Who is better McGrath or Ambrose

[social]

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.

He is by some distance the greatest present day bowler and amongst the top 6 pacemen ever.

 

[social]

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,

Nonsense.

You've obviously never seen Ambrose bowl. He was a carbon-copy of McGrath but 2 inches taller - good pace, great bounce, great accuracy, minimal movement, great cricket brain. His only fault - if it can even be called that- is that he never mastered (probably because he didnt require it) reverse swing as McGrath has.

 

[social]

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.

Your theory about his first 8 tests is utter nonsense.

He had 2 poor tests against England in 1994/95. In the others he was excellent without getting the returns.

Watch the games before before you make such ridiculous claims.

Oh, wait a minute, this whole thread has been elongated because of a bogus argument that he has been lucky throughout his career, a claim made largely without having the benefit of seeing the guy bowl for extended periods.

Get away from the computer and go to the grounds, you might even enjoy it.

Hell, when McGrath takes 30 wickets @ 20 to seal the Ashes AGAIN, put your theory to one of the hapless English batsmen and see what response you get.

 

[marc71178]

He is by some distance the greatest present day bowler and amongst the top 6 pacemen ever.

By present day, I'm assuming you mean present day quick bowlers?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hell, when McGrath takes 30 wickets @ 20 to seal the Ashes AGAIN, put your theory to one of the hapless English batsmen and see what response you get.

No no, that won't work at all. Richard knows far more about McGrath's bowling and how to face and succeed against it than any of the English batsmen ever could. That's why they get out to him even though he's a rubbish bowler - because they don't understand cricket as well as Richard does.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

By present day, I'm assuming you mean present day quick bowlers?

It's pretty hard to compare seamers and spinners in terms of value, but as much as they can be compared I would still say McGrath is the best and most valuable bowler in the world. Though, the gap between McGrath and Warne/Murali is fairly narrow, while the gap between McGrath and Gillespie or Shoaib or Pollock or whatever is large.

The point is that the number of bowlers in test history who could be compared to McGrath could be counted on your fingers, and Richard fails to see this for whatever reason, while every respected cricketing pundit in the world does.

 

[Top_Cat]

you've obviously never seen Ambrose bowl. He was a carbon-copy of McGrath but 2 inches taller - good pace, great bounce, great accuracy, minimal movement, great cricket brain. His only fault - if it can even be called that- is that he never mastered (probably because he didnt require it) reverse swing as McGrath has.

Come to think of it, there's another; big Ambi was quite as good at bowling at the tail as he was to the top order. Just far too good for them most of the time but wasn't able to just bowl the ball which rips through them like a Wasim or Waqar could do. He'd maintain that immaculate line and length and the tail would stubbonly refuse to get out! Why? Well for one they could never hit them.

As for McGrath, I think we can safely say he's a genuine 'bowler's bowler'; he's one of those bowlers pace bowlers generally strive to be like and wins less plaudits from the fans than he does his opponents. One of the few players whose record speaks for itself, really.

 

[Richard]

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

No, they don't - not 1 of them have been able to provide a decent reason other than that he's got good figures and he must deserve them.

 

[Richard]

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

No, all poor strokes had no cause other than the fact that poor strokes are played. No accurate bowling can cause poor strokes, because accurate bowling isn't difficult to play.

 

[Richard]

Nonsense.

You've obviously never seen Ambrose bowl. He was a carbon-copy of McGrath but 2 inches taller - good pace, great bounce, great accuracy, minimal movement, great cricket brain. His only fault - if it can even be called that- is that he never mastered (probably because he didnt require it) reverse swing as McGrath has.

Ambrose could bowl cutters, McGrath (before 2004\05 at least) couldn't.
Both move the ball miles on seaming pitches and hence are fantastic bowlers on such surfaces; Ambrose, however, because he could bowl cutters, also moved the ball on non-seaming pitches.
And yes, I've seen him bowl, millions of times.

 

[Richard]

Your theory about his first 8 tests is utter nonsense.

He had 2 poor tests against England in 1994/95. In the others he was excellent without getting the returns.

Watch the games before before you make such ridiculous claims.

