Originally Posted by DingDong
Yeah, Donald was better. Just unlucky not to play during his early years. Mcgrath was a poor man's Ambrose.
most unfair comparison i have heard in a long long time.
mcgrath has done everything possible in test cricket to be ranked among the greatest fast bowlers of all time. his SR, Avg, WPM, longevity and ER are on par with the very best the game has offered. except in avg and ER he is better than ambrose in the rest of the criteria.
ambrose had a horrendous record against india whereas mcgrath did well in india. and ambrose's relatively weaker SR (a little more than 9 overs per wicket) puts him a rung below other stalwarts. donald's record against australia is also not something he would be proud of. and his average is below mcgrath's.
in my book mcgrath>ambrose=donald
but for sheer excitement of watching a fast bowler in full flight ambrose>donald>mcgrath