Viv v Warne???

How can you compare Ambrose with Warne?

Mango, pineapple?

Henry wrote:

JGK wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Agreed. Ambrose > McGrath

Only because Ambrose was black.

And did exactly what Mcgrath did but with 5mph more pace.....

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for Amby. I do wonder though if the 5mph extra wasn't made up by McGrath's competitiveness.

I only say that because for such a great bowler, Amby's strike rate and wickets per test are slightly poorer than some of the other great bowlers through the years.

The man could bowl more sustained hostile spells than any other bowler I've seen and I've seen a few greats.

I'm simply not having him derided for a Glenn McGrath wankfest. Yes, Glenn was great. If you want, I'll change my opinion - please let's just not get into a stats microbattle, it may finish me off.

For the record, anyone who cares, CEL Ambrose struck every 54.5 balls, compared to GD McGrath's 51.9. That's right - 2.6 balls worse off per wicket. Other greats, such as Hadlee, Imran etc. are approx 51.5. Waqar and Marshall are low-to-mid 40's.

The man could bowl more sustained hostile spells than any other bowler I've seen and I've seen a few greats.

That was sort of my (half-joking) point about him being black. On top of the fact that he was a great bowler, he also looked the part and hurt his fair share of batsmen.

Hostile bowling is only one part of it all - Shoaib was hostile and bowled great spells but he isn't fit to like Amby or McGrath's boots as a bowler.

JGK wrote:

The man could bowl more sustained hostile spells than any other bowler I've seen and I've seen a few greats.

That was sort of my (half-joking) point about him being black. On top of the fact that he was a great bowler, he also looked the part and hurt his fair share of batsmen.

Hostile bowling is only one part of it all - Shoaib was hostile and bowled great spells but he isn't fit to like Amby or McGrath's boots as a bowler.

I doubt he would like their boots - probably too big for him

But anyway, I was never on about his appearance or demeanour - I was on about his ability to sustain top pace and his L&L were always very aggressive and immensely consistant.

I doubt he would like their boots - probably too big for him

I'm on fire tonight.

Didn't you mean "to lick their boobs"?

JGK wrote:I'm on fire tonight.

Quick, someone piss on him.

I couldn't be @rsed TBH.

PeterCS wrote:Didn't you mean "to lick their boobs"?

I wasn't talking about Robert Key.

JGK wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Didn't you mean "to lick their boobs"?

I wasn't talking about Robert Key.

Slack, dude. You missed the perfect 'David Sales' opportunity. S'all the rage nowadays.

Ambrose was quite simply THE most intimidating bowler of the late 80's and early to mid 90's. His presence and aura was unreal. Here was this 6'10 giant who bowled at 90mph, gave batsmen the most fearsome glares imaginable but never said a word to them, and refused to talk to the media. Scary as f*ck.

Apart from the fact Curtley was 6'7".

Was he? I actually heard he was 7'5 and ate children and Ian Bells but I didn't believe it.

Henry wrote:Was he? I actually heard he was 7'5 and ate children and Ian Bells but I didn't believe it.

That was the fake story to cover up the fact he used to eat £12.42 worth of McDonald's, snort a gram of MDMA and sit there all day listening to King Tubby, smoking as many blunts as he could before he passed out listening to Scratch Perry.

You guys are way too caught up in stats.

Some one mentioned Ambrose and i think he was a slightly better version of Mcgrath but can you imagine there ever being anything like a better version of Wasim? there is more chance of the world returning back to pangea than for any of us to see a better version of Wasim Akram in our lifetime.

To me its no surprise that almost all top class batsmen from Slater and Steve Waugh in AUS to BC Lara in the WI rate Wasim as the best fast bowler that they have ever faced.

Wasim was more talented but McGrath was the better bowler by a distance.

Henry wrote:If I desperately needed a wicket as a captain, i'd turn to Warne or Wasim over Mcgrath. But Mcgrath was so ruthlessly consistent, whereas Wasim had his fair share of off days, and Warne was merely very good (as opposed to great) between 1998 and 2001. Mcgrath was great from 1995 til the day he retired.

Warne had a serious shoulder problem from 1998 which lasted for a long time.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Wasim was more talented but McGrath was the better bowler by a distance.

Here it might just be a case of agreeing to disagree.

Wasim was a genius and could play the game at a level that Mcgrath can only dream of. On a scale of 1 to 10 Wasim reached a level of 9.9 on several occasions while Mcgrath hardly ever reached a level of more than 9. I have seen Wasim go around the wicket to left handers and angle the ball away from the lefties yet swing it back to hit middle and leg, i have seen Wasim swing the ball 2 ways in the air where he would bring the ball in and then move it away, i have seen Wasim bowl faster than even Waqar at times, i have seen Wasim bowl balls that were not only too good for the batsmen but also too good for the umpires to give out and all of this was done with an incredibly short run up.