Oh, wait a minute, this whole thread has been elongated because of a bogus argument that he has been lucky throughout his career, a claim made largely without having the benefit of seeing the guy bowl for extended periods.

Get away from the computer and go to the grounds, you might even enjoy it.

Might well, I did on the occasions I went to watch Tests. Still made it much harder to get a decent analysis of the batting and bowling, though.
In McGrath's first 8 Tests he was effective once, enough to say that he was bowling not very well. Who knows whether he then started to bowl better, whether he never got a seamer in his first 8, or whether he just started getting the poor strokes on flat pitches he seems to have been getting for most of the next 10 years is not for me to say.

Hell, when McGrath takes 30 wickets @ 20 to seal the Ashes AGAIN, put your theory to one of the hapless English batsmen and see what response you get.

Probably not the correct one - "we weren't good enough - AGAIN" because people don't like to say they weren't good enough and made their opponents look better than they were.

 

[Richard]

No no, that won't work at all. Richard knows far more about McGrath's bowling and how to face and succeed against it than any of the English batsmen ever could. That's why they get out to him even though he's a rubbish bowler - because they don't understand cricket as well as Richard does.

Or maybe they're just not good enough at it?
Not that I am, of course, but ability to play McGrath or otherwise doesn't make you any better placed to see how well he's bowled.

 

[marc71178]

No, all poor strokes had no cause other than the fact that poor strokes are played. No accurate bowling can cause poor strokes, because accurate bowling isn't difficult to play.

So how come McGrath is so difficult to play then?

 

[social]

So how come McGrath is so difficult to play then?

After 8 pages of what is largely nonsense, someone finally asks the the question that we all should have asked Richard some time ago.

Well done, '78!

 

[Top_Cat]

No, all poor strokes had no cause other than the fact that poor strokes are played. No accurate bowling can cause poor strokes, because accurate bowling isn't difficult to play.

Oh really? TRY IT. I would posit that having never played at even high club level, you'd never have faced truly accurate bowling. And no, you can't appreciate how tough it is from watching; you have to experience this one. And need I point out how many of the top 10 bowlers in Test history were also of the 'accurate' variety? Sure are a lot of batsmen out there who did find accurate bowling difficult to play.

Ambrose could bowl cutters, McGrath (before 2004\05 at least) couldn't.

Do I REALLY need to point out AGAIN that this is untrue and I've got the video evidence from 10 years before that to prove it? Just check out McGrath's bowling on the 1995 series in the WI and you'll see just how grossly wrong you are on this one. Have you never heard of the ball McGrath rates as the best ball he's ever bowled (and Lara as one of the best he ever faced) which pitched on middle and ripped away. Lara himself said it was only because he was in the form of his life that he hit it. I've got video of so many other examples in that series alone it's just not not funny. You seriously HAVE to let go of this theory of yours that McGrath doesn't move the ball because it's so proveably false, your clinging to it is seriously bordering on irrational.

Not that I am, of course, but ability to play McGrath or otherwise doesn't make you any better placed to see how well he's bowled.

Until you do face McGrath or a bowler of club standard even, you simply aren't in a position to credibly make this judgement.

 

[aussie]

Well looking at Pigeons bowling performance of late, i still cant seperate them, i'd say their eqaul in every aspect

 

[howardj]

Well looking at Pigeons bowling performance of late, i still cant seperate them, i'd say their eqaul in every aspect

....except for pace. Ambrose was clearly quicker than McGrath. Otherwise, in every respect, they are virtually equal.

 

[Jamee999]

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.

It would stop people complaining about the pitch

 

[King_Ponting]

Well looking at Pigeons bowling performance of late, i still cant seperate them, i'd say their eqaul in every aspect

Apart from wickets taken......

 

[pskov]

No, all poor strokes had no cause other than the fact that poor strokes are played. No accurate bowling can cause poor strokes, because accurate bowling isn't difficult to play.

The very reason it is called 'accurate bowling' is because it is accurately bowled in the area most difficult for the batsman to play. Otherwise, what's the point? Why not just bowl half-volleys and long hops all day?