Fast bowler survival round quarter and semi finals

[Burgey]

Christ, this is ridiculously difficult.

Lillee in the first for me, as he was an idol growing up.

Ambrose, just, in the second. And I don't really know why. Maybe because I think of Imran more as an all rounder. Dunno.

 

[morgieb]

****, this is tough. Could easily change another day.

I'll go Hadlee as he averaged around 20 with little assistance. Ambrose in the 2nd one, just a little bit over Imran.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Hadlee & Curtly.

Would take Imran as a player every time, but as a bowler I reckon the big fella has him beat hands down.

This. Imran's greatly superior batting may get him into an XI ahead of Ambrose, but this is about bowling and Ambrose was a significantly better bowling package to my mind.

 

[pasag]

DKL and Ambrose

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hadlee and Ambrose. Hambrose.

 

[Ikki]

This. Imran's greatly superior batting may get him into an XI ahead of Ambrose, but this is about bowling and Ambrose was a significantly better bowling package to my mind.

I don't think that's a good argument. You have to realise that Imran's overall bowling record probably doesn't acurately reflect just how good he was. IIRC he started off pretty ordinarily and people argue he started too early, shouldn't have been in the side, and also in his last few years he bowled sparingly. However, take the stats from the 80s, where he, Hadlee and Marshall were at their peaks and he was arguably better than them all.

Maybe Curtley was by a whisker better, but significantly?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Teja.]

I don't think that's a good argument. You have to realise that Imran's overall bowling record probably doesn't acurately reflect just how good he was. IIRC he started off pretty ordinarily and people argue he started too early, shouldn't have been in the side, and also in his last few years he bowled sparingly. However, take the stats from the 80s, where he, Hadlee and Marshall were at their peaks and he was arguably better than them all.

Maybe Curtley was by a whisker better, but significantly?

This. Another thing to bear in mind is that Imran was a bowler in the true sense of the word till about the end of '88, after that he was a world-class Batsman who had a run with the ball occasionally. Since he did not bowl much, his average is not affected, but his wpm drops from a phenomenal 4.6 to a more 'Ambrose'-ish number. However if the period where he was truly a legendary bowler is considered he took 329 wickets at an insane rate of 4.8 wpm, an average of 21 and a SR of 49. Ambrose's figures in his 12 year period(his entire career) are 405 wickets at 21 at a rate of 4.1 wpm, an average of 21 and a SR of 54. Imran also took 6 10WH to Ambrose's 3 10WH though he played 30% less than Ambrose did.

I don't think it is right to penalize Imran for playing on beyond his bowling career or for his country not playing as many test matches in his 12-year period as WI did in Ambrose's. Without even keeping in mind Imran's obviously wider bag of tricks and his ability to pull out something extraordinary in flat pitches and I will not use words like significant here, Imran is quite clearly the better bowler IMO.

Imran Khan is definitely underrated as a bowler rather than overrated due to his stature as an all-rounder.

 

[JBH001]

Since Hadlee and Imran were virtually lone wolves in that period, or at least a good part of it, their strike rates are just sublime (not to mention the sheer number of Hadlee's 5-fer and 10-fer hauls).

 

[Noble One]

Hadlee and Ambrose.

I could easily flip a coin and choose the complete opposite I must admit.

 

[Somerset]

Two difficult battles - but I have to go with Sir Richard Hadlee and Curtly Ambrose.

 

[Xuhaib]

Hadlee and Imran.

Wow some epic battles.

 

[Blakus]

Lillee and Ambrose.

 

[NUFAN]

Hadlee & Curtly.

Would take Imran as a player every time, but as a bowler I reckon the big fella has him beat hands down.

This exactly.

 

[The Sean]

I believe that Imran's immense value as an all-round cricketer, combined with what he meant to Pakistan cricket, means he is sometimes under-rated purely as a fast bowler. At his peak in the 1980s, his record stood up against anyone, including Marshall.

Imran Khan is definitely underrated as a bowler rather than overrated due to his stature as an all-rounder.

Get out of my head.

 

[Zinzan]

Hadlee and Ambrose. Hambrose.

^ As above, I'll order some Ham-brose as well, sounds delicious

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Lillee
Ambrose

 

[Slifer]

I don't think that's a good argument. You have to realise that Imran's overall bowling record probably doesn't acurately reflect just how good he was. IIRC he started off pretty ordinarily and people argue he started too early, shouldn't have been in the side, and also in his last few years he bowled sparingly. However, take the stats from the 80s, where he, Hadlee and Marshall were at their peaks and he was arguably better than them all.

Maybe Curtley was by a whisker better, but significantly?

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Wow 4 Wi fast bowlers averaging less than 25!!

 

[Migara]

Hadlee and Imran

 

[Days of Grace]

lol at Walsh once again proving how underrated he is.

 

[weldone]

lol at Walsh once again proving how underrated he is.

The case of Ambrose vs Garner seems more puzzling to me. I don't really understand how people (cricketwebple) differentiate between those 2 giant fast bowlers. Both of them were equally intimidating, had the same weapons, looked like being equal in pace, showed similar control, were equally successful against batsmen of the highest quality, had pretty long careers etc etc. Yet Garner didn't even get through to the quarters here, and Ambrose has a great chance of getting to the semis.

Might be a case of short memory, I guess.