In a way Mcgrath was a genius too simply because he was NOT a genius and still managed to pick over 500 wickets at the highest level of the game. He deserves a lot of respect for what he did but Wasim Akram he was not.

PlanetPakistan wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Wasim was more talented but McGrath was the better bowler by a distance.

Here it might just be a case of agreeing to disagree.

Wasim was a genius and could play the game at a level that Mcgrath can only dream of. On a scale of 1 to 10 Wasim reached a level of 9.9 on several occasions while Mcgrath hardly ever reached a level of more than 9. I have seen Wasim go around the wicket to left handers and angle the ball away from the lefties yet swing it back to hit middle and leg, i have seen Wasim swing the ball 2 ways in the air where he would bring the ball in and then move it away, i have seen Wasim bowl faster than even Waqar at times, i have seen Wasim bowl balls that were not only too good for the batsmen but also too good for the umpires to give out and all of this was done with an incredibly short run up.

In a way Mcgrath was a genius too simply because he was NOT a genius and still managed to pick over 500 wickets at the highest level of the game. He deserves a lot of respect for what he did but Wasim Akram he was not.

At the end of the day, test cricket is not a talent showcase, it is about getting, wkts and lots of them consistently over time, on those scores McGrath is better

Shoiab has also produced more jaw droppping spells than McGrath, but we know who was the better wkt taker 9 times out of 10

Yeah, that's a bit of a joke. Wasim was great. Bloody great. But McGrath's even better. He regularly singled out the opposition's key batsman, then proceeded to take them more often than not. This is easily illustrated by the fact 75% of the wickets Pidge took were top 7 batsmen - Wasim 65%. Quite indicative.

Don't quote me wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Wasim was more talented but McGrath was the better bowler by a distance.

Here it might just be a case of agreeing to disagree.

Wasim was a genius and could play the game at a level that Mcgrath can only dream of. On a scale of 1 to 10 Wasim reached a level of 9.9 on several occasions while Mcgrath hardly ever reached a level of more than 9. I have seen Wasim go around the wicket to left handers and angle the ball away from the lefties yet swing it back to hit middle and leg, i have seen Wasim swing the ball 2 ways in the air where he would bring the ball in and then move it away, i have seen Wasim bowl faster than even Waqar at times, i have seen Wasim bowl balls that were not only too good for the batsmen but also too good for the umpires to give out and all of this was done with an incredibly short run up.

In a way Mcgrath was a genius too simply because he was NOT a genius and still managed to pick over 500 wickets at the highest level of the game. He deserves a lot of respect for what he did but Wasim Akram he was not.

At the end of the day, test cricket is not a talent showcase, it is about getting, wkts and lots of them consistently over time, on those scores McGrath is better

Shoiab has also produced more jaw droppping spells than McGrath, but we know who was the better wkt taker 9 times out of 10

No its not all about wickets,averages and stats in general. Recently when IND toured AUS Ishant Sharma was quite brilliant yet he averaged over 59 runs per wicket now even if he has a good series in IND later this year his average will not be any less than 40 and for the next 4 years the statsgurus will keep repeating how Sharma "failed" against Australia.

Shoaib would have been better had he NOT been a) injury prone b) An idiot.

How did a Viv v Warne thread end up as Wasim v Pidge?

PlanetPakistan wrote:

No its not all about wickets,averages and stats in general. Recently when IND toured AUS Ishant Sharma was quite brilliant yet he averaged over 59 runs per wicket now even if he has a good series in IND later this year his average will not be any less than 40 and for the next 4 years the statsgurus will keep repeating how Sharma "failed" against Australia.

Shoaib would have been better had he NOT been a) injury prone b) An idiot.

Uhhh, so who's the better bowler - the more talented, Shoaib, or the clearly by miles better bowler in Glenn McGrath? Longevity and mental strength are attributes too. Who had more impact in matches and series - McGrath or Wasim?

Brass Monkey wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

No its not all about wickets,averages and stats in general. Recently when IND toured AUS Ishant Sharma was quite brilliant yet he averaged over 59 runs per wicket now even if he has a good series in IND later this year his average will not be any less than 40 and for the next 4 years the statsgurus will keep repeating how Sharma "failed" against Australia.

Shoaib would have been better had he NOT been a) injury prone b) An idiot.

Uhhh, so who's the better bowler - the more talented, Shoaib, or the clearly by miles better bowler in Glenn McGrath? Longevity and mental strength are attributes too. Who had more impact in matches and series - McGrath or Wasim?

Shoaib can't be indirectly linked to Wasim because a) he isn't as talented b) Hardly played enough

Who had more impact in wins? very tough to quantify but my guess will be Mcgrath. A lot of people will say that Dravid has had far bigger impact in IND's wins than SRT but does that mean Dravid is a better test batsman than SRT? or is Ponting a better batsman than SRT just because he has better stats and has more impact in series wins? surely not

People like SRT, Wasim, Warne and Lara are geniuses of the game and too good to be compared with any one else.