Has any batsman pwned Ambrose by thrashing him all around the park?

[Muloghonto]

Not makes me think so. I followed that series. It was a fact. Atleast couple of Ambrose spells i clearly remember Tendulkar was very uncomfortable.

Yep and in 94 when the Windies came to tour India, everyone was getting hit in the chest by the killer Walsh inswingers off of good length that came in at your rib cage. There is a zone of unhittability for bowlers. Its when the ball is bowled in the corridor of uncertainty, at good length or short of good length, bounces at chest height and seams in just enough so that if you were to let it go, it'd thud into your left arm (if you are a rightie batsman). Yes, its a very narrow zone ( has to meet the above parameters of length, inswing and bounce) but once in that zone, bowlers can pull off figures like 10-3-25-something at will. Even if you premeditate a pull shot, connecting with that ball is damn near impossible, as you'd have to pull-scoop to play it.

[vvvslaxman]

Would have been thrashed today in this T20 age.

Even Srikkant smacked him around in the one dayer.. It is very much possible with shots like upper cut, lap shot, bouncer restriction. In a one off scenario all bowlers must have gone through that.. Garner was the meanest in the 80s. I remember once Imran khan hitting him for 3 consecutive sixes in the 50th over the match. If you have the mindset you can attack any bowler. Srikkanth did that lot of West Indian bowlers.

[RedFever]

I remember vinod kambli in 96 world cup hitting ambrose all over. 6kfgkPKNC9A

[vamos_rafa]

Not makes me think so. I followed that series. It was a fact. Atleast couple of Ambrose spells i clearly remember Tendulkar was very uncomfortable.

I also followed that series :--D Anyways, lets agree to disagree there.

[Ultimate_Game]

Ramp shots work for short and bouncy balls outside the offstump. How on earth do you ramp one that is swinging in at that height ? Walsh had a killer inswinger- probably the best in the game. Steyn and all other pacers dont get the absurd level of bounce Walsh, Ambrose and Garner got and its the absurdity of their bounce along with their pin point accuracy that makes them unhittable. Even in 1996 world cup when Sachin was working up a storm, he couldnt hammer Walsh or Ambrose- because they kept bowling good length deliveries that held its line, mixed with good length deliveries that seamed back in and ended up at Tendy's ribcage or higher. You cant really pull a good length delivery, no matter how much it bounces unless you pre-meditate it. Steyn is a Waqar Younis-esque attack the stumps type of bowler. He is way better than Waqar ever was (and way cleverer IMO) but there is a reason why Ambrose and Walsh had much much lower economy rates than any other fast bowler from their era. McGrath,Pollock & Akram were as economical as they come and they had economy of 3.7-3.9 range. Bloody good if you ask me. But Walsh & Ambrose had 3.4-3.6 economy IIRC and a big reason was that they got more bounce than Morkel gets off of good length & short of good length, while having Akram-Pollock-esque control.

Take a look at the video... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_5ysu_uTXw]Pinch Hitting evolution in Cricket. - YouTube[/ame] Now go to :45 and later 3:40 to see how Greatbatch attacked Ambrose. Ambrose's natural length was ideal for someone to hit him over 3rd man/point or ramp shot. In this day and age I am sure batsmen would have gone after him as well in T20s. I'm sure if Greatbatch could take him on, so could batsmen today. It's just that Ambrose played in a different era where fast bowlers were to be respected and new ball was to be seen off. Not so anymore. With power-plays, shorter boundaries, advent of T20s, shots like ramp shots, helicopter, scoops etc. it's a different ball game altogether. I am of the opinion that champions in one era will be champions in another era but at the same time not naive enough to believe that a bowler will be "unhittable" in T20 era.

[vvvslaxman]

You guys remember Kaluwitharana? lol Pocket dynamite. Some of the shots he played at perth against Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop were audacious. I know he didn't do much other than few good innings. Also Aravinda De Silva was never shy of any short stuffs then.

[Muloghonto]

Take a look at the video...

Now go to :45 and later 3:40 to see how Greatbatch attacked Ambrose. Ambrose's natural length was ideal for someone to hit him over 3rd man/point or ramp shot. In this day and age I am sure batsmen would have gone after him as well in T20s. I'm sure if Greatbatch could take him on, so could batsmen today. It's just that Ambrose played in a different era where fast bowlers were to be respected and new ball was to be seen off. Not so anymore. With power-plays, shorter boundaries, advent of T20s, shots like ramp shots, helicopter, scoops etc. it's a different ball game altogether. I am of the opinion that champions in one era will be champions in another era but at the same time not naive enough to believe that a bowler will be "unhittable" in T20 era.

