Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn

[subshakerz]

Either someone hacked his account or Subz has evolved (like a pokemon) into a troll. In which case, I rather not engage. Imagine if we start polls about who was the bigger ball tamperer between Imran and insert player. But most of us have enough common sense to know Imran was better than that.....

You are exaggerating. Nothing wrong with some lightheaded argumentative banter here or there.

 

[honestbharani]

lightheaded

Rare moment of self realisation there for subzi.

 

[shortpitched713]

I suggest you get a new hobby because nothing you say and no amount of troll-polls is going to change the fact that most agree sir Curtly is easily in the top 10 of all time, arguably top 5.

There's a big 5/6 for pace bowlers in CW consensus, and Curtly isn't really the one whose arguable within it. The arguable one is Imran, due to contrast between best peak / relatively worst longevity out of the group.

 

[shortpitched713]

Which is fair and mature. But some just have to go off on their little tangent (crusade) talking bout "we" need to pull Ambrose down a few pegs because he's overrated. Nobody on this forum( very few) thinks Ambrose is the goat. We all agree that he's definitely top ten and possibly top 5. How the hell is that overating him.

Ambrose is my GOAT defensive bowler. Hardest to get away, regardless of pitch condition, or age of the ball. Garner was relatively more attacking, and has a better first change pedigree. But for me, in a peak ATG attack I'm having Ambrose at first change.

Imran
Marshall
Ambrose
Murali

Or 4 man pace attack

Imran
McGrath
Ambrose
Waqar

 

[subshakerz]

There's a big 5/6 for pace bowlers in CW consensus, and Curtly isn't really the one whose arguable within it. The arguable one is Imran, due to contrast between best peak / relatively worst longevity out of the group.

CW consensus isn't sacrosanct. Ambrose's case is built pretty much on his peak too within just 2-3 countries.

Ambrose is my GOAT defensive bowler. Hardest to get away, regardless of pitch condition, or age of the ball. Garner was relatively more attacking, and has a better first change pedigree. But for me, in a peak ATG attack I'm having Ambrose at first change.

Ambrose definitely was defensive, we agree. That's the problem. He hid his lack of penetration behind a pretty average.

 

[h_hurricane]

Subshakerz can't make friends with Ambrose as Curtly talks to no man.

 

[kyear2]

There's a big 5/6 for pace bowlers in CW consensus, and Curtly isn't really the one whose arguable within it. The arguable one is Imran, due to contrast between best peak / relatively worst longevity out of the group.

But that's the problem. This entire saga started, as pathetic as it is, because I made a post in the Ambrose vs Warne discussion saying for sure that I rate my top 5 pacers ahead of the two spinners, possibly Imran as well but for sure the top 5. He asked why and that devolved into this.

Instead of just trying to highlight Imran's virtues, of which there are many, he's decided to try to tear down one of the great fast bowlers in the history of the game to elevate Imran by default.

It's disingenuous at best and words we can't use here at worst.

 

[Slifer]

But that's the problem. This entire saga started, as pathetic as it is, because I made a post in the Ambrose vs Warne discussion saying for sure that I rate my top 5 pacers ahead of the two spinners, possibly Imran as well but for sure the top 5. He asked why and that devolved into this.

Instead of just trying to highlight Imran's virtues, of which there are many, he's decided to try to tear down one of the great fast bowlers in the history of the game to elevate Imran by default.

It's disingenuous at best and words we can't use here at worst.

Very well put and summarized. And it's such a pity because normally Subz is a pretty balanced poster. Now he's devolving into the realm of Ikki. If anybody remembers that one of a kind troll, you know what I'm talking about.

 

[shortpitched713]

CW consensus isn't sacrosanct. Ambrose's case is built pretty much on his peak too within just 2-3 countries.


Ambrose definitely was defensive, we agree. That's the problem. He hid his lack of penetration behind a pretty average.

Lol, this redefining of "peak" to countries instead of time, is asinine. Ambrose didn't particularly struggle anywhere.

Also, I'm not using defensive in a negative sense here. All bowlers, even strike bowlers on occasion will have circumstances where conditions are not in their favor , and attempting to blast out a technically great, and well set batsmen who is freely scoring isn't tenable.

