Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram vs Curtly Ambrose

[TheJediBrah]

I remember as a kid thinking he was the most unlucky bowler ever. He'd finish his first spell with 2-15, which included a dozen play and misses and 12 of those runs would have been edges through the slips!

 

[harsh.ag]

Unlucky? I used to think he was a demi demon gotten by Australia through blood ritual and sorcery.

 

[Stefan9]

Steyn for me.

 

[Burgey]

England used to play and miss against McGrath constantly

Not often enough for their liking I suspect.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Two of the greatest fast bowlers of all time and Jeff Thomson

 

[stephen]

*Two of the greatest being hugged by the fastest of all time.

 

[Burgey]

Fmd Thommo is such a loose ****.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Yeah but that magic was good to watch but didn't always get you wickets though.

A higher WPM deserves SOME weightage, IMO.

Sorry for bumping up the thread.
But it is plain wrong to rate Ambrose higher based on WPM.

Wickets per innings
Akram - 2.29 (414 from 181)
Ambrose - 2.26 (405 from 179)
No one addressed this so far.

during Ambrose Career (1988-2000)

Ambrose
98 tests, 179 inn, 405 wkts, 20.99 avg, 2.3 ER, 54.5 SR, 22 x 5, 3 X 10

Akram
78 tests, 139 inn, 344 wkts, 22.38 avg, 2.6 ER, 51.4 SR, 21 x 5, 4 X 10

Akram's stats adjusted to 179 innings
443 wickets (Ambrose 405, 38 less)
27 x 5 wickets( Ambrose 22, 5 less)
5 x 10 wickets ( Ambrose 3, 2 less )

Asian conditions, bowling from the junk end, below par fielding support.. all makes Akram stats even more impressive.

All 3 in same league, it is painful to see that 0 votes against Akram's name.

 

[ankitj]

Interesting that Dale Steyn defeated Ambrose on this poll.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah I’m quite surprised by that. Perhaps people were projecting an extra couple of years into the end of Steyn’s career, when he’s actually found it hard to get a lot of games in the last couple of years.

I’ll say Ambrose > Steyn > Wasim as test bowlers, though it’s close enough that I’d probably pick Wasim for his extra batting.

 

[Teja.]

Comparison missing Anderson bait.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I’m quite surprised by that. Perhaps people were projecting an extra couple of years into the end of Steyn’s career, when he’s actually found it hard to get a lot of games in the last couple of years.

Imo the difference in their striking ability was enough to rate Steyn marginally higher than Ambrose even a few years ago. 34 more wickets in 5 fewer tests (even with those years at the end where he'd get injured halfway through every game) is a significant difference.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's a perfectly reasonable opinion either way but I was saying I'm surprised he won the poll given the usual love of 90s/2000s cricketers on these things.

That said, the average point of the nostalgia goggles might be starting to move on from there recently.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah i think since 2016 or so when Steyn's injuries started piling up, I've actually had nostalgia goggles on for Steyn rather than anyone from the 90s.

 

[h_hurricane]

Sorry for bumping up the thread.
But it is plain wrong to rate Ambrose higher based on WPM.

Wickets per innings
Akram - 2.29 (414 from 181)
Ambrose - 2.26 (405 from 179)
No one addressed this so far.

during Ambrose Career (1988-2000)

Ambrose
98 tests, 179 inn, 405 wkts, 20.99 avg, 2.3 ER, 54.5 SR, 22 x 5, 3 X 10

Akram
78 tests, 139 inn, 344 wkts, 22.38 avg, 2.6 ER, 51.4 SR, 21 x 5, 4 X 10

Akram's stats adjusted to 179 innings
443 wickets (Ambrose 405, 38 less)
27 x 5 wickets( Ambrose 22, 5 less)
5 x 10 wickets ( Ambrose 3, 2 less )

Asian conditions, bowling from the junk end, below par fielding support.. all makes Akram stats even more impressive.

All 3 in same league, it is painful to see that 0 votes against Akram's name.

