Who is better McGrath or Ambrose

[FaaipDeOiad]

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 ?

He's serious. He's spent over 10,000 posts defending them. Occasionally though he comes out with something really bizarre and then backs down later saying he was just playing the Devil's Advocate, like with his claim that the Pakistan team of 1999 was better than the Australian team of 2001/02.

 

[Richard]

Believe it or not convention is not the be-all-and-end-all and people with C_C's theories have some nerve to dismiss mine as such as he has.
Incidentally, their records in the subcontinent (and elsewhere on flat pitches - such as in West Indies) do back-up what I've said - you look at the deliveries that have wickets against their names, instead of just looking at the figures, and you'll see that Ambrose bowled many wicket-taking deliveries, whereas McGrath benefited from poor strokes.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Believe it or not convention is not the be-all-and-end-all and people with C_C's theories have some nerve to dismiss mine as such as he has.
Incidentally, their records in the subcontinent (and elsewhere on flat pitches - such as in West Indies) do back-up what I've said - you look at the deliveries that have wickets against their names, instead of just looking at the figures, and you'll see that Ambrose bowled many wicket-taking deliveries, whereas McGrath benefited from poor strokes.

Ah, thank you Richard......for continuously proving that a little knowledge can actually be dangerous!

 

[aussie]

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

here you go with your nonsense again

 

[aussie]

Believe it or not convention is not the be-all-and-end-all and people with C_C's theories have some nerve to dismiss mine as such as he has.
Incidentally, their records in the subcontinent (and elsewhere on flat pitches - such as in West Indies) do back-up what I've said - you look at the deliveries that have wickets against their names, instead of just looking at the figures, and you'll see that Ambrose bowled many wicket-taking deliveries, whereas McGrath benefited from poor strokes.

so your saying Mcgrath didn't bowl any wicket-taking deliveries in the sub-continet or on flat pitches mainly, total nonsense, plus we have been over this arguement before those poor strokes were evoked by McGrath nagging accuracy and cunning skill to get the batsman ou, not by them just giving thier wickets away by playing poor strokes that crazy why dont go out & a limb and say all McGrath wickets are via poor strokes

Why would you consider West Indian pitches to be flat its only of recent they have flattened out with the exception of Guyana & Trinidad, when McGrath played full series in 95 & 99 and the antigua test in 2003 pitches in Jamaica, Barbados(except 2003) & antigua could by no means be considered flat surfaces

 

[Richard]

West Indian pitches have offered very little to seamers or, more often than not, spinners for a good while now - ask Liam.
I am indeed saying McGrath didn't earn any of his wickets in the subcontinent or on any other non-seam-friendly pitches, and we've already been through why it is not possible to evoke poor strokes in the limitless-over game.
And why I don't "go out on a limb" and say all McGrath wickets are from poor strokes is beause they aren't.
All I've ever said - and it's quite true - is that all McGrath wickets, between 2001 and 2004, on pitches that offer neither seam nor uneven bounce have been due to poor strokes.

 

[Richard]

Ah, thank you Richard......for continuously proving that a little knowledge can actually be dangerous!

Dangerous, eh?
Branching-out here, aren't we?

 

[C_C]

and we've already been through why it is not possible to evoke poor strokes in the limitless-over game.

That is all there is to know for one to conclude that you have very little understanding of the art called bowling.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Dangerous, eh?
Branching-out here, aren't we?

Not at all, I actually did Psych at Uni so am eminently qualified to assess you!

 

[Son Of Coco]

West Indian pitches have offered very little to seamers or, more often than not, spinners for a good while now - ask Liam.
I am indeed saying McGrath didn't earn any of his wickets in the subcontinent or on any other non-seam-friendly pitches, and we've already been through why it is not possible to evoke poor strokes in the limitless-over game.
And why I don't "go out on a limb" and say all McGrath wickets are from poor strokes is beause they aren't.
All I've ever said - and it's quite true - is that all McGrath wickets, between 2001 and 2004, on pitches that offer neither seam nor uneven bounce have been due to poor strokes.

All you say? I wish I could say I found that unbelievable on your behalf.

