CMJ's top 100

[Richard]

Beside the fact that pitches before 1970 were uncovered and batsman never got to use helmets? How is that fair to the batsman? I'd say that, that is a greater disadvantage to a batsman then what a lifeless flatpitch is for a bowler.

Pitches before 1970 were only uncovered in England; it was 1954/55 in Australia and other dates in other countries. It's perfectly unfair to batsmen and especially unfair to seam-bowlers, and that's why I'm glad the practice was stopped. Helmets, however, haven't made batting especially easier, it's just safer to do with a poor technique these days than it used to be.

It's perfectly possible to make a bowler-friendly pitch without it being uncovered and there were countless of them in England between 1971 and 2001. It's only between 2002 and 2006 that there've been a proliferation of lifeless pitches (a trend mirrored elsewhere).

 

[Richard]

i do think ambrose is a master fast bowler. and so is mcgrath. if i were to choose between the two of them, and a gun is pointed at me, i would choose mcgrath because amby's failure against india is not something i can ignore .

Yeah I've looked long and hard at Ambrose's inability to knock-over India in 1997 (I agree with Slifer that 1989 isn't terribly relevant, though it wasn't actually his debut series - Pakistan in 1988 was) and I've often found it hard to get past it. The simple reality appears to be that whatever he tried, Dravid, Tendulkar, Azharuddin, Ganguly etc. just found a way to repel it. It's not like he was unfit, had hundreds of catches put down, had stupidly-flat-ARG-esque pitches every game (there were flat decks undoubtedly but it didn't stop Bishop or Rose getting good figures and Ambrose conquered countless flat decks in his career).

I do rather wish he'd played them at home again in about 1993 or so though. Amazes me how few home Tests West Indies sometimes played until 2002.

 

[Cruxdude]

Yeah I've looked long and hard at Ambrose's inability to knock-over India in 1997 (I agree with Slifer that 1989 isn't terribly relevant, though it wasn't actually his debut series - Pakistan in 1988 was) and I've often found it hard to get past it. The simple reality appears to be that whatever he tried, Dravid, Tendulkar, Azharuddin, Ganguly etc. just found a way to repel it. It's not like he was unfit, had hundreds of catches put down, had stupidly-flat-ARG-esque pitches every game (there were flat decks undoubtedly but it didn't stop Bishop or Rose getting good figures and Ambrose conquered countless flat decks in his career).

I do rather wish he'd played them at home again in about 1993 or so though. Amazes me how few home Tests West Indies sometimes played until 2002.

Who would have thought Ambrose one of the great fast bowlers would struggle against India, the perennial bunnies of good fast bowlers. Warnes's poor record against India at least has some reason, this one has no rhyme or reason.

 

[zaremba]

His stats are thrown off (against India) quite a bit by the fact that he had a terrible debut series against him when he was just a green horn to test cricket.

He had already shown himself capable of playing at Test level at that stage though. He had success in his first couple of series including doing a demolition job on an England batting line-up which, on paper, had some pretty good players in it. Having said which, I appreciate that bowling fast in India is and was a different proposition to bowling fast in England.

 

[fredfertang]

Who would have thought Ambrose one of the great fast bowlers would struggle against India, the perennial bunnies of good fast bowlers. Warnes's poor record against India at least has some reason, this one has no rhyme or reason.

particulary as John Lever, a bit of a journeyman English seamer in truth, has a magnificent record in India

.................... the secret is not having any sweat in your eyes

 

[oitoitoi]

Who would have thought Ambrose one of the great fast bowlers would struggle against India, the perennial bunnies of good fast bowlers. Warnes's poor record against India at least has some reason, this one has no rhyme or reason.

That's a horribly outdated stereotype, our batsmen have scored in Australia, England, recently New Zealand and have done well against most modern quicks, certainly better than many teams supposedly strong vs pace such as England.

 

[zaremba]

that's a horribly outdated stereotype, our batsmen have scored in australia, england, recently new zealand and have done well against most modern quicks, certainly better than many teams supposedly strong vs pace such as england.

