Who's Done the Most Damage?

[subshakerz]

Ambrose second half has Walsh in 96% games and Bishop in 44% games.

Lillee just shared his wickets overall with poorer bowlers so got so many, Murali of pace

That's disingenuous. Ambrose second half Bishop wasn't nearly the same bowler. And then a sharp drop off in quality in the other pacers.

Lillees had consistently had a couple of support bowlers were pretty much around Broad/Morkel quality.

Calling him Murali is just silly and you are better than that.

 

[Johan]

That's disingenuous. Ambrose second half Bishop wasn't nearly the same bowler. And then a sharp drop off in quality in the other pacers.

Lillees had consistently had a couple of support bowlers were pretty much around Broad/Morkel quality.

Calling him Murali is just silly and you are better than that.

not a single bowler Lillee ever played with for more than 30% of his Tests was Broad lvl

even Post Injury Bishop clears Lillee's support

 

[capt_Luffy]

That's disingenuous. Ambrose second half Bishop wasn't nearly the same bowler. And then a sharp drop off in quality in the other pacers.

Lillees had consistently had a couple of support bowlers were pretty much around Broad/Morkel quality.

Calling him Murali is just silly and you are better than that.

Murali had Vaas almost all his career. Thomson didn't played in nearly as many matches and others were clearly worse

 

[subshakerz]

Other than his debut series, the series where he was ill, Ambrose had one other series in 12 where he took less than 2 WPI, coming down to less bowling innings.

Dude in four out of five of those remaining series his SR was mid 60s. The other vs Aus in 1995 he was clearly struggling for impact outside of a green pitch.

I don't know why you can't admit he had these periods of low productivity and it affected his overall output to be slightly below par compared to others in the top tier for a home record.

 

[subshakerz]

Murali had Vaas almost all his career. Thomson didn't played in nearly as many matches and others were clearly worse

No they weren't. Aldermann, Lawson, Gilmore, Hogg were all fine bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

not a single bowler Lillee ever played with for more than 30% of his Tests was Broad lvl

even Post Injury Bishop clears Lillee's support

Post injury Bishop averages 28 so I don't think so.

 

[Johan]

Dude in four out of five of those remaining series his SR was mid 60s.

I don't know why you can't admit he had these periods of low productivity and it affected his overall output to be slightly below par compared to others in the top tier.

So one debut series, one illness influenced and one dead. Ok, Lillee has 5/14 home series with a 60+ SR

Ambrose has 5/14 in the same context upon removing the illness series.

 

[subshakerz]

So one debut series, one illness influenced and one dead. Ok, Lillee has 5/14 home series with a 60+ SR

Ambrose has 5/14 in the same context upon removing the illness series.

Ok so now debut series count? Make up your mind.

Ambrose has series where his SR go into the 90s.

And really if you want to keep going on the SR route, Lillees home SR is far ahead of Ambrose, because, y'know, he was just more penetrative.

 

[Johan]

Ok so now debut series count? Make up your mind.

Subs, a genuine question, are you a troll?

 

[capt_Luffy]

No they weren't. Aldermann, Lawson, Gilmore, Hogg were all fine bowlers.

All worse than Vaas as well as Herath, yes. Gilmore wasn't much, Hogg fell fabulously, Aldermann only good in England (better than Lillee there btw).

 

[Johan]

And really if you want to keep going on the SR route, Lillees home SR is far ahead of Ambrose, because, y'know, he was just more penetrative.

The average gap is too big for 0.3 WPI gap to amount to anything

 

[subshakerz]

Subs, a genuine question, are you a troll?

No because once again you change your criteria.

Like it's really odd for me. We should be able to agree that 203 wickets in 52 games at home at a near 56 SR is slightly below par productivity for a ATG pacer in their home grounds even if you want to adjust it a series or two.

But you don't as long as average is low.

So we fundamentally disagree and are digging our heels.

 

[subshakerz]

All worse than Vaas as well as Herath, yes. Gilmore wasn't much, Hogg fell fabulously, Aldermann only good in England (better than Lillee there btw).

Hearth during Muralis time? Lol.

Yeah don't know what to say except I think you are obviously wrong. They were all good bowlers to and offered reasonable competition for wickets.

So let's leave it there.

 

[subshakerz]

The average gap is too big for 0.3 WPI gap to amount to anything

It's a 0.4 difference which translate to nearly a wicket a game.

Yeah I would take that over a career over the runs saved by Ambrose, which often meant in his latter half just more being milked off the other lesser bowlers.

Honestly find it bizarre that I have to justify why a higher wicket taking capacity matters more.

 

[Johan]

It's a 0.4 difference which translate to nearly a wicket a game.

Yeah I would take that over a career over the runs saved by Ambrose, which often meant in his latter half just more being milked off the other lesser bowlers.

Nope, I won't, because it's a direct resultant of Lillee's overall lack of competition for wickets.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hearth during Muralis time? Lol.

Yeah don't know what to say except I think you are obviously wrong. They were all good bowlers to and offered reasonable competition for wickets.

So let's leave it there.

It's no ways a solid competition lol. Comparing them with Marshall, Walsh and Bishop is silly asf even by your standards

 

[subshakerz]

Nope, I won't, because it's a direct resultant of Lillee's overall lack of competition for wickets.

It isn't. And the biggest proof for this is Ambroses latter career half when his wickettaking dropped despite having much weaker competition.

 

[shortpitched713]

To me, taking wickets more per game does even if a slight bit more expensive.

To others, keeping it tight and cheap matters more, even at reduced wicket level.

Value of each quality in comparison to one another on the margins depends a lot on quality of your bowling teammates.

 

[subshakerz]

It's no ways a solid competition lol. Comparing them with Marshall, Walsh and Bishop is silly asf even by your standards

I'm comparing them with Rose, Dillon, etc too.

Ambrose didn't hav the same elite quality competition for wickets throughout his career, it was worse his second half it's blatantly obvious and hence why I see them as broadly comparable.

 

[subshakerz]

Value of each quality in comparison to one another on the margins depends a lot on quality of your bowling teammates.

I saw Ambrose bowl throughout his career. Yes he kept it right but he became more blockable by second half which meant he was played out so others can be attacked. He didn't particularly like bowling marathon spells then either like Lillee


So low average if not matched with higher penetration isn't the clutch it's thought of as.