 

[Top_Cat]

Son of Coco: Drop me email. Just a test so I can get yours. Wanna discuss something with you. Relax, it's not bad.

hookesy@rocketmail.com

 

[Son Of Coco]

Son of Coco: Drop me email. Just a test so I can get yours. Wanna discuss something with you. Relax, it's not bad.

hookesy@rocketmail.com

haha, ok mate, I'll talk to you soon...

P.S: This isn't because I extolled the virtues of that 'stalking school' is it?

 

[Top_Cat]

No, not at all.

*makes a note*

 

[Richard]

All you say? I wish I could say I found that unbelievable on your behalf.

D'you mean you wish you could say you found that believeable?
Well whether you find it believable or not that's all I've said - and if you look carefully you'll notice I've said repeatedly that I never really watched McGrath before 2001, and that since Adelaide 2004\05 it seems he's bowled well on flat pitches several times.

 

[Richard]

That is all there is to know for one to conclude that you have very little understanding of the art called bowling.

You can repeat that all you wish, you won't change the fact that I do.

 

[tooextracool]

All you say? I wish I could say I found that unbelievable on your behalf.

let me just clear things up a little. the period richard is referring to is this:
2000-2001 IND v AUS 17 15.35
2001 ENG v AUS 32 16.94
2001-2002 AUS v NZL 5 65.40
2001-2002 AUS v SAF 14 25.00
2001-2002 SAF v AUS 12 18.92
2002-2003 PAK v AUS 14 10.86
2002-2003 AUS v ENG 19 20.00
2002-2003 WIN v AUS 3 52.67
2003-2004 AUS v BAN 5 24.80
2004-2005 AUS v SRL 10 17.10
2004-2005 Border-Gavaskar Trophy 14 25.43

off the above series, he claims that he didnt watch either of the tours to india, b'desh cant be included for obvious reasons and the series against SL and in england were largely on seamer friendly wickets so those can be removed. so it boils down to 6 series spread over 2 years:

2001-2002 AUS v NZL 5 65.40
2001-2002 AUS v SAF 14 25.00
2001-2002 SAF v AUS 12 18.92
2002-2003 PAK v AUS 14 10.86
2002-2003 AUS v ENG 19 20.00
2002-2003 WIN v AUS 3 52.67

so based on these 6 series, one of which was against a schoolboy batting side, and 2 other series were easily part of mcgrath's worst periods in his entire career.
based on these 6 series, he claims that mcgrath isnt a great bowler and isnt as good as ambrose, no matter how well hes done before or after this period.
now i think you can decide for yourself whether such a claim is even worth bothering about

 

[Richard]

And because I've watched these matches and read of the matches I haven't seen, and I can tell quite clearly that he doesn't bowl wicket-taking deliveries on the non-seaming, even-in-bounce pitches, regardless of what his figures are, I don't rate his bowling on flat pitches in this period.
I haven't seen the period before, and since Adelaide 2004\05 there's substantial evidence that he's bowled well on a number of flat pitches so maybe he's developed his game - injuries sometimes have that effect.

 

[Swervy]

And because I've watched these matches and read of the matches I haven't seen, and I can tell quite clearly that he doesn't bowl wicket-taking deliveries on the non-seaming, even-in-bounce pitches, regardless of what his figures are, I don't rate his bowling on flat pitches in this period.
I haven't seen the period before, and since Adelaide 2004\05 there's substantial evidence that he's bowled well on a number of flat pitches so maybe he's developed his game - injuries sometimes have that effect.

where do you read these reports???

 

[aussie]

And because I've watched these matches and read of the matches I haven't seen, and I can tell quite clearly that he doesn't bowl wicket-taking deliveries on the non-seaming, even-in-bounce pitches, regardless of what his figures are, I don't rate his bowling on flat pitches in this period.
I haven't seen the period before, and since Adelaide 2004\05 there's substantial evidence that he's bowled well on a number of flat pitches so maybe he's developed his game - injuries sometimes have that effect.

what do u read in these reports???, u better check them back

 

[Jason_M]

Ambrose is better.