• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Ambrose v McGrath

The better bowler ?


  • Total voters
    103

iamdavid

International Debutant
Another of these silly 'vs' threads, because I'm bored...doubt this one hasnt been done before but oh well...

Who was all things considered the better bowler between Curtley Ambrose and Glenn McGrath ?
Statistically the two best seamers of the 90's/2000's.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Ambrose. So much in common: the height; the just-back-of-length stock length; the ability to hit the seam ball after ball; the (most obviously) crazy precision in line; the stock-ball being the off-cutter; the impossibly good legcutter that meant virtually neither ever needed to swing the ball; the occasional demonstration of outswing on the rare occasion they pitched it up; the fact that they showed, as they cut down their speed later in their careers, that 90mph is not a prerequistite for a very-top-of-the-tree bowler; the fact that both pretty well got better with age; even the dodgy start (McGrath after 8 Tests averaged 43.68; Ambrose after 5 averaged 40 and after getting it down to 23.20 after 11 saw it rise again to 27.35 after 17). One big difference, of course, was Ambrose's virtually never saying a word while McGrath rarely stopped doing.

But McGrath's "fallow" period between 23rd August 2001 and 21st November 2004 always made me rate Ambrose the better. During this time, let's not forget, McGrath only ever got wickets on non-seaming pitches (the vast majority) through poor strokes. :ph34r:
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I think I'd have to go for McGrath these days, I just think he was slightly less fallible. There are more batsmen who I think could handle Ambrose well than McGrath. McGrath was also a better ODI bowler IMO, and adapted well to the changing nature of the ODI game as his career went on. Very close though.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Ambrose. So much in common: the height; the just-back-of-length stock length; the ability to hit the seam ball after ball; the (most obviously) crazy precision in line; the stock-ball being the off-cutter; the impossibly good legcutter that meant virtually neither ever needed to swing the ball; the occasional demonstration of outswing on the rare occasion they pitched it up; the fact that they showed, as they cut down their speed later in their careers, that 90mph is not a prerequistite for a very-top-of-the-tree bowler; the fact that both pretty well got better with age; even the dodgy start (McGrath after 8 Tests averaged 43.68; Ambrose after 5 averaged 40 and after getting it down to 23.20 after 11 saw it rise again to 27.35 after 17). One big difference, of course, was Ambrose's virtually never saying a word while McGrath rarely stopped doing.

But McGrath's "fallow" period between 23rd August 2001 and 21st November 2004 always made me rate Ambrose the better. During this time, let's not forget, McGrath only ever got wickets on non-seaming pitches (the vast majority) through poor strokes. :ph34r:
i see you have brought up this crazyness again 8-)
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
Richard said:
But McGrath's "fallow" period between 23rd August 2001 and 21st November 2004 always made me rate Ambrose the better. During this time, let's not forget, McGrath only ever got wickets on non-seaming pitches (the vast majority) through poor strokes.
Please cite examples. Doesn't seem right without some spurious statistic in tow.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
At the peak of their powers, big Ambi just shades McGrath because he was just so destructive. There was a palpable tension when Ambi was bowling well whereas with McGrath, it was all part of the plan. Ambi was positively dangerous on occasion. Vastly under-rated bowler except when he was playing and by those who played against him. McGrath was very clinical, Ambi was a menace. It's been said so many times but he did indeed bowl the best first over of any bowler and it was not just the accuracy but the probability of getting a wicket which made people say that I reckon.

But if we're talking all-wicket ability, longevity and overall achievement, I'd have to put McGrath a little higher. Ambi also had a greater propensity to lose his temper and try to hit the batsmen rather than get them out and there were some real lulls in his career post 1994 when he bowled with less pace whereas McGrath was far more consistent. I guess to give an example, McGrath bowled one of his best ever spells in 2005 at Lords when he was only a year away from finishing whereas Ambi's best was well behind him when he gave it up although part of me suspects it was a motivation thing rather than loss of ability. SO yeah, for consistency, McGrath but both bowlers at peak, Ambi. Just.
 

Craig

World Traveller
At the peak of their powers, big Ambi just shades McGrath because he was just so destructive. There was a palpable tension when Ambi was bowling well whereas with McGrath, it was all part of the plan. Ambi was positively dangerous on occasion. Vastly under-rated bowler except when he was playing and by those who played against him. McGrath was very clinical, Ambi was a menace. It's been said so many times but he did indeed bowl the best first over of any bowler and it was not just the accuracy but the probability of getting a wicket which made people say that I reckon.

But if we're talking all-wicket ability, longevity and overall achievement, I'd have to put McGrath a little higher. Ambi also had a greater propensity to lose his temper and try to hit the batsmen rather than get them out and there were some real lulls in his career post 1994 when he bowled with less pace whereas McGrath was far more consistent. I guess to give an example, McGrath bowled one of his best ever spells in 2005 at Lords when he was only a year away from finishing whereas Ambi's best was well behind him when he gave it up although part of me suspects it was a motivation thing rather than loss of ability. SO yeah, for consistency, McGrath but both bowlers at peak, Ambi. Just.
I guess what happened at the WACA in 96/97 (?) be a prime example?
 

Top