Who is better McGrath or Ambrose

[Anil]

ambrose for me...both are great fast bowlers, but ambrose was much more of a destroyer of batting lineups compared to mcgrath...

 

[Deja moo]

I've seen more of McGrath at his best, and so I'll go for him.

 

[Beleg]

Can't say anything because I have only seen, what, two three series of Ambrose which certainly aren't a measure of overall class.

 

[Arrow]

Ambose had to bowl against the best batsmen (Australia) and had fantastic success against them, and i think he was more of a wicket taker than mcgrath.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah this one is just like Warne vs Murali.

And my answer is the same here.

I'd love to have those 2 bowling in tandem.

Actually - an attack of Ambrose, McGrath, Warne and Murali, now that'd be something!

 

[deeps]

i'd take big curtly ambrose. If he was in his prime now, he would be far more succesful. The bowling standards have dropped dramatically, and batsman are not used to facing world class bowling except for a few (mcgrath included)

I think ambrose was more aggresive and aimed to get the batsman out every ball. Mcgrath is a more patient bowler, who takes his time, and waits for the batsman to make a mistake.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nothing funny about that As far as I am concern

Except that Ambrose at his prime took 8-wickets hauls. Courtney was never that destructive.

 

[SJS]

Lot of sensible and accurate stuff has already ben said on this thread.

Very dificult choice. If FORCED to choose I would go for Ambrose for reasons already given by others.

 

[Slifer]

I would go for Curtley as well especially on helpful wickets. But Mcgrath is one hell of a bowler and the one bowler i have the most respect for. In fact I will go as far as saying that with out Mcgrath (and to a lesser extent Steven Roger Waugh whom i also highly respect) Australia would not be the world beating team that they are today. Really love those contests between him and Lara stuff of legends!!!!

 

[JBH001]

Curtly, by a hair.

 

[viktor]

Curtly for me. I feel he could do more things with the ball; bowl the really nasty one.... whereas mcgrath will get to you just by his line and length

 

[Dar]

Not much difference except Mcgrath generally takes the key wickets of the best batsman in the opposition.

 

[luckyeddie]

There really is no way of telling them apart. Two of the greatest bowlers of modern times.

 

[biased indian]

There really is no way of telling them apart. Two of the greatest bowlers of modern times.

Ambrose

Reasons
a better bat
and a better human being on the field (from what i have seen on T V)

other wise both are equal

 

[Don]

ambrose.

i rate him as one of the best ever acutally i rate him at no1.wish i could get a couple of weeks to tax his brain a bit.

now comparing walsh and mcgrath i would go with the pidgeon by about a mile.walshy was never as impressive in my book.
but back to amby.whu dosent love the dred and the baldhead mon

 

[tooextracool]

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.

err what?
when did ambrose fail in the subcontinent? ambrose barely played in the sub continent(never played a game in india and in SL post 96). he did however play in pakistan and took 14 wickets at 17.07 on his tour in 90/91.
he returned in 97/98 and played one game and struggled, but still ended up with an overall average of 25 in pakistan which is far far from a failure.
and just for comparison mcgraths record in pakistan stands at 19 wickets @ 31(Remember the series in 02/03 was in sharjah)

 

[Richard]

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

Ambrose by a mile.
Ambrose could actually earn his wickets on flat pitches.

 

[C_C]

Ambrose by a mile.
Ambrose could actually earn his wickets on flat pitches.

Rubbish.

I would say Ambrose by a hair's breadth overall but McGrath definately is better than ambrose on alien pitches- their performance in the subcontinent is a testament to that.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Ambrose by a mile.
Ambrose could actually earn his wickets on flat pitches.

I thought it wasn't serious until I saw "Richard" to the left.

 

[C_C]

help me out here.
I am still relatively new to the board.
Is Richard just a wind-up job or is he actually serious about his notions ?