Bill O'Reilly vs Curtly Ambrose

[Johan]

Greater bowler? Ambrose has the lower average but O Reilly constantly bowled to better lineups on flatter pitches and obviously a better Wicket-per-game statistic.

 

[DrWolverine]

 

[Johan]

 

[Thala_0710]

Curtly for me

 

[kyear2]

Barry played 14 matches that were either rest calibre or rated as tests when he played them and is deemed not to have played enough, Tiger played 19 tests vs England and everyone is comfortable comparing him to Ambrose with 400 test wickets.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Barry played 4 Tests matches over 2 months

Tiger played 27 Test matches over 14 years.

That's 6.75x Volume and 84x longevity.

 

[Thala_0710]

Barry played 4 Tests matches over 2 months

Tiger played 27 Test matches over 14 years.

That's 6.75x Volume and 84x longevity.

If you're playing < 2 tests per year on average, does that count really in longevity though?

 

[Johan]

Longevity is about maintaining quality for a long time, not about the number of games you get to play as you have no control over it, Tiger was ATG for a decade or so and proved it in 4 different Ashes series scattered throughout a decade.

 

[Thala_0710]

Longevity is about maintaining quality for a long time, not about the number of games you get to play as you have no control over it, Tiger was ATG for a decade or so and proved it in 4 different Ashes series scattered throughout a decade.

Tiger played test cricket consistently from 1932-38 and then played 1 game in 1946. That's not longevity for me. You add 8 years of longevity for a guy based on 1 match. That's like saying if SA's ban was lifted and Barry played a test in 1985, he'd have 15 years of longevity

 

[Johan]

Tiger played test cricket consistently from 1932-38 and then played 1 game in 1946. That's not longevity for me. You add 8 years of longevity for a guy based on 1 match. That's like saying if SA's ban was lifted and Barry played a test in 1985, he'd have 15 years of longevity

I forgot the exact years/dates, but Yeah, Tiger played on the highest level a lot more than Barry, if Barry had played 30~ tests over a 6-7~ year period he'd be rated as well, similar to how Graeme Pollock is rated.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Tiger played test cricket consistently from 1932-38 and then played 1 game in 1946. That's not longevity for me. You add 8 years of longevity for a guy based on 1 match. That's like saying if SA's ban was lifted and Barry played a test in 1985, he'd have 15 years of longevity

Fair. Still 6 years>>>>> 2 months

 

[DrWolverine]

Bill O Reilly

A total of 27 Tests - 19 vs Eng. 7 vs SA. 1 vs NZ.

Played 26 Tests between 1932-1938 & 1 in 1946.

 

[Johan]

more than fine enough

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose because of modern bias.

 

[DrWolverine]

If you're playing < 2 tests per year on average, does that count really in longevity though?

No

Number of test matches played are equally important.

Graeme Pollock played 23 Tests across 8 years.
Ken Barrington played 80 Tests across 9 years.

The circumstances are unfortunate for many cricketers who missed due to apartheid or wars but that’s life.

 

[Johan]

Yeah Cook has more longevity than Sobers because "number of games played"

 

[DrWolverine]

If Cook also played 20+ years, it would be true.

 

[Johan]

so it's the years it comes down to

 

[ataraxia]

Ambrose because of modern bias.

Glad to see you acknowledge it?

 

[DrWolverine]

Both should count.

If someone plays 20 odd Test over 10 years, I can’t rate him having higher longevity than someone playing 80 Tests over 9 years.