Who's Done the Most Damage?

[Johan]

More stats on Curtly vs Lillee at home

Ambrose averaged less than 25 in 11 of his 15 home series, 73% (WPI 2.93)

Lillee averaged less than 25 in 8 of his 14 home series, 57% (WPI 2.57)

Ambrose averaged less than 20 in 8 of his 15 home series, 53% (WPI 2.70)

Lillee averaged less than 20 in 4 of his 14 home series, 28% (WPI 3.30)

 

[Randomfan]

Where was he proven in the SC away from helpful umpires at home?

There was home, minnow SL and India and he wasn't proven in India. His overall record in Australia isn't exactly standout either.

IK was standout in Pakistan for 5 years when he took 100 wickets at avg of 12-13 due to non-cricketing reasons. His skills did not help him to be a stand out in second SC non-minnow country over his career. IK in India has avg of 28 with SR of 60+ while many others were doing Sub 25 avg and SR of 40-50. Any pacer having skills to take 100+ wickets at avg of 12-13 in Pakistan within 5 years shouldn't be averaging 28 with SR north of 60. It does not make any sense.




Same situation with his entire away record of IK against non-minnows : Avg 26-27 SR 60+ [ In same period, lots of greats were averaging 20-23 with SR 50 when playing away so no question of era being very tough. ]

That's his proven away record, nothing else. Everyone was at equal footing when playing away at same time and it can be taken at a face value when comparing.

I will go with something like this,


Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose

Bumrah
Donald
Garner/Ik
Lillee
Wasim
and so on..

I may be missing some names here, but IK is firmly among the 3rd group of pacers for me due to considerable gap between two greats( Marshall, Hadlee) who played in the same era. IK will make the cut for top 10 but never be in contention for the top 5. He was simply not at that level.

 

[kyear2]

It goes to how we rate Hadlee in India in 1988. I am considering Steyn over Hadlee lately.

And I'm coming to the point where I have Steyn, Hadlee and Ambrose in the exact same range and tier.

 

[kyear2]

yes if all other factors equal (wicket competition, performance across conditions/countries), that matters more than a few average points.

I prefer the better wickettaker than the cheaper bowler.

"Better wicket taker" according to your flawed logic just means they bowled more, because the s/r isn't that far apart.

 

[kyear2]

Lillee averages 23 at home. With a SR of 49.

As for Ambrose at home, I don't believe in removing debut series from larger samples like that if we don't do it for other cricketers just to make their records look better.

Big picture, Ambrose outside Aus and Eng simply had issues taking wickets at the rate you would like for a top tier pacer.

Are you being serious right now?

 

[Johan]

On Lillee and Ambrose wicket sharing

Here are Lillee's contemporaries – the one bowler Lillee has played the highest number of Test Cricket with, is Jeff Thomson and we all know his quality as a bowler. Adding further, Thomson only appeared in 37% of Lillee's games and that's his primary partner. Second is Max Walker and eh we all know how good he was, Lillee played 28% games with him. Final is Ashley Mallet who doesn't count as he's a spinner.

here are Ambrose's contemporaries – The one bowler Ambrose has played the highest number of Test Cricket with, is Courtney Walsh, far superior to Jeff Thomson on quality and Ambrose played a whopping 97% of his matches with Walsh. Second is Ian Bishop who is again far superior on quality to Thomson and Ambrose has played 40% of his games with Bishop, the third is Malcolm Marshall and Ambrose played 30% of his games with Marshall and... Yeah, that's the GOAT right there.

IE it's not a contest on who had to share wickets with a better unit, Lillee deserves points for being a lone tiger but that's it.

 

[kyear2]

I will go with something like this,


Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose

Bumrah
Donald
Garner/Ik
Lillee
Wasim
and so on..

I may be missing some names here, but IK is firmly among the 3rd group of pacers for me due to considerable gap between two greats( Marshall, Hadlee) who played in the same era. IK will make the cut for top 10 but never be in contention for the top 5. He was simply not at that level.

Mine is very similar, just some small changes.

