CW50 2nd Edition (aka WWIII) - No 16 - 20

[Burgey]

Interesting article. Some really awesome bowlers giving out opinions there. Didn't think Ambrose was the talkative type.

Think that was part of his mystique.

 

[The Sean]

I had Ambrose @ #2

Wow. Second greatest cricketer ever?

 

[smash84]

woah....didn't notice that....

amby as the second greatest cricketer EVER?

 

[weldone]

Yeah, wanted to have a specialist bowler at no. 2. And, Ambrose is as good a choice as any IMO. But my nos. 2-11 were very close in my mind. Can probably have anyone else from 2-11 at no. 2 at any other day (except Lara and Kallis probably, because I shall always have Tendulkar ahead of Lara and Sobers ahead of Kallis).

 

[Ikki]

Performances against India weren't a big consideration for you then.

 

[weldone]

Performances against India weren't a big consideration for you then.

I know where you are coming from. To answer you, no it wasn't a very big consideration because he did much better against better players of pace bowling.

 

[Ikki]

He was just rank crap against bad players of pace bowling then, in conditions that suited him.

Your list, but I guess we differ a lot. Ambrose is a way off being the greatest WI cricketer IMO, let alone the best bar Bradman.

 

[ankitj]

But he doesn't make your AT XI weldone, does he?

 

[weldone]

He does.

 

[weldone]

Ambrose is a way off being the greatest WI cricketer IMO, let alone the best bar Bradman.

As I said, on any other day I could have had anyone (or more) of Sobers, Muralitharan, Tendulkar, Hadlee, Hobbs, Marshall, Lara, Kallis or Gilchrist ahead of Ambrose - and probably McGrath and Barnes too. That includes 2 West Indians. So, Ambrose is not necessarily the best West Indian cricketer in my mind. To me, it's slightly hard to put a proper order among these set of cricketers. (except as I said, I shall always have Tendulkar ahead of Lara, and Sobers ahead of Kallis).

Yeah, wanted to have a specialist bowler at no. 2. And, Ambrose is as good a choice as any IMO. But my nos. 2-11 were very close in my mind. Can probably have anyone else from 2-11 at no. 2 at any other day (except Lara and Kallis probably, because I shall always have Tendulkar ahead of Lara and Sobers ahead of Kallis).

 

[Hurricane]

Why is Ambrose>Murali if you wanted a bowler at number 2. Or did you only want a fast bowler and one you have personally seen?

I guess everyone had unique picks so all power to you.

Edit - because you saw no difference between numbers 2-11? That seems like an odd answer.

 

[smash84]

yeah.....I haven't seen Ambrose at # 2 in any list. Not that it couldn't happen, only that it is probably easier to make the case for some of the other cricketers

 

[Ikki]

I also dont get the logic in having Tendulkar > Lara and Sobers > Kallis always when you've established that players are generally so close to each other that you could swap 2-11 in any order.

 

[ankitj]

Someone had Ambrose at #2 last time as well it appears. http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45090-cw50-no-20-11-a.html

 

[Prince EWS]

Someone had Ambrose at #2 last time as well it appears. http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45090-cw50-no-20-11-a.html

Yeah it was Heath.

 

[smash84]

Someone had Ambrose at #2 last time as well it appears. http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45090-cw50-no-20-11-a.html

itstl

 

[ankitj]

I know where you are coming from. To answer you, no it wasn't a very big consideration because he did much better against better players of pace bowling.

Yeah. If you keep segmenting data continuously, you are more likely to find an anomaly than not find one. But you have to ask if there the anomaly is systematic or completely random. In case of Ambrose, you can't conclude anything but that "anomaly" is random because bowling to India is not a special challenge for a pace bowler compared to bowling to other teams. Same can't be said of anomaly in Warne's record. If both were to start their careers all over again, who would you bet will end up with a poor record against India again - Ambrose v2 or Warne v2?

 

[Hurricane]

Yeah. If you keep segmenting data continuously, you are more likely to find an anomaly than not find one. But you have to ask if there the anomaly is systematic or completely random. In case of Ambrose, you can't conclude anything but that "anomaly" is random because bowling to India is not a special challenge for a pace bowler compared to bowling to other teams. Same can't be said of anomaly in Warne's record. If both were to start their careers all over again, who would you bet will end up with a poor record against India again - Ambrose v2 or Warne v2?

What are you really driving at here - that he deserves to be number 2?

Where are you going with this?

 

[Ikki]

Yeah. If you keep segmenting data continuously, you are more likely to find an anomaly than not find one. But you have to ask if there the anomaly is systematic or completely random. In case of Ambrose, you can't conclude anything but that "anomaly" is random because bowling to India is not a special challenge for a pace bowler compared to bowling to other teams. Same can't be said of anomaly in Warne's record. If both were to start their careers all over again, who would you bet will end up with a poor record against India again - Ambrose v2 or Warne v2?

That's simplistic. Warne owned SL in SL which is not that far off in terms of succeeding against India in India during his time. It's like not doing well against Australia but doing very well against S.Africa for a pace bowler. Moreover, Warne had several injuries that count towards mitigating factors. What for Ambrose?


And whilst India did not have specifically a great team full of great pace players; they had a fantastic batting line-up and they owned Ambrose at his own home. Your argument that one is anomaly and the other isn't doesn't hold.

If India aren't good players of pace, that is all the more reason to hold it against him.

 

[Ikki]

What are you really driving at here - that he deserves to be number 2?

Where are you going with this?

Better yet, ask him where he rated Murali and see if the same arguments he holds against Warne he holds for Murali. And Murali has India and Aus to reason away.