Lillee vs Holding

[Prince EWS]

There is just no way in hell Waqar was better than Ambrose when you take their overall career, or hell, even a substantial part of their career.

At his peak yes. And you are right, Waqar's overall career was still amazing, but he ain't Ambrose.

I agree but I'd be inclined to say the same of Lillee. Ambrose is a bit under-rated on CW for some reason.

 

[Jono]

Maybe modern-day CW. A while ago we had a huge McGrath vs. Ambrose debate, and it was pretty even.

 

[Prince EWS]

Maybe modern-day CW. A while ago we had a huge McGrath vs. Ambrose debate, and it was pretty even.

You're right; 60-55. Looks like I voted for McGrath back then.. I'd vote Ambrose these days.

 

[Jono]

They're 2 and 3 for me behind Marshall for post 70s. I bet I voted Ambrose then (cbf looking) but I'd vote McGrath now.

Heh.

 

[Prince EWS]

They're 2 and 3 for me behind Marshall for post 70s. I bet I voted Ambrose then (cbf looking) but I'd vote McGrath now.

Heh.

Where does Walsh rate for you? I find it hard to compare him to someone like Ambrose. Obviously he wasn't quite as good when he was on the field, but if you offered one or the other at the start of their careers knowing how they'd pan out, would the fact that Walsh would play for an extra five years not make him more valuable across his career? The difference in bowling effectiveness in an actual Test isn't as much as we'd like to think when comparing all-time greats.

I guess it'd depend on how confident you were in producing another world class bowler or two ten years down the track.

 

[Teja.]

There is just no way in hell Waqar was better than Ambrose when you take their overall career, or hell, even a substantial part of their career.

At his peak yes. And you are right, Waqar's overall career was still amazing, but he ain't Ambrose.

Well, It's largely an opinion-based thing but I don't know how it's such an objective pick either. Both debuted around the same time, Ambrose retired in 2000, Waqar played for three more years that he really should not have

To address the substantial part of career argument, Let's go one step further and look at each bowler's best 10 year period which coincidentally is 1990-1999 for the both of them, making it even more convenient for comparision

In the 90s,

Ambrose picked up 309 wickets @ 20.14 in 71 games @ a wpm of 4.3 and a SR of 52

Waqar picked up 273 wickets @ 21.71 in 56 games @ a wpm of 4.87 and a SR of 41

Surely when it's that close once you equalize longevity and you have a bowler who comes close to having that elusive 5 wpm over an entire decade despite bowling in a highly competitive attack, It's not an unreasonable opinion to hold that he's negligibly better than Ambrose.

Now talking about completeness of record, Both of them have only one 'hole' in their record, Ambrose vs India and Waqar vs Australia. Ambrose averages 38 over 9 games against India while Waqar averages 33 over 12 games against Australia. Waqar also was not good at all in the two tests he played in India but that's pretty much equivalent to the 'Lillee was crap in SL' argument.

Again, I can understand why anyone would pick Ambrose but I cannot fathom why the very thought that Waqar is better is so unimaginable.

 

[Teja.]

Ftr, Lest I be accused of intellectual dishonesty on either side, Ambrose had 2 awesome years outside those 10 years, 1988 and 2000. Waqar also had 2 very good years in 2000 and 2002 though not quite as good. I was merely addressing the substantial period part of the argument and the best 10 years for both bowlers were unquestionably 1990-1999.

 

[Jono]

I'm at work so can't properly participate in the debate for now. Can you do me a favour and separate 1990-1994 and 1995-1999 for me for both? Would be curious to see the results.

Thanks in advance mate.

 

[Teja.]

I'm at work so can't properly participate in the debate for now. Can you do me a favour and separate 1990-1994 and 1995-1999 for me for both? Would be curious to see the results.

Thanks in advance mate.

Haha, That's where I hit an ideological difference with most people. Would a player who is on an ATG level throughout a specific period be better than someone who manages the same results(over even better) by being so historically prolific(6 wpm for a fast bowler @18 per) for one half of the period despite being merely a good test bowler for the rest of the period? For me, not necessarily. For most people, Yes.