How could you adjust it though from 78 to 98 tests like that ? Would Akram's performance be the same if he played those 20 tests ?

Akram also started his career much earlier than Ambrose hence had time to understand his game by the time Ambrose debuted.

And about, "Asian conditions", Akram averages better in asia than outside asia.

Glad that they both belonged to the same era, hence saved from era adjustment torture.

Akram is a great bowler nonetheless, and the only reason he got 0 votes is that the other 2 were better

 

[trundler]

The top 2-5 switch places every time you hold one of these threads.

Ambrose inched ahead in the fast bowler survival. Some had him #2.

 

[Starfighter]

How could you adjust it though from 78 to 98 tests like that ? Would Akram's performance be the same if he played those 20 tests ?

Akram also started his career much earlier than Ambrose hence had time to understand his game by the time Ambrose debuted.

And about, "Asian conditions", Akram averages better in asia than outside asia.

Glad that they both belonged to the same era, hence saved from era adjustment torture.

Akram is a great bowler nonetheless, and the only reason he got 0 votes is that the other 2 were better

You must be new at this.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

How could you adjust it though from 78 to 98 tests like that ? Would Akram's performance be the same if he played those 20 tests ?

Akram also started his career much earlier than Ambrose hence had time to understand his game by the time Ambrose debuted.

And about, "Asian conditions", Akram averages better in asia than outside asia.

Glad that they both belonged to the same era, hence saved from era adjustment torture.

Akram is a great bowler nonetheless, and the only reason he got 0 votes is that the other 2 were better

//How could you adjust it though from 78 to 98 tests like that ? Would Akram's performance be the same if he played those 20 tests ?//

There is no need of adjustment there, you can compare 78 tests with 98 tests, its comparable anyway. But that adjustment would help for a better understanding. ( also, by that logic how can you say Bradman was better than Sachin? Sachin played 4 times more matches )


//Akram also started his career much earlier than Ambrose hence had time to understand his game by the time Ambrose debuted.//

How is that Akram's fault?
Its acceptable in Donald's case though.


//And about, "Asian conditions", Akram averages better in asia than outside asia.//

Home conditions.

//Akram is a great bowler nonetheless, and the only reason he got 0 votes is that the other 2 were better//

Yeah, thats why most experts / contemporaries rank Akram higher. Here people voting Ambrose because His WPM is better than Akram's. lol

You won a lottery, and you can choose from 2 plans.
Ambrose plan - 2 million every year for 10 years ( avg 2 million per year )
Akram plan - Ambrose plan + 1 million every year for another 5 yrs ( avg 1.67 million per year )

Akram plan excites me more.

 

[h_hurricane]

//How could you adjust it though from 78 to 98 tests like that ? Would Akram's performance be the same if he played those 20 tests ?//

There is no need of adjustment there, you can compare 78 tests with 98 tests, its comparable anyway. But that adjustment would help for a better understanding. ( also, by that logic how can you say Bradman was better than Sachin? Sachin played 4 times more matches )


//Akram also started his career much earlier than Ambrose hence had time to understand his game by the time Ambrose debuted.//

How is that Akram's fault?
Its acceptable in Donald's case though.


//And about, "Asian conditions", Akram averages better in asia than outside asia.//

Home conditions.

//Akram is a great bowler nonetheless, and the only reason he got 0 votes is that the other 2 were better//

Yeah, thats why most experts / contemporaries rank Akram higher. Here people voting Ambrose because His WPM is better than Akram's. lol

You won a lottery, and you can choose from 2 plans.
Ambrose plan - 2 million every year for 10 years ( avg 2 million per year )
Akram plan - Ambrose plan + 1 million every year for another 5 yrs ( avg 1.67 million per year )

Akram plan excites me more.

So Sachin plan must be better than Sobers plan or Bradman plan then.

 

[h_hurricane]

You must be new at this.

Nah, have been through PFK's era adjustments a lot. Most of them are over exaggerated and out of context.