In a non new ball situation, among ATGs the main ones I am considering are Garner, Ambrose, and Waqar (the latter for a different reason). And when the ball isn't reversing yet, it's Garner and Ambrose all the way. The awkwardness of their bounce doesn't go away, even when the ball is a bit softer. Even McGrath lost a bit of incisiveness when the ball got softer, but for me, these two could keep up the pressure best, regardless of ball condition.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's disingenuous at best and words we can't use here at worst.

I'll go with ****housery.

 

[subshakerz]

But that's the problem. This entire saga started, as pathetic as it is, because I made a post in the Ambrose vs Warne discussion saying for sure that I rate my top 5 pacers ahead of the two spinners, possibly Imran as well but for sure the top 5. He asked why and that devolved into this.

Instead of just trying to highlight Imran's virtues, of which there are many, he's decided to try to tear down one of the great fast bowlers in the history of the game to elevate Imran by default.

It's disingenuous at best and words we can't use here at worst.

That is untrue. I was downgrading Ambrose respective to Warne and you went all sourpuss, and you brought Imran vs. Ambrose more in relation to a separate posters's arguments, not mine. I wasn't even wanting to bring Imran up then, except in the separate Imran vs Ambrose thread.

But the main issue in that thread was that you weren't even addressing the main argument against Ambrose's lack of penetration. You seemed ticked that I was honing in on that.

 

[kyear2]

That is untrue. I was downgrading Ambrose respective to Warne and you went all sourpuss, and you brought Imran vs. Ambrose more in relation to a separate posters's arguments, not mine. I wasn't even wanting to bring Imran up then, except in the separate Imran vs Ambrose thread.

But the main issue in that thread was that you weren't even addressing the main argument against Ambrose's lack of penetration. You seemed ticked that I was honing in on that.

None of that was true, not to add the spate of subsequent threads you opened.

And no one went sour puss, my response to you was that Ambrose's case vs Warne was shaky at best, so probably not the bowler after him. That's when your campaign ensued.

And I'm, nor is anyone else playing your game anymore.

 

[Slifer]

If we're so caught up on Sir Curtlys lack of penetration based solely on his sr, then why even consider Warne in any goat bowler discussion? His was even worse. "But he took more wpm." Well duh he bowled more overs. Fact is, we're talking about tests. Any sr under sixty for a spinner is perfectly acceptable, under 55 for a fast bowler ditto.

 

[kyear2]

If we're so caught up on Sir Curtlys lack of penetration based solely on his sr, then why even consider Warne in any goat bowler discussion? His was even worse. "But he took more wpm." Well duh he bowled more overs. Fact is, we're talking about tests. Any sr under sixty for a spinner is perfectly acceptable, under 55 for a fast bowler ditto.

Funny thing about this non penetrative argument, and a s/r of 54 being too high, taking a look at some of the top pacers of all time.

Marshall - 46.7
McGrath - 51.9
Hadlee - 50.8
Steyn - 42.3
Ambrose - 54.5
Imran - 53.7
Donald - 47
Lillee - 52
Lindwall - 59.8
Wasim - 54.6

So what is the cut off for greatness? What's the cutoff for the top 5?

 

[Slifer]

Funny thing about this non penetrative argument, and a s/r of 54 being too high, taking a look at some of the top pacers of all time.

Marshall - 46.7
McGrath - 51.9
Hadlee - 50.8
Steyn - 42.3
Ambrose - 54.5
Imran - 53.7
Donald - 47
Lillee - 52
Lindwall - 59.8
Wasim - 54.6

So what is the cut off for greatness? What's the cutoff for the top 5?

Good question.

 

[shortpitched713]

Funny thing about this non penetrative argument, and a s/r of 54 being too high, taking a look at some of the top pacers of all time.

Marshall - 46.7
McGrath - 51.9
Hadlee - 50.8
Steyn - 42.3
Ambrose - 54.5
Imran - 53.7
Donald - 47
Lillee - 52
Lindwall - 59.8
Wasim - 54.6

So what is the cut off for greatness? What's the cutoff for the top 5?

Well clearly Steyn (and Waqar) were the only real ones. The rest being >45 SR having un-incisive dibbly dobblers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If we're so caught up on Sir Curtlys lack of penetration based solely on his sr

That wasn't the argument @subshakerz please clarify this misrepresentation of your opinion

 

[Bolo.]