Ftr,

Waqar, 184 wickets in 31 games @ 6 wpm and 18.4 at a SR of 35.3, 89 wickets in 25 games @ 3.5 wpm @ 28.3 at a SR of 52.4

Ambrose, 159 wickets in 31 games @ 5.1 and 18.7 at a SR of 51.0, 150 wickets in 40 games @ 3.75 @ 21.6 at a SR of 53.5

Yes, Ambrose has a more rounded split but if Waqar managed to do something ridiculously impossible like maintaining a 6 wpm over a five year period for a fast bowler that despite him being merely good for the next five years, he can maintain a perfect record for the decade such as 270 wickets @ 5 wpm and an average of 21.7 with an unprecedented SR, It is to his credit, IMO and I don't think it's just that Waqar would be rated higher if he got 1.5 wpm less in the first part of his career and 1.5 more in teh second part.

Again, It's an ideological difference regarding how much value you give raw results and how much value you give splitting them evenly.

 

[Himannv]

Voted for Lillee. Rate him very highly.

 

[Jono]

Haha, That's where I hit an ideological difference with most people. Would a player who is on an ATG level throughout a specific period be better than someone who manages the same results(over even better) by being so historically prolific(6 wpm for a fast bowler @18 per) for one half of the period despite being merely a good test bowler for the rest of the period? For me, not necessarily. For most people, Yes.

Ftr,

Waqar, 184 wickets in 31 games @ 6 wpm and 18.4 at a SR of 35.3, 89 wickets in 25 games @ 3.5 wpm @ 28.3 at a SR of 52.4

Ambrose, 159 wickets in 31 games @ 5.1 and 18.7 at a SR of 51.0, 150 wickets in 40 games @ 3.75 @ 21.6 at a SR of 53.5

Yes, Ambrose has a more rounded split but if Waqar managed to do something ridiculously impossible like maintaining a 6 wpm over a five year period for a fast bowler that despite him being merely good for the next five years, he can maintain a perfect record for the decade such as 270 wickets @ 5 wpm and an average of 21.7 with an unprecedented SR, It is to his credit, IMO and I don't think it's just that Waqar would be rated higher if he got 1.5 wpm less in the first part of his career and 1.5 more in teh second part.

Again, It's an ideological difference regarding how much value you give raw results and how much value you give splitting them evenly.

Because cricket is a team game. Pakistan was clearly hurt by Waqar's decline whereas WI still had a ****ing fantastic fast bowler for most of that decade. You'd honestly take 5 years of ultra awesomeness and then 5 years of good to very good compared to 10 years of awesomeness?

Ambrose isn't just more rounded there, he's just better.

You've taken a 10 year period which has Ambrose ahead on average but Waqar ahead on wpm, and then you've got two 5 year splits, one where Waqar has a marginally better average and reasonably better wpm, and then another where Ambrose just absolutely ****s on him.

 

[ankitj]

You're right; 60-55. Looks like I voted for McGrath back then.. I'd vote Ambrose these days.

Will be nice to know your rationale. I am in the same boat as you ftr, but of course see nothing wrong with anyone putting McGrath ahead of Ambrose.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Holding hardly has a hole in his record.

The only potential hole is that he never played against Pakistan. Holding had the best run up, smoothest action and was lightning fast but wasn't.........well he just wasn't Dennis Lillee - so up yours ugly.

 

[Burgey]

I'm at work so can't properly participate in the debate for now. Can you do me a favour and separate 1990-1994 and 1995-1999 for me for both? Would be curious to see the results.

Thanks in advance mate.

Why don't you do it yourself, ****?

 

[Jono]

Don't like using stats guru on the phone.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ambrose being so damn tight makes the rest of his attack more threatening, IMO, than a Waqar. However, maybe that's worth another thread...

 

[Jono]

Jack subtly (or not so) telling me and Teja to stay on topic

 

[Migara]

Lillee. Both have similar stats but I would give Lillee credit for longevity and for being the leader of the attack and the "complete package".

So what was Holding missing?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Jack subtly (or not so) telling me and Teja to stay on topic

Haha, a bit, also thinking about moving the posts into another thread so that conversation can be continued, because I think it's pretty interesting.

 

[Migara]

The only potential hole is that he never played against Pakistan. Holding had the best run up, smoothest action and was lightning fast but wasn't.........well he just wasn't Dennis Lillee - so up yours ugly.

It can be a hole yes, but Lillee has bigger holes. He never played in India and was **** in Pakistan. Holding at least terrorized those Indians on Indian pitches.