Who is better McGrath or Ambrose

[Richard]

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.

Similar to myself with Laxman.

 

[sledger]

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.

i agree with richard again on this one,

ambrose for me, mcgrath is a very limited bowler with no real alternative, ambrose had a much bigger arsenal and variation up his sleeve than mcgrath ever will,

 

[Top_Cat]

ambrose for me, mcgrath is a very limited bowler with no real alternative, ambrose had a much bigger arsenal and variation up his sleeve than mcgrath ever will,

Although not disputing that Ambrose was probably slightly more lethal at his peak, you really don't have a high opinion of the batsmen McGrath has bowled to and dismissed if you believe that McGrath doesn't have much variation, do you? Come on, do you honestly believe that not only top-line Test players but modern greats would struggle to play McGrath like they have if all he did was bowl accurately? Stretching the bounds of credulity here.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

let me ask you again, you claim that ambrose is a far far better bowler and mcgrath isnt great because mcgrath got lucky wickets in 19 games, less than 1/5 of his overall career?
not to mention of course that you've already said that since then hes actually earnt his wickets.
really why do we even bother

 

[Richard]

Although not disputing that Ambrose was probably slightly more lethal at his peak, you really don't have a high opinion of the batsmen McGrath has bowled to and dismissed if you believe that McGrath doesn't have much variation, do you? Come on, do you honestly believe that not only top-line Test players but modern greats would struggle to play McGrath like they have if all he did was bowl accurately? Stretching the bounds of credulity here.

Yes, I do - because all batsmen, however good, play poor strokes eventually.

 

[Richard]

let me ask you again, you claim that ambrose is a far far better bowler and mcgrath isnt great because mcgrath got lucky wickets in 19 games, less than 1/5 of his overall career?
not to mention of course that you've already said that since then hes actually earnt his wickets.

Err - because those games, and the others around that time in which he didn't get lucky wickets but got poor figures number 26 - nearly 1\4 of his career; not to mention that in his first 8 Tests he was abysmal.
So it numbers actually 26 out of 99 - a significant part, and is it really that conceivable that things were so different between Tests 9 and 59 (including, of course, some Tests on seaming pitches)? I think not.

 

[aussie]

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.

so that doesn't show that i dont know maybe.... , McGrath nagging accuracy & great allround bowling ability somehow forced the batsman to play a false or has u say poor stroke

 

[aussie]

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.

hehehe.... i dont get you richard

 

[Richard]

so that doesn't show that i dont know maybe.... , McGrath nagging accuracy & great allround bowling ability somehow forced the batsman to play a false or has u say poor stroke

Nope, nothing forced anything.

 

[Richard]

hehehe.... i dont get you richard

Can't say that surprises me too much.

 

[tooextracool]

Err - because those games, and the others around that time in which he didn't get lucky wickets but got poor figures number 26 - nearly 1\4 of his career; not to mention that in his first 8 Tests he was abysmal.

yes so he had a poor period, jesus,as though bowlers are supposed to bowl well for every game throughout their career. notice that the series against NZ and the WI produced the worst averages hes ever had in any series in his career.

So it numbers actually 26 out of 99 - a significant part, and is it really that conceivable that things were so different between Tests 9 and 59 (including, of course, some Tests on seaming pitches)? I think not.

yes because based on 1/4 of someone's career we can predict how well someone did for the rest of his career, especially when it was the worst portion of his career. i mean if we looked at the 40% of hicks career where he succeeded we would have thought that he was the best english player of the 90s.
and as has already been shown in the past, if you managed to watch any of the series in india in 04/05 you would have seen that he bowled many wicket taking deliveries. but then again you dont watch cricket

 

[aussie]

Can't say that surprises me too much.

dont get smart with me, stay on topic please

 

[aussie]

Nope, nothing forced anything.

so what the all these batsmen have just come out and played these poor strokes and too you it cannot be possibly perceived that just maybe McGrath had something to do with it

 

[marc71178]

Nope, nothing forced anything.

Depends on whether you listen to people who played the game at the highest level as to the pressure build up or if you play the game on paper.

 

[Richard]

Or on whether you've watched the game played at the highest level and seen the pressure - and understood the basic simplicities of the game, more significantly.

 

[Richard]

so what the all these batsmen have just come out and played these poor strokes and too you it cannot be possibly perceived that just maybe McGrath had something to do with it

Not if there's nothing he's done, no, it can't, just the simple fact that batsmen play poor strokes.

 

[Richard]

dont get smart with me, stay on topic please

I'm not, I'm saying that I can't say I'm surprised that criticism of an Australian cricketer is something you don't get.

 

[Richard]

yes so he had a poor period, jesus,as though bowlers are supposed to bowl well for every game throughout their career. notice that the series against NZ and the WI produced the worst averages hes ever had in any series in his career.

I have, and I've also noticed that he bowled no differently in any of the other series around the time, most of which I watched.

yes because based on 1/4 of someone's career we can predict how well someone did for the rest of his career, especially when it was the worst portion of his career. i mean if we looked at the 40% of hicks career where he succeeded we would have thought that he was the best english player of the 90s.
and as has already been shown in the past, if you managed to watch any of the series in india in 04/05 you would have seen that he bowled many wicket taking deliveries. but then again you dont watch cricket

I do, I just didn't watch those games. Maybe I would have done, but I didn't - I just read descriptions that suggested that in The First Test he didn't bowl any, and that the pitches in the Third and Fourth offered him something.

 

[aussie]

I'm not, I'm saying that I can't say I'm surprised that criticism of an Australian cricketer is something you don't get.

well richard mate, that critism that you have on McGrath is one that only you have, which i dont agree with & i dont think others do either

 

[aussie]

Not if there's nothing he's done, no, it can't, just the simple fact that batsmen play poor strokes.

agreed batsmen do play poor strokes, but in McGraths case over the period that u are refering to which i have seen all those matches has well, their was the odd poor shot by the batsman,but the majorityof the poor strokes was because of his superd fast bowling ability to be so accurate & to work the batsman out caused their downfall via that poor stroke