Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

[Johan]

Sure. But I am saying Ambrose in his career benefitted because bats felt they didn't need to attack him.

Same with Hadlee.

 

[subshakerz]

Same with Hadlee.

Sure but he was still more penetrative than Ambrose and less likely to be blocked out.

 

[subshakerz]

They couldn't attack him. Even in ODIs he had an outstanding economy rate.

Yeah but in tests it's not the win you think it is to be blockable.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sure but he was still more penetrative than Ambrose and less likely to be blocked out.

 

[shortpitched713]

Anyway, I agree that Hadlee is better overall, it's just the nuance of the way in which Ambrose could be better (especially the early 60% of his career) being completely lost on you which is frustrating. Same as when I was espousing the merit of Steyn, and you just refused to see the value, but anyway that's neither here nor there.

 

[subshakerz]

Anyway, I agree that Hadlee is better overall, it's just the nuance of the way in which Ambrose could be better (especially the early 60% of his career) being completely lost on you which is frustrating. Same as when I was espousing the merit of Steyn, and you just refused to see the value, but anyway that's neither here nor there.

Sorry but Ambrose at his peak was less than half of his career, more like 48 percent.

 

[sayon basak]

Sure. But I am saying Ambrose in his career benefitted because bats felt they didn't need to attack him.

If they could, why wouldn't they?

 

[subshakerz]

If they could, why wouldn't they?

Ambrose when he lost pace bowled in the corridor where he didn't give many bad balls

 

[sayon basak]

Ambrose when he lost pace bowled in the corridor where he didn't give many bad balls

So, credit goes to the bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

So, credit goes to the bowler.

Sure. But he was predictable. Hadlee had more tricks.

 

[sayon basak]

Sure. But he was predictable. Hadlee had more tricks.

Yeah sure, Hadlee was the better bowler.

Not for this reason tho. Wasim had more tricks than McGrath, doesn't mean much.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah sure, Hadlee was the better bowler.

Not for this reason tho. Wasim had more tricks than McGrath, doesn't mean much.

I mean, it depends the degree of if your bowling skill and tools enhances your effectiveness.

McGrath may not have had Wasims options but he had more intelligence and enough of a toolbox to make him adaptable as a bowler across surfaces.

Ambrose didn't have much nous or a toolbox. Couldn't swing or bowl cutters consistently. Didn't outthink bats. Once his pace was gone was very pitch dependent. He clearly lacked options in latter career half.

 

[sayon basak]

I mean, it depends the degree of if your bowling skill and tools enhances your effectiveness.

McGrath may not have had Wasims options but he had more intelligence and enough of a toolbox to make him adaptable as a bowler across surfaces.

Ambrose didn't have much nous or a toolbox. Couldn't swing or bowl cutters consistently. Didn't outthink bats. Once his pace was gone was very pitch dependent. He clearly lacked options in latter career half.

What are you arguing for?

 

[subshakerz]

What are you arguing for?

That Ambrose after his pace declined didn't have the skillset to continue to be as penetrative and consistent a wickettaker unlike others.

Whereas Hadlee even at less pace was consistently taking wickets for over twice as long as Ambrose peak.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

And his loss of pace was a as a result of surgery. Again, no one is arguing that he's greater than Sir Richard (he isnt) but it's not like he just all of a sudden lost his pace. It was either stop playing cricket or have a surgery that will greatly diminish him but still playing. Also, the idea that he was one dimensional is bs. He bowled cutters like anyone else, primarily the off cutter such as the one that dismissed Atherton when England was blasted out for 46. He also had as good a yorker as anyone; one which he used less in his later career.

 

[subshakerz]

And his loss of pace was a as a result of surgery. Again, no one is arguing that he's greater than Sir Richard (he isnt) but it's not like he just all of a sudden lost his pace. It was either stop playing cricket or have a surgery that will greatly diminish him but still playing. Also, the idea that he was one dimensional is bs. He bowled cutters like anyone else, primarily the off cutter such as the one that dismissed Atherton when England was blasted out for 46. He also had as good a yorker as anyone; one which he used less in his later career.

He was very proficient in the use of cutters. And yes less effective at yorkers in the second half. One dimensional only compared to other ATGs.

 

[sayon basak]

He was very proficient in the use of cutters. And yes less effective at yorkers in the second half. One dimensional only compared to other ATGs.

I'd count accuracy as a dimension as well.

 

[kyear2]

And his loss of pace was a as a result of surgery. Again, no one is arguing that he's greater than Sir Richard (he isnt) but it's not like he just all of a sudden lost his pace. It was either stop playing cricket or have a surgery that will greatly diminish him but still playing. Also, the idea that he was one dimensional is bs. He bowled cutters like anyone else, primarily the off cutter such as the one that dismissed Atherton when England was blasted out for 46. He also had as good a yorker as anyone; one which he used less in his later career.

Does any one appreciate how hard it is to maintain an average of 20?

This horrible decline that some love to tout, yet he was never a liability, and maintained that insane average after his pace was drastically, not strategically, reduced.

Not even to mention the hypocrisy of the penetration / strike rate and peak arguments is laughable.

And I've heard and read it multiple times, that when things weren't helpful for Hadlee, he just also shut down. Bowled back of a length and waited for a break through, very much like Ambrose did. Hadlee also had overall more helpful bowling conditions, primarily at home.

Hadlee is a slightly better, but I would take either to open my attack.

 

[subshakerz]

I'd count accuracy as a dimension as well.

Yes. That's Ambrose's one dimension. Well, I guess that and height.

 

[subshakerz]

Does any one appreciate how hard it is to maintain an average of 20?

This horrible decline that some love to tout, yet he was never a liability, and maintained that insane average after his pace was drastically, not strategically, reduced.

Not even to mention the hypocrisy of the penetration / strike rate and peak arguments is laughable.

And I've heard and read it multiple times, that when things weren't helpful for Hadlee, he just also shut down. Bowled back of a length and waited for a break through, very much like Ambrose did. Hadlee also had overall more helpful bowling conditions, primarily at home.

Hadlee is a slightly better, but I would take either to open my attack.

Yeah except Hadlee was taking 5WPM even at less pace whereas Ambrose couldn't take 4WPM.