It's not just SR. The ability and willingness to bowl a lot is nearly as important. More important if you are looking at a career instead of a single game.

 

[subshakerz]

None of that was true, not to add the spate of subsequent threads you opened.

And no one went sour puss, my response to you was that Ambrose's case vs Warne was shaky at best, so probably not the bowler after him. That's when your campaign ensued.

And I'm, nor is anyone else playing your game anymore.

Come on, man, people can revisit the original thread and see who is mischaracterizing. But at least you seem to admit that my argument wasn't Ambrose vs Imran to begin with as you originally said.

Funny thing about this non penetrative argument, and a s/r of 54 being too high, taking a look at some of the top pacers of all time.

Marshall - 46.7
McGrath - 51.9
Hadlee - 50.8
Steyn - 42.3
Ambrose - 54.5
Imran - 53.7
Donald - 47
Lillee - 52
Lindwall - 59.8
Wasim - 54.6

So what is the cut off for greatness? What's the cutoff for the top 5?

Raw SR was never my argument. My argument was that using Ambrose's averages, especially in different countries, were misleading since it hid a lack of penetration and actual wicket tallies. And that posters are underestimating the lack of penetration especially in the second half of Ambrose's career and just assume that because he had low averages, he was worldclass level. He wasn't.

I will point out in the Ambrose vs. Imran threads, even Ambrose supporters have been forced to admit this blunt reading of his averages across countries like Pak, SA, NZ with small wicket tallies is actually misleading, and acknowledge that lack of penetration was a weakness for him.

That is a win as far as I am concerned. As we move along, hopefully Ambrose ends up dropping a few places once people wake up to this and it sinks in.

 

[kyear2]

Come on, man, people can revisit the original thread and see who is mischaracterizing. But at least you seem to admit that my argument wasn't Ambrose vs Imran to begin with as you originally said.


Raw SR was never my argument. My argument was that using Ambrose's averages, especially in different countries, were misleading since it hid a lack of penetration and actual wicket tallies. And that posters are underestimating the lack of penetration especially in the second half of Ambrose's career and just assume that because he had low averages, he was worldclass level. He wasn't.

I will point out in the Ambrose vs. Imran threads, even Ambrose supporters have been forced to admit this blunt reading of his averages across countries like Pak, SA, NZ with small wicket tallies is actually misleading, and acknowledge that lack of penetration was a weakness for him.

That is a win as far as I am concerned. As we move along, hopefully Ambrose ends up dropping a few places once people wake up to this and it sinks in.

Yes it was, and I'll find the original post.

As for the rest of your post, if I can follow along.... Average doesn't matter, and s/r doesn't matter. His average was misleading because he wasn't penetrative enough. Which means his s/r had to be really bad, yet it's still within a point of the person you are claiming should replace him in the top 5. So if he wasn't penetrative, does that mean Immy wasn't either?

Look, this stupid ass argument around 2 tests in NZ, and 4 tests in SA (near the end of his career) when he wasn't the same as he was in his prime is being taken too far. Who the hell outside of Bradman was the same at the end of their career that they were in their prime? Not to add that the tests in NZ were the first tests, and came immediately after his shoulder surgery, the same one that made his miss the tour of India (that bothers you so much) where he wasn't even able to achieve anything close to his full pace or rhythm.

After the shoulder he wasn't the same bowler, he had lost his pace and was constantly battling injuries. He wasn't as penetrative and at times hinted at retirement, but Walsh singlehandedly kept him in the game, dangling his 400 goal in front of him. So what did he do, he became unhitable, yes he dragged back his length and serviced the team the best way he knew how. At that point we basically had a 3 man team and he and Courtney were the bellcows of the attack and everything depended on them, so like Ponting he soldiered on, and we appreciated him for it.

But yes, we can go with your narrative that he couldn't bowl in SA or NZ and that makes him a "limited" bowler to fit your narrative.

Or, looking at fact that he wasn't taking wickets as he once did (with his horrible strike rate and all), and without reducing his work load, that he still maintained that average is ****ing incredible and to quote you, possibly something he might get some credit for.
When other bowlers decline their averages shoots up, why didn't his?

But you can continue your ****ed up campaign.