I've never heard this said about England. By and large our record against quick bowling is pretty dreadful, or at least that's how it feels to a long-suffering England fan who's had to put up with ritual humiliation by quick bowlers the world over in the last 30 years.

 

[oitoitoi]

:-o

Over the last decade, they have

 

[Cruxdude]

That's a horribly outdated stereotype, our batsmen have scored in Australia, England, recently New Zealand and have done well against most modern quicks, certainly better than many teams supposedly strong vs pace such as England.

Yeah its a stereotype but somehow we just reinforce it every now and then by struggling against good pace. In 1990's surely we didn't do well against pace.

 

[oitoitoi]

I've never heard this said about England. By and large our record against quick bowling is pretty dreadful, or at least that's how it feels to a long-suffering England fan who's had to put up with ritual humiliation by quick bowlers the world over in the last 30 years.

Well when you compare it with their record against good spin it looks a bit better.

The only real failure against pace I can think of recently that wasn't because of a raging greentop where our seamers were equally effective is Steyn at Nagpur (I think it was Nagpur) where we folded within 2 sessions on a decent surface, that was inexcusable. Otherwise falling to pace in South Africa is no shame really, even the Saffer batsmen struggle. We lost or came close to losing opening games in England where we were undercooked in the conditions, after that our batsmen have been generally strong on tour. I wonder if Fred Trueman hadn't reduced us to 0/3 whether this stereotype would exist?

 

[bagapath]

Well when you compare it with their record against good spin it looks a bit better.

The only real failure against pace I can think of recently that wasn't because of a raging greentop where our seamers were equally effective is Steyn at Nagpur (I think it was Nagpur) where we folded within 2 sessions on a decent surface, that was inexcusable. Otherwise falling to pace in South Africa is no shame really, even the Saffer batsmen struggle. We lost or came close to losing opening games in England where we were undercooked in the conditions, after that our batsmen have been generally strong on tour. I wonder if Fred Trueman hadn't reduced us to 0/3 whether this stereotype would exist?

imran gave us a flogging in the early 80s that was as bad as trueman's whipping.

 

[bagapath]

He had already shown himself capable of playing at Test level at that stage though. He had success in his first couple of series including doing a demolition job on an England batting line-up which, on paper, had some pretty good players in it. Having said which, I appreciate that bowling fast in India is and was a different proposition to bowling fast in England.

but the 88-89 series between india and windies was played in the Caribbean. that is why i insisted on underlining ambrose's failure against us. considering the fact that he already had around 50 wickets in tests and was bowling with marshall, walsh and the debutante bishop against a jaded indian batting line-up, am sure amby himself would consider his performances far below par.

 

[Burgey]

I've brought that up before. It would only be fair to hold taking wickets in more favourable conditions against bowlers if you were comparing them to bowlers who had taken wickets when pitches were flat. Likewise, it's not fair to hold Hayden's era against him unless you were comparing him to, for example, Greg Chappell, who averaged a little more in a much more difficult time to bat.

After 2000, there's essentially only one bowler who has taken wickets at an average that would have made him an all-time great before 2000. Step forward Glenn McGrath, quite possibly the greatest bowler of all time.

Indeed.

 

[zaremba]

but the 88-89 series between india and windies was played in the Caribbean. that is why i insisted on underlining ambrose's failure against us. considering the fact that he already had around 50 wickets in tests and was bowling with marshall, walsh and the debutante bishop against a jaded indian batting line-up, am sure amby himself would consider his performances far below par.

Sorry - hadn't realised that!

 

[oitoitoi]

Indeed.

Nah, it is and will always be Marshall, he could do it all, quite simply the perfect quick. Sub 21 average over 81 tests is quite incredible, more than 4.5 wickets a test is also amazing considering the quality of bowlers he was competing with for wickets. Understood how to adapt to conditions better than perhaps any bowler ever. Shaun Pollock once said that he learnt everything he knew about bowling in about 3 weeks from Malcolm Marshall and that it was largely responsible for his success. In terms of stats his 'worst' opposition was Australia against whom he average just 22.51, his best opposition was England against whom he averaged 19.18, that's incredible consistency.