Dude, everyone gets hit for a couple of boundaries or two in their spells, unless your name was Nadkarni. Yes, 2-3 4s or sixes once in a while happened against him because Ambrose too, was human. The issue is to do it consistently or make it count I am not saying that nobody would ever hit a four or six off of Ambrose through the entire IPL. What i am saying is that his natural length & bounce of Ambrose would make him go at 4.5-5 rpo in IPL, which is pretty much 'unhittable'. And every batsman except that Basit Ali innings i saw who went after Ambrose took the predictable 'couple of sixes/fours and then out' mode. You are talking about the unquestionable stingiest bowler of the 1990s. Ambrose had less than 3.5 RPO in the 90s when everyone else had 3.7 or more IIRC. That is significantly better than the field. Today's batsmen do not come with the same backfoot play as batsmen of the yesteryears- something that further aids Ambrose IMO becaus he is one bowler against whom comming on the front foot is literally a once every 1 hour or so frequency..

[Ultimate_Game]

Dude, everyone gets hit for a couple of boundaries or two in their spells, unless your name was Nadkarni. Yes, 2-3 4s or sixes once in a while happened against him because Ambrose too, was human. The issue is to do it consistently or make it count I am not saying that nobody would ever hit a four or six off of Ambrose through the entire IPL. What i am saying is that his natural length & bounce of Ambrose would make him go at 4.5-5 rpo in IPL, which is pretty much 'unhittable'. And every batsman except that Basit Ali innings i saw who went after Ambrose took the predictable 'couple of sixes/fours and then out' mode. You are talking about the unquestionable stingiest bowler of the 1990s. Ambrose had less than 3.5 RPO in the 90s when everyone else had 3.7 or more IIRC. That is significantly better than the field. Today's batsmen do not come with the same backfoot play as batsmen of the yesteryears- something that further aids Ambrose IMO becaus he is one bowler against whom comming on the front foot is literally a once every 1 hour or so frequency..

I don't think Ambrose would go for just 4.5-5 rpo in T20s. He wouldn't go for 8-9 but to say Ambrose would go for just 4.5-5 rpo is too much of a stretch. He would be one of the best bowlers going around but not as good or as "unhittable" as you make him sound.

[maniac]

Ambrose was never express pace...He bowled an uncomfortable length but he was never out and out fast.....He would have been taken for runs in this day and age.Eg;Mohammed Irfan-I know Blasphemy but bowls at a similar pace and could be uncomfortable,may be overall a less skillful compared to Ambrose but a similar bowler Walsh was more skilled though and better at adapting....He was more line and length and would have found success in this day and age.

[Muloghonto]

I don't think Ambrose would go for just 4.5-5 rpo in T20s. He wouldn't go for 8-9 but to say Ambrose would go for just 4.5-5 rpo is too much of a stretch. He would be one of the best bowlers going around but not as good or as "unhittable" as you make him sound.

Well, he was clear-cut stingiest bowler of the 90s. No one was close to him in the RPOs. Stands to reason that he would be a clear-cut case for being in the top 1% of the stingiest bowlers in T20 as well. 4.5-5 rpo was a guess. But i cannot see Ambrose being carted at run-a-ball in any format. Guy bowled too many dot balls for that.

[maniac]

Well' date= he was clear-cut stingiest bowler of the 90s. No one was close to him in the RPOs. Stands to reason that he would be a clear-cut case for being in the top 1% of the stingiest bowlers in T20 as well. 4.5-5 rpo was a guess. But i cannot see Ambrose being carted at run-a-ball in any format. Guy bowled too many dot balls for that.

That would be Fannie Devillers

[Muloghonto]

Ambrose was never express pace...He bowled an uncomfortable length but he was never out and out fast.....He would have been taken for runs in this day and age.Eg;Mohammed Irfan-I know Blasphemy but bowls at a similar pace and could be uncomfortable,may be overall a less skillful but a similar bowler Walsh was more skilled though and better at adapting....He was more line and length and would have found success in this day and age.

When someone gets the ball to bounce at your chest level while bowling 90-91mph (standard Ambrose speed in his youth), it is harder to score off of them than 95mph guys who get half as much bounce. Ambrose comapred to Mohammed Irfan is a joke. What Ambrose was, was someone who got Morkel like bounce while being more accurate and consistent than McGrath. And yes, if McGrath got Morkel's bounce or Morkel had McGrath's fanatical line and length (ie, Ambrose), they'd be unhittable too. Walsh was not more skilled than Ambrose. He had truckload more stamina than anyone else and never ever broke down. Had the best inswinger in the game but he was a wee bit more erratic than Ambrose and didnt have a genuine outswinger (which he compensated for late in his career by developing the best slower ball in the game).

[Muloghonto]

That would be Fannie Devillers

No. Fanie had 3.57 RPO in ODIs over 83 games. Ambrose had 3.48 over 176 ODIs. Clear cut leader in the stingy department. And except for deVilliers and Ambrose, nobody else ende up with less than 3.7 career RPO while bowling in the 1990s. Pollock is the next IIRC at 3.71 or something similar.

