Ambrose Vs Mcgrath?

[Richard]

But then there is the unresponsive pitch factor too, and as good as Ambrose was how many bowlers have signed off from international cricket on as big a high as being declared the player-of-the-tournament of a World cup.

Was under the impression (as I almost always am) that the question was solely about Tests TBH so the World Cup isn't relevant.

The pitch factor is important of course - but my previous post didn't mention that. I was talking only about what you said with regards to how the two lasted into cricketing middle-age - and in that, as so much else, they were both equally superb.

 

[funnygirl]

That's right, Pidge surely used to put the batsmen to sleep too.

i don't know why ? When i heard the name Mcgrath ,i feel like yawning .

 

[Top_Cat]

As I've said before on this topic, at the peak of their wicket-taking powers, Amby was a more destructive bowler. Amby when he had the smell of blood was a fearsome and relentless sight. So if I could pick one of them in-form, I'd go for Amby. But overall career, all-wicket ability, etc. McGrath just shades him for mine. McGrath was threatening even near the end of his career whereas Amby had periods where he was very unthreatening.

 

[silentstriker]

If the pitch offered even a little uneven bounce, Amby was unstoppable. Overall though, McGrath was better. More consistent, and could do anything. Biggest reason for Australia's dominance.

 

[biased indian]

Would face Mcgrath rather than Ambrose....so voted for Curtly

 

[slowfinger]

No one does yorkers like Curtly do, but also, Curtly is accurate at a more deadly pace, Mcgrath, little slow, big wickets and BIG accuracy and can find a way to bowl at nearly every surface (except wet)

 

[Manee]

I'm going for Mcgrath. Statistically cannot separate them but enjoyed watching Mcgrath's bowling more.

 

[slowfinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G4pqb4nns devastating.

 

[slowfinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G4pqb4nns devastating.oh, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmMn4bhi-KU&feature=related even more.

 

[Richard]

Amby had periods where he was very unthreatening.

Such as?

 

[Manee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G4pqb4nns devastating.

I know he is devasting to face, but I just don't enjoy watching him bowl.

 

[Unattainableguy]

Mcgrath

I agree, I don't think he had any special skills, basically just more accurate,and that's about it.

 

[aussie]

Such as?

Yea from my memory even though i probably started watching Ambi when he wasn't @ his fastest vs ENG in 98 he never was unthreatening. But i would say in his last series here in 2000 his wicket-taking ability after the Lord's test had begun to deteriorate a bit & was just very accurate for the remainder of that series. If he had gone to AUS in late 2000 or played on to the 2001 home series vs SA he could have had an unfortunate farewell like Donald did.

 

[UncleTheOne]

ambrose by KO.

for the record, ambrose at his peak was a fair bit quicker than mcgrath.

 

[sideshowtim]

I agree, I don't think he had any special skills, basically just more accurate,and that's about it.

If what McGrath did was so damn easy, everyone would be doing it.

 

[Anil]

ambrose for me, just...

 

[Sanz]

I agree, I don't think he had any special skills, basically just more accurate,and that's about it.

Yeah Right. I dont know how people can post such nonsense about one of the greatest bowlers ever.

 

[Sanz]

If what McGrath did was so damn easy, everyone would be doing it.

Besides, it is a fallacy to suggest that Mcgrath had no other skill except being accurate.

 

[Nutter]

McGrath, but not by much! Curtly was a great bowler, but I think that McGrath has got to be the most consistent bowler over a long period of time I have ever seen..

 

[Top_Cat]

Besides, it is a fallacy to suggest that Mcgrath had no other skill except being accurate.

Exactly. Rather large fallacy that one too.

As for when Ambi was less than effective, against the Aussies, the first couple of Tests on wickets which were good for pace of even the 1992/93 series comes to mind. Only really bowled well in the one Test in 1995, same with 1996/97 and 1998/99. My over-riding memory was of Ambrose being somewhat disinterested in proceedings, dominating the one Test in the series which was on a green-top in taking a haul at very cheap cost and then bowling economically but lacking penetration for the rest of the series. Against the Aussies in the 90's, his series' averages flatter him a bit due to that one Test he'd dominate. An example was the 1995 series against the Aussies; he took 13 wickets in a 4 Test series but took 9 of those on one of the greenest, nastiest pitches imaginable. That's 4 for the rest of the series.

McGrath could always be relied upon to take a wicket or two on the flattest of pitches and, in fact there was a big deal made of when he failed to take a wicket in an inning in Adelaide against England because it hadn't happened for so long. But in mid and late in his career, Amby tended to do well late in a series when it had been lost already and even then, only when there was a bit in the deck.