Curtly Ambrose vs Dennis Lillee

[subshakerz]

It's below Freddie's but it is good, pretty good

Lol pretty good doesn't sound like beast but whatever.

 

[Johan]

Lol pretty good doesn't sound like beast but whatever.

you are a strange man subshakerz

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Dennis Lillee

1. He took 5.5 WPM. Ambrose took 3.9 WPM.

2. He took a five-wicket haul nearly twice as often. Lillee once every 2.9 matches versus Ambrose’s 4.7.

Ambrose for obvious reasons was never going to touch Lillee where wpm or 5 fors are concerned. Besides the shoulder surgery he usually had much more world class competition: Marshall, Bishop and Walsh.

 

[DrWolverine]

Maybe that’s what separates Marshall from the other great WestIndies fast bowlers.

Marshall played alongside some of the greatest fast bowlers of all time and yet had 5.06 WPM at home.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose for obvious reasons was never going to touch Lillee where wpm or 5 fors are concerned. Besides the shoulder surgery he usually had much more world class competition: Marshall, Bishop and Walsh.

My argument is that when he had less competition post shoulder injury his WPM still declined.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose for obvious reasons was never going to touch Lillee where wpm or 5 fors are concerned. Besides the shoulder surgery he usually had much more world class competition: Marshall, Bishop and Walsh.

Lillee bowled on average around 43 overs a game.

Ambrose during his peak form 88 to 94 was actually pretty close to that, around 41 overs a game. So it's not like he was bowling much less and had a lot less chance to get wickets.

But after his shoulder injury, Ambrose bowls far less than, only 34 overs a game. And his WPM drops despite there being less quality bowlers around.

So Ambrose to me doesn't get away with justifying a much less WPM than Lillee.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

My argument is that when he had less competition post shoulder injury his WPM still declined.

Ambrose had a consistent foil his entire career in the form of Walsh. Lillee never had anything close. You also see it with Wasim, who had Waqar as a consistent foil. Ambrose as stated was also less diminished after surgery.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

If we're just going on wpm and nothing else, then there shouldn't be any debate when it comes to Warne v Murali. But there is because Warne suffers from the same thing Ambrose did ie a consistent world class foil to take wickets. Murali didn't.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose as stated was also less diminished after surgery.

The biggest reason why Lillee was better.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

The biggest reason why Lillee was better.

Better no, greater no. And please say in your opinion. It's close and some of us favor Lillee and others Ambrose.

 

[subshakerz]

It's close

Most don't consider it close and that's the problem

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Most don't consider it close and that's the problem

Like who? If I've ever given the impression that it wasn't close then I humbly apologize. Matter of fact, between about a dozen or so fast bowlers, overall it's close. The differences come in when you consider era, opposition, performances in X country, teammates bla bla bla.

 

[Randomfan]

Most don't consider it close and that's the problem

Poll is close for home for both. It's 10 to 11.