[Ultimate_Game]

Well' date=' he was clear-cut stingiest bowler of the 90s. No one was close to him in the RPOs. Stands to reason that he would be a clear-cut case for being in the top 1% of the stingiest bowlers in T20 as well. 4.5-5 rpo was a guess. But i cannot see Ambrose being carted at run-a-ball in any format. Guy bowled too many dot balls for that.[/quote'] If you think Ambrose, or any other bowler from the past, would go for less than run a ball in T20s, you are mistaken. He would be successful and one of the top bowlers - yes, but going at less than run a ball in T20s - no.

[Muloghonto]

If you think Ambrose' date=' or any other bowler from the past, would go for less than run a ball in T20s, you are mistaken. He would be successful and one of the top bowlers - yes, but going at less than run a ball in T20s - no.[/quote'] There are about a dozen spinners who go for less than run-a-ball in career T20 economy rates. There are about a dozen fast/fast-medium bowlers who go for just over run-a-ball in career T20 economy rates. I see no reason why the clear-cut stingiest fast bowler of the 1990s, who sported a stingier economy rate than ANY spinner of that era- couldnt have slotted in the under run-a-ball career economy rate in T20s.

[maniac]

No. Fanie had 3.57 RPO in ODIs over 83 games. Ambrose had 3.48 over 176 ODIs. Clear cut leader in the stingy department. And except for deVilliers and Ambrose, nobody else ende up with less than 3.7 career RPO while bowling in the 1990s. Pollock is the next IIRC at 3.71 or something similar.

I personally rate Fannie over Ambrose for 2 things....this was at a day and age when the game was played based on reputation and with a different mindset, I mean a 19-20 year old kid from Chennai or Rajasthan stepping out to the likes of Steyn,Bret Lee would be unheard of back in those days. Apart from that Ambrose had a reputation of this menancing bowler and Fannie was supposed to be the easy target with Donald steaming in from the other end...In such a scenario holding your own makes me rate Fanie over Ambrose. Also look at the list provided of expensive Ambrose spells,is it surprising that it has a lot of Srilankan games in it....could it be due to their openers who kind of set the benchmark in the mid 90's?

[vvvslaxman]

It is hard to predict his RPO in a T20 era.. one way or the other. He would still be the same wicket taking bowler. Wickets means ER will go down as batsmen will try to see you off. Sure occasionally even a random tailender or somebody can hoick you over.

[Muloghonto]

I personally rate Fannie over Ambrose for 2 things....this was at a day and age when the game was played based on reputation and with a different mindset, I mean a 19-20 year old kid from Chennai or Rajasthan stepping out to the likes of Steyn,Bret Lee would be unheard of back in those days. Apart from that Ambrose had a reputation of this menancing bowler and Fannie was supposed to be the easy target with Donald steaming in from the other end...In such a scenario holding your own makes me rate Fanie over Ambrose. Also look at the list provided of expensive Ambrose spells,is it surprising that it has a lot of Srilankan games in it....could it be due to their openers who kind of set the benchmark in the mid 90's?

Ambrose from 96 onwards was a Bhuvaneshwar Kumar speed bowler who got steep bounce and McGrath-esque accuracy. Ie, not unhittable but too consistent. His test figures from this period tends to be like 25-10-40-2 kinda ridiculous economy rate. Ambrose's drop in pace coincided with the rise of Jaya-Kalu pinch hitting dual combo of the Lankans and he may've been victimized by that. But in his youth, he bowled normally in the 88-91mph zone and that would've made him pretty immune to Jaya-Kalu blitzes. You've got Donald pegged wrong. He was always the bowler the batsmen went after the most because Donald attacked the stumps the most. Pollock and Fanie were the channel bowlers which made them harder to hit, with or without Donald bowling. Donald at his pomp would get you out nomatter what you did, so you might as well keep hitting his mediocre balls. Pollock & Fanie at their best were unhittable and batsmen got out by trying to force the issue against them far more than them bowling out-and-out wicket-taking deliveries. As such, i dont think the presence/absence of Donald had much to do with Pollock-Fanie's RPOs.

[nevada]

I think Imran Khan has done that in one of the match in Sharjah. Do not remember the exact year but he smashed him all round the park sometime late eighties.

He thrashed Joel Garner once at Sharjah in 1985. In one over he hit about 20 runs.

[thongale]

Also look at the list provided of expensive Ambrose spells' date='is it surprising that it has a lot of Srilankan games in it....could it be due to their openers who kind of set the benchmark in the mid 90's?[/quote']It was Jayasuriya and Aravinda in combination. Aravinda was never shy of short stuff.