Marshall
McGrath

Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose

My final group is identical to yours, but with the addition of Holding and the order being a bit different, but they are all so very close. Lindwall is in there as well.

 

[Johan]

Marshall
McGrath
Barnes
Hadlee

Ambrose
Steyn
Imran

Trueman
Lillee
Holding
Garner
Wasim
Donald
Lindwall
Bumrah

No order except the first seven.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall
McGrath
Barnes
Hadlee

Ambrose
Steyn
Imran

Trueman
Lillee
Holding
Garner
Wasim
Donald
Lindwall
Bumrah

No order except the first seven.

Orders not that far apart.

 

[subshakerz]

On Lillee and Ambrose wicket sharing

Here are Lillee's contemporaries – the one bowler Lillee has played the highest number of Test Cricket with, is Jeff Thomson and we all know his quality as a bowler. Adding further, Thomson only appeared in 37% of Lillee's games and that's his primary partner. Second is Max Walker and eh we all know how good he was, Lillee played 28% games with him. Final is Ashley Mallet who doesn't count as he's a spinner.

here are Ambrose's contemporaries – The one bowler Ambrose has played the highest number of Test Cricket with, is Courtney Walsh, far superior to Jeff Thomson on quality and Ambrose played a whopping 97% of his matches with Walsh. Second is Ian Bishop who is again far superior on quality to Thomson and Ambrose has played 40% of his games with Bishop, the third is Malcolm Marshall and Ambrose played 30% of his games with Marshall and... Yeah, that's the GOAT right there.

IE it's not a contest on who had to share wickets with a better unit, Lillee deserves points for being a lone tiger but that's it.

No you are proving my point.

Ambrose first half of his career has Walsh, Marshall, Bishop, Patterson. Elite.

Ambrose second half mid 90s onwards has Walsh and then a huge dropoff in Rose, Dillon, etc.

Lillee pretty much always has two to three other bowlers his entire career who were reasonably good competing for wickets.

So his second half the quality is a lot poorer than Lillee yet Ambroses WPM fell down. significantly.

 

[subshakerz]

More stats on Curtly vs Lillee at home

Ambrose averaged less than 25 in 11 of his 15 home series, 73% (WPI 2.93)

Lillee averaged less than 25 in 8 of his 14 home series, 57% (WPI 2.57)

Ambrose averaged less than 20 in 8 of his 15 home series, 53% (WPI 2.70)

Lillee averaged less than 20 in 4 of his 14 home series, 28% (WPI 3.30)

Show the full picture:

Number of series with less than 4WPM, Ambrose 7/15, Lillee 0/14.

Lillee also has more series with higher level hauls at home than Ambrose and a much healthier rates of fifers/tenfers

And no it's not just competition since Ambroses wicket taking went down when the quality of his support got worse.

 

[subshakerz]

"Better wicket taker" according to your flawed logic just means they bowled more, because the s/r isn't that far apart.

Lillee has a better SR and bowling more is also to his credit.

Where was he proven in the SC away from helpful umpires at home?

There was home, minnow SL and India and he wasn't proven in India. His overall record in Australia isn't exactly standout either.

Let's not debate Imran we know how effective you are at swaying opinion on it

And I'm coming to the point where I have Steyn, Hadlee and Ambrose in the exact same range and tier.

I'm surprised Marshall and Ambrose aren't no 1 and 2 for you.

 

[sayon basak]

Don't get how one can make this big of a deal out of WPM, specially for fast bowlers. One is going for 3 runs less to take a wicket ffs. And it's not like Lillee was this supreme genius across conditions, he didn't even play outside 3 countries.

BTW Here's the wicket distribution in Ambrose's matches:

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;player_involve=1884;template=results;type=bowling

Here's Lillee's:

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;player_involve=1369;template=results;type=bowling

Looks like one just had way more competition for taking wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

Don't get how one can make this big of a deal out of WPM, specially for fast bowlers. One is going for 3 runs less to take a wicket ffs. And it's not like Lillee was this supreme genius across conditions, he didn't even play outside 3 countries.

