Not always. Ambrose had Bishop, Walsh, Winston Benjamin and Kenneth Benjamin in the team with him of times, sometimes many times. McGrath had McDermott, Reiffel and Warne for a year; he had Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Warne nearly a decade later; he had Fleming and others. But there were times when he was a one\two-man band.Ambrose just ahead of McGrath for me. Ambrose was tigher as an economy rate of 2.3 against 2.5 of McGrath shows. However, although they had overlapping careers, McGrath bowled in a far more aggressive age in terms of batting than Ambrose. On the other hand, McGrath had the advantage of bowling in a better team compared to Ambrose.
Still McGrath had the better bowling side and the better team working for him. Ambrose had MANY West Indian fast bowlers during his career which just shows the instability of the Windies bowling attack.Not always. Ambrose had Bishop, Walsh, Winston Benjamin and Kenneth Benjamin in the team with him of times, sometimes many times. McGrath had McDermott, Reiffel and Warne for a year; he had Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Warne nearly a decade later; he had Fleming and others. But there were times when he was a one\two-man band.
For the last 3 years of his career, yes. Between 1990 (when he came good) and 1997, though, he'd usually had a constant backup of a mixture of the excellent and the good, with only the occasional poor.Still McGrath had the better bowling side and the better team working for him. Ambrose had MANY West Indian fast bowlers during his career which just shows the instability of the Windies bowling attack.
Which is inferior to what McGrath had over all. Also, McGrath had the stronger team working for him.I'd not argue that Ambrose over his career probably was a team-mate to more poor-quality bowling than McGrath was - just pointing-out that Ambrose had quality fellows for a fair amount of his career as well.
Incidentally, might rank 'em something like...
1 Waqar Younis circa 1990/91-1994/95
2 Donald
3 Ambrose = McGrath
4 Pollock circa 1995/96-2001
5 Bishop
6 Wasim Akram
7 Walsh
8 Gillespie
9 PS de Villiers
McDermott
Hughes
Reiffel
Fraser
Waqar Younis circa 1995/96-2000/01
Flintoff circa 2003/04-onwards
Pollock circa 2001/02-2007/08
Shoaib Akhtar
Hoggard
Steyn (barely been in the game 5 minutes, so doesn't have a remotely full rating yet)
Harmison (presume he's the irrelevant option)
BTW, Gough and several others > Hoggard
Are we talking about the same Curtly Ambrose that took 22 wickets @ 20 in England in 1988 and 26 wickets @ 21 in Australia in 1988/89?Between 1990 (when he came good)
Quite possibly the Pollock of the first half of his career deserves to be alongside Ambrose and McGrath TBH. But Donald, well, I just feel he's a cut above all the rest. Ambrose and McGrath both had their limitations - they were bowlers whose movement came off the pitch. Donald could move it off the pitch and through the air. And he could move it lots and move it little. Often, it seemed he could choose when to bowl the big outswinger and the small outswinger. And so on.Hey Richard,
I very much like your ranking.
Can you elaborate on why you ranked Pollock circa 96-01 less than Ambrose/McGrath and Donald (in entirety) over Ambrose/McGrath? (Probably you can just point me to a thread if you have already discussed this)
Yes. Both those sides were at that time were at the lowest ebb they've ever been, in a quite shambolic state. I've never seen so much as 1 ball from either series, so Ambrose may have bowled exceptionally at those sides anyway.Are we talking about the same Curtly Ambrose that took 22 wickets @ 20 in England in 1988 and 26 wickets @ 21 in Australia in 1988/89?
"Stimulating" as in "wanky" one assumes.Are we talking about the same Curtly Ambrose that took 22 wickets @ 20 in England in 1988 and 26 wickets @ 21 in Australia in 1988/89?
You write a lot of stimulating stuff Richard but just occasionally your statistical theories descend into the realms of the plain barmy.
England and Australia's poor performance against the West Indies was in large part due to the quality of the fast bowling arrayed against them. Ambrose at the forefront.Yes. Both those sides were at that time were at the lowest ebb they've ever been, in a quite shambolic state. I've never seen so much as 1 ball from either series, so Ambrose may have bowled exceptionally at those sides anyway.
Wisden on the 1988 series:If someone who saw Ambrose in those two series' would convey that he was outstanding with ball in them, I'd quite happily revise.
England (1986-1989) and Australia (1984-1988/89) performed abysmally against virtually all opposition (except each-other, obviously), being constantly thrashed. It wasn't just West Indies who beat them. Those two periods were the worst in England and Australia Test history.England and Australia's poor performance against the West Indies was in large part due to the quality of the fast bowling arrayed against them. Ambrose at the forefront.
England's batting line-up that summer included Gooch, Lamb, Gower, Broad and Gatting, all whom whom were pretty decent players of pace.
Australia's batsmen included Marsh, Taylor, Boon, Jones, Border, S Waugh.
I see. Well I do hope that someday I can find some footage from both series'. And also, maybe, from the Pakistan series in 1988 and India one in 1989.Wisden on the 1988 series:
Marshall had long stood tall in international company, but of those who came in support, only Courtney Walsh could be counted as an established Test bowler. It did not take long for Curtly Ambrose, a tall Antiguan who shot to prominence only a few months earlier in the West Indies season, to demonstrate that he was a ready-made replacement for Garner. The height of his delivery, the bounce he could generate, and his direct method made him a constant menace and earned him 22 wickets.
Wisden on the 1988/89 series:
As in England, earlier in 1988, Ambrose's bowling was a telling factor, his lift when he dug the ball in - and sometimes when he didn't - being extremely difficult for batsmen to counter... Ambrose's advance compensated for something of a decline in Marshall's effectiveness, although at Melbourne Marshall became the ninth bowler to take 300 Test wickets.