Mcgrath was doubtless a great bowler, but IMO Marshall was just a distance above the rest. For example Mcgrath averaged over 27 against South Africa, suprising considering he only ever played them in pretty favourable conditions, he also averaged over 25 against New Zealand whom he only ever played in favourable (sometimes very favourable) conditions. Also he averaged over 31 in Pakistan where his lack of pace and/or reverse swing seriously reduced his effectiveness, Marshall on the other hand averaged just 21.45 in Pakistan. Also if you look back to the 2000/01 series in Australia where New Zealand basically looked to leave as many balls as possible against Mcgrath they really neutered him, he averaged over 65 (just 5 wickets in 3 tests) with the ball, by doing this they showed with real application against Mcgrath you could see him off, they didn't clam up too much either as Mcgrath's economy rate was 2.79. Marshall's extra pace and variations meant that this wasn't possible against him. Basically my point is while Mcgrath was a brilliantly bowler whose strenghts were accuracy and bounce, Marshall had more than this and combined with his astonishing cricket brain made him effective everywhere against everyone.

 

[Migara]

I can do nothing other than agreeing with above^^

 

[Slifer]

He had already shown himself capable of playing at Test level at that stage though. He had success in his first couple of series including doing a demolition job on an England batting line-up which, on paper, had some pretty good players in it. Having said which, I appreciate that bowling fast in India is and was a different proposition to bowling fast in England.

He never played in India

 

[Slifer]

Nah, it is and will always be Marshall, he could do it all, quite simply the perfect quick. Sub 21 average over 81 tests is quite incredible, more than 4.5 wickets a test is also amazing considering the quality of bowlers he was competing with for wickets. Understood how to adapt to conditions better than perhaps any bowler ever. Shaun Pollock once said that he learnt everything he knew about bowling in about 3 weeks from Malcolm Marshall and that it was largely responsible for his success. In terms of stats his 'worst' opposition was Australia against whom he average just 22.51, his best opposition was England against whom he averaged 19.18, that's incredible consistency.

Mcgrath was doubtless a great bowler, but IMO Marshall was just a distance above the rest. For example Mcgrath averaged over 27 against South Africa, suprising considering he only ever played them in pretty favourable conditions, he also averaged over 25 against New Zealand whom he only ever played in favourable (sometimes very favourable) conditions. Also he averaged over 31 in Pakistan where his lack of pace and/or reverse swing seriously reduced his effectiveness, Marshall on the other hand averaged just 21.45 in Pakistan. Also if you look back to the 2000/01 series in Australia where New Zealand basically looked to leave as many balls as possible against Mcgrath they really neutered him, he averaged over 65 (just 5 wickets in 3 tests) with the ball, by doing this they showed with real application against Mcgrath you could see him off, they didn't clam up too much either as Mcgrath's economy rate was 2.79. Marshall's extra pace and variations meant that this wasn't possible against him. Basically my point is while Mcgrath was a brilliantly bowler whose strenghts were accuracy and bounce, Marshall had more than this and combined with his astonishing cricket brain made him effective everywhere against everyone.

Not disagreeing with u or ne thing but some (not me and they know who they r) might want to argue that Marshall's stats are the way they are because he bowled in mostly bowler friendly conditions and well he does average 32 in NZL (albeit over 3 TESTS). They may argue that Mcgrath has had to bowl on roads and blah blah blah. Me personally i cant separate them but if im forced to it'll be Marshall by a whisker.

 

[zaremba]

He never played in India

As above - my igorance to blame here

 

[bagapath]

between marshall and mcgrath i go for marshall because he was much quicker and more exciting to watch though i agree both were equally effective in winning matches for their countries. with substance being almost equal (with marshall being marginally better) I am leaning on style to split them - marshall wins that race hands down.