those rall those reports & come up with that scintillating idea of how McGrath's has claimed all his wickets between the oval test in 2001 to the gabba test in 2004

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah Rich I mean, you might read extensively but I think that you'd be hard-pressed to say that those reports, not all of them written by Test or FC level pace bowlers, are representative.

 

[Pratters]

You have to see it and form your own ideas rather than simply take the perceptions of other people as fact.

 

[Richard]

And I have seen most of it: the period I refer to contains 24 games on flat pitches against Test-class opposition (also 2 games on pitches that make him a fantastic bowler - Mumbai 2004\05 and Darwin 2004, and also 2 Tests against Bangladesh which mean sod-all); I've seen all his wickets in 19 of those games and all of them conformed to the same type.
So, as a result that the descriptions in these matches conform to exactly the same type doesn't surprise me nor does it create doubt in my mind as to their reliability.

 

[Richard]

well i am amazed u read those rall those reports & come up with that scintillating idea of how McGrath's has claimed all his wickets between the oval test in 2001 to the gabba test in 2004

Not all of them; Darwin 2004 and Mumbai 2004\05 helped his style of bowling.
And it's a perfectly logical idea if you look at the wickets.

 

[aussie]

geeeeeez man, tell me again what have u been sayin about McGrath all this time

 

[Richard]

That on flat pitches in Test-match cricket he's got pretty much every wicket between summer 2001 and early 2004\05 because of a poor stroke.
Simple as, really.

 

[marc71178]

Which ignores the way he bowls to cause the bad shots and gives him no credit for being one of the best bowlers of all time.

 

[aussie]

Which ignores the way he bowls to cause the bad shots and gives him no credit for being one of the best bowlers of all time.

tell him marc, he keeps maintain that crazy point of his, i would love for him to go to some respected cricket pundit e.g Richie Benaud or Ian Chappel or Marc Nicolas and share his views on McGrath with them

 

[honestbharani]

What do you have against Richie, Nicholas etc.........



Sorry Rich, jking.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not all of them; Darwin 2004 and Mumbai 2004\05 helped his style of bowling.
And it's a perfectly logical idea if you look at the wickets.

You're kidding right? Darwin was a seamer, certainly, but Mumbai had absolutely nothing in it for seamers. Gillespie got some first innings wickets through some excellent bowling, but the pitch was a raging turner, but was slow, low and pretty much useless for seamers, like most wickets in India. The only Indian wicket which assisted McGrath at all was in Nagpur, where he took 3/27 and 2/79.

The fact that 29 out of 40 wickets in the match fell to spinners, including 6 to Michael Clarke and just 3 to McGrath, didn't give that away to you?

 

[honestbharani]

Actually, the pitch was low, but it wasn't that slow..... Therefore, it can be a good aid for anyone who can bowl good length off cutters at decent pace with great accuracy (i.e) McGrath, but then again, with his accuracy, almost every pitch can be termed helpful to him.......

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Actually, the pitch was low, but it wasn't that slow..... Therefore, it can be a good aid for anyone who can bowl good length off cutters at decent pace with great accuracy (i.e) McGrath, but then again, with his accuracy, almost every pitch can be termed helpful to him.......

It was fairly slow from my memory, and I remember in the second innings in particular most of the pacers struggling to do a great deal with it, especially compared to the spinners, with even Clarke turning it a huge distance.

It CERTAINLY was not a seamers wicket as Richard is implying, Nagpur was a far better seaming pitch than Mumbai was in that series alone.

 

[Richard]

I considered putting Nagpur in, too, given what you told me last time; Mumbai, meanwhile, was a minefield and offered turn and inconsistent bounce in copious amounts - it could have been the slowest pitch in history, it'd still have been every bit as unplayable as it turned-out.
Whether or not it moved off the seam (and I've heard some descriptions that it did) it offered something to McGrath's style of bowling by way of inconsistency.

 

[Richard]

tell him marc, he keeps maintain that crazy point of his, i would love for him to go to some respected cricket pundit e.g Richie Benaud or Ian Chappel or Marc Nicolas and share his views on McGrath with them

Yes, you would, because like almost everyone else you are stuck in convention and can't possibly conceive that anything could be a way other than the way it has always been accepted as.

 

[Richard]

Which ignores the way he bowls to cause the bad shots and gives him no credit for being one of the best bowlers of all time.

Perhaps because he's not one of the best bowlers of all-time?
Given that no-one can cause bad shots simply by restricting the scoring.

 

[Craig]

Probably McGrath, but mainly because I have got to see McGrath play more then Ambrose.

Mainly because McGrath was hitting his straps when I first got into cricket, while I didn't have the advantage of seeing Ambrose play through no fault of my own - I just didn't have the TV coverage or the favourable time zones and my age at the time.

In saying that I have studied Ambrose's record and have read a lot about his career and have got to see him play as well.