Because in Ambrose case the cheaper wickets is often not at a rate to impact games as highly. Average isn't everything.

When we talk about them at home their SR is miles apart, it's not just WPM.

 

[sayon basak]

Because in Ambrose case the cheaper wickets is often not at a rate to impact games as highly. Average isn't everything.

When we talk about them at home their SR is miles apart, it's not just WPM.

0.4 wickets more per innings isn't impacting games when you have a spinneresque average.

Really? Making a deal out of 5.8 deliveries more to take wickets at a significantly lower average now? BTW why did you ignore away SR? Ambrose has a better SR while literally going for 4 runs less a piece. Not gonna make a big deal out of that huh?

 

[shortpitched713]

Show the full picture:

Number of series with less than 4WPM, Ambrose 7/15, Lillee 0/14.

Lillee also has more series with higher level hauls at home than Ambrose and a much healthier rates of fifers/tenfers

And no it's not just competition since Ambroses wicket taking went down when the quality of his support got worse.

Yeah we get it. His production got worse in the tail half of his career. That's also why I have to keep him out of top 4 pacers.

Thing is, I think he did as well as any fast bowler has done at managing and being effective for his country to whatever extent he could while going through those injuries, to the point where that's the whole second half of his career, and his ability to take wickets without being hit never declined.

Honestly that's pretty damn impressive and a feat of professionalism in itself. So many fast bowlers spin off the rails with the first major injury they get.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah we get it. His production got worse in the tail half of his career. That's also why I have to keep him out of top 4 pacers.

Thing is, I think he did as well as any fast bowler has done at managing and being effective for his country to whatever extent he could while going through those injuries, to the point where that's the whole second half of his career, and his ability to take wickets without being hit never declined.

Honestly that's pretty damn impressive and a feat of professionalism in itself. So many fast bowlers spin off the rails with the first major injury they get.

Sure. Ambrose was a machine. He was still very good in the second half, especially if the pitch offered something. I don't deny that.

I think the point I try to bring up with Lillee is that in his second half, even with declining pace, his rate of taking wickets was still very much impressive.

And I think that doesn't get enough credit. The skill to keep taking wickets even when your pace goes down.

It also goes into the heart of what we think impacts the game more.

To me, taking wickets more per game does even if a slight bit more expensive.

To others, keeping it tight and cheap matters more, even at reduced wicket level.

 

[subshakerz]

0.4 wickets more per innings isn't impacting games when you have a spinneresque average.

Actually 0.4 per innings IMO does translate over an entire career into more impact.

Show me how the slightly better average is more impactful than an extra wicket per game.

Really? Making a deal out of 5.8 deliveries more to take wickets at a significantly lower average now? BTW why did you ignore away SR? Ambrose has a better SR while literally going for 4 runs less a piece. Not gonna make a big deal out of that huh?

Lillee hardly played much away except for England where his SR is better than Ambrose there. His SR is around the same as Ambrose in Aus too.

 

[Johan]

No you are proving my point.

Ambrose first half of his career has Walsh, Marshall, Bishop, Patterson. Elite.

Ambrose second half mid 90s onwards has Walsh and then a huge dropoff in Rose, Dillon, etc.

Lillee pretty much always has two to three other bowlers his entire career who were reasonably good competing for wickets.

So his second half the quality is a lot poorer than Lillee yet Ambroses WPM fell down. significantly.

Ambrose second half has Walsh in 96% games and Bishop in 44% games.

Lillee just shared his wickets overall with poorer bowlers so got so many, Murali of pace

 

[Johan]

Show the full picture:

Number of series with less than 4WPM, Ambrose 7/15, Lillee 0/14.

Lillee also has more series with higher level hauls at home than Ambrose and a much healthier rates of fifers/tenfers

And no it's not just competition since Ambroses wicket taking went down when the quality of his support got worse.

Other than his debut series, the series where he was ill, Ambrose had one other series in 12 where he took less than 2 WPI, coming down to less bowling innings.