Who do u think is best among the two?
Who do u think is best among the two?
Friends, I've started a group for all the WCL fans on facebook. So, who ever is interested pls join... Search "Non-Test Cricket Playing Nations!" in facebook. Thanks...
Cricket Is The Best Sport On Earth, It Deserves More Respect, More Partispating Nations & More Fans. Lets Do Our Best To Spread The Game, Friends.
Interesting question. I place Glenn McGrath marginally ahead as a bowler and as a fielder, for he had to bowl in subcontinental conditions much more regularly than Curtly Ambrose (who didn't do so very often). I would also venture to say that Ambrose played on helpful decks more often, as a result - correct me if I'm wrong. That being said, Curtly's record against Australia is seriously impressive. Hmm...McGrath by a whisker despite Ambrose's marginally better record.
2 of my favourite bowlers, extremely hard choice. I ended up tossing a coin and going for McGrath.
I voted Curtly Ambrose. It came down to two things:
a) I would rather watch Curtly, and b) I would rather not face Curtly.
McGrath. Bowled more in an era of unhelpful pitches, frequently got the better of some of the best batsmen the world has seen and his remarkabl and had remarkable consistency against all teams. I believe his highest average against an International team is 27.
Ambrose easily! Statistics and other cricketing factors are not the only things one should look at! As a viewer, Ambrose running into bowl, is a sight I would prefer to see over Mc Grath running in to bowl!
"This is sport, we need our losers right there. Right in front of us. We need the schadenfreude, we need to see they are hurt, we need to know what they think went wrong. Because we already know what went wrong. We need their version of it so we can feel superior, or smug, or whatever feeling it is we need to get us through another pointless week in our lives. " - Jarrod Kimber
YEah but this is certainly not a case of Afridi vs Dravid. Even statistically its not like Mcgrath totally trumps Ambrose. Curtly does have a better average and econ. In the end i chose Mcgrath by a whisker for his remarkable consistency against all teams in a batsmen friendly era. However on another day i could have easily chosen Ambrose
Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!
Similar pace, more accurate.
I seem to remember you making a similarly clueless comment in the not-so-un-recent Ambrose-vs-McGrath thread.
My comments of the time still stand.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
A close one. McGrath was more methodical, Amby the more malevolent. Both were exceptional leaders. In such close calls, again, I retreat towards some of my self-subjective, tie-breaking criteria, such as who stood out more by virtue of having the ‘explosive‘ factor, the ‘more difficult to emulate‘ factor, the one more likely to get a Bradman out and the one to counter a Larwood.
Amby does this for me.
Both of them were similar in pace and had similar accuracy levels to go with it, but the way these two went about their things was completely different, Ambrose was more of your in your face fast-bowler who used his height to good advantage, by troubling the batsmen with rising deliveries, he was more of an intimidating type of fast-bowler, but McGrath was the kind of bowler who had freakish accuracy with which he used to crack down the batman and play with his patience, both are great fast bowlers in my book, but i would rate McGrath slightly ahead of Ambrose just because McGrath was "almost" still as effective as ever in the twilight of his career as he was at his peak and add to that he was not bowling on the most responsive bowling tracks, just makes his feat even more astonishing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)