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

[Muloghonto]

Yes. Ambrose was a great bowler' date=' one of my all time favorite and have seen a lot of him but please stop exaggerating. He was no way 90 mph bowler. He still has lesser SR than McGrath. [/quote'] So now Ambrose is not a 90mph bowler because he was super stingy and cared more about runs leaked than strike rate ? Fine piece of kid logic here. Ambrose in the early-mid 90s till his shoulder injury was 88-91mph zone bowler. Wisden experts have commented on how seriously fast he was, batsmen have said so. Sorry, you dont count. Speed does not equate to better strike rate. Lee was heck of a lot faster than McGrath, McGrath has the better strike rate. Again, you come up with ridiculous fantasies and peddle them as some sort of gospel, which as usual, runs counter to expert opinions of people who've watched them when you havn't. I am not surprised, i am just annoyed that you havnt seem them much and yet you talk crap all the time. I dont have perceptions or fantasies. I've watched the entire career of Ambrose. Have you ? Given the crap you say, i bet you havnt seen Ambrose bowl in the pre 1996 era live. And I am sure you will try to convince me how your 5 min youtube viewing is correct and Wisden experts and batsmen who've faced him are wrong. I have no time for arrogant pr!cks like you who thinks armchair bowling expertese running consistently counter to expert opinions are still right, despite not being a party to seeing them.

[rkt.india]

So now Ambrose is not a 90mph bowler because he was super stingy and cared more about runs leaked than strike rate ? Fine piece of kid logic here. Ambrose in the early-mid 90s till his shoulder injury was 88-91mph zone bowler. Wisden experts have commented on how seriously fast he was, batsmen have said so. Sorry, you dont count.

And they count when you dont have speed guns in those days. I let you prove your words. Ambrose and Walsh were pretty much like Mcgrath in everything.

Speed does not equate to better strike rate. Lee was heck of a lot faster than McGrath' date=' McGrath has the better strike rate. Again, you come up with ridiculous fantasies and peddle them as some sort of gospel, which as usual, runs counter to expert opinions of people who've watched them when you havn't.[/quote'] I have watched enough of them to say that. I may not have watched cricket in 80s, but watched enough in 90s and now dont say videos of 90 are not good enough to assess their pace. Watch this. Harmison. Look at Ponting's wicket 93 mph. Harmison is one of the fastest bowler England have ever produced, could bowl 95 mph. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMg9u2WVphg]Steve Harmison 5 for 33 - Australia v England at Bristol 2005 Natwest Tri Series - YouTube[/ame]

[Muloghonto]

And they count when you dont have speed guns in those days. I let you prove your words. Ambrose and Walsh were pretty much like Mcgrath in everything.

Alan Border trumps you, sonny. He says Ambrose was express, it was express. I dont care what you say- pro batsmen are more than capable of telling apart the difference between McGrath and Steyn in speed. It is an insult to cricketers and to cricket itself if some two-bit kid like you get to trump the opinion of those who've faced him on how fast he was. Sorry, doesnt work that way.

I have watched enough of them to say that. I may not have watched cricket in 80s, but watched enough in 90s and now dont say videos of 90 are not good enough to assess their pace.

You havnt watched Ambrose prior to 96, when he had an extended layoff and lost a heap ton of pace, if you think he was not express.

Watch this. Harmison. Look at Ponting's wicket 93 mph. Harmison is one of the fastest bowler England have ever produced, could bowl 95 mph.

Ambrose too was capable of such pace when he was at his angriest. If Dean Jones, who played for the same state as Jeff Thompson, with Jeff thompson says that Ambrose at his fastest started being scary fast, it trumps anything you gotto say on the matter.

[StatsRock]

Muloghonto, Ha! Do not waste a minute debating with that infant who believes his toy helicopters can rival the USAF. You are not the first neither will you be the last :haha: This is what Waugh wrote in his autobiography about Ambrose: To me, Curtly Ambrose was the supreme fast bowling machine. He moved with the ease and grace of a champion athlete across the ground, was beautifully balanced and coordinated, and could blast you with pace if needed or revert to a strategic assault. He owned the trait everyone wants but few possess: the gift of being able to shift into that extra gear when needed. This is just one of many quotes about Ambrose spread over several chapters. He's had several bloody encounters with the Windies(Melbourne Test '88, 100 at Sydney '92, 200 at Sabina '95) and he knows what he's talking about. The Australians were *****ing bricks when they walked to bat at Perth for the 5th test in 1992, series level 1-1, because they noticed the keeper collecting balls way above his chest on Day 1 morning and knew Ambrose would kill them before lunch. Ambi was one freak of a fast bowler. PS: There is a reason why Harmison is nicknamed 'Harmless One' by English fans but then this kid definitely loves his youtube videos :haha: If you read some of his past posts, you will piss yourself laughing.

[rkt.india]

Muloghonto, Ha! Do not waste a minute debating with that infant who believes his toy helicopters can rival the USAF. You are not the first neither will you be the last :haha: This is what Waugh wrote in his autobiography about Ambrose: To me, Curtly Ambrose was the supreme fast bowling machine. He moved with the ease and grace of a champion athlete across the ground, was beautifully balanced and coordinated, and could blast you with pace if needed or revert to a strategic assault. He owned the trait everyone wants but few possess: the gift of being able to shift into that extra gear when needed. This is just one of many quotes about Ambrose spread over several chapters. He's had several bloody encounters with the Windies(Melbourne Test '88, 100 at Sydney '92, 200 at Sabina '95) and he knows what he's talking about. The Australians were *****ing bricks when they walked to bat at Perth for the 5th test in 1992, series level 1-1, because they noticed the keeper collecting balls way above his chest on Day 1 morning and knew Ambrose would kill them before lunch. Ambi was one freak of a fast bowler. PS: There is a reason why Harmison is nicknamed 'Harmless One' by English fans but then this kid definitely loves his youtube videos :haha: If you read some of his past posts, you will piss yourself laughing.

So you are telling I should believe exaggerated words written in a book which is written with only purpose that is to be sold in which you expect to find such writing but it does not mean you take them literally. You are telling I should not believe what I am watching in videos but the words which I am reading or listening. I never said Harmison was better than Ambrose. Ambrose is an ATG. Point of contention here was pace of the two. I said Harmison was quicker but only pace does not make anyone great. I never confronted about the greatness of Ambrose or any other great bowler. Ambrose is one of my all time favorite fast bowlers.

[Crookbond]

I dont have perceptions or fantasies. I've watched the entire career of Ambrose. Have you ? Given the crap you say, i bet you havnt seen Ambrose bowl in the pre 1996 era live. And I am sure you will try to convince me how your 5 min youtube viewing is correct and Wisden experts and batsmen who've faced him are wrong. I have no time for arrogant pr!cks like you who thinks armchair bowling expertese running consistently counter to expert opinions are still right, despite not being a party to seeing them.

Muloghonto - I want you to settle this youtube gimmick in this thread itself. In the past, we have seen experts (ahem ahem)on ICF who used some video editing tools to determine the speed of the bowlers in earlier eras like Tyson, Thompson, Lilleee etc. They have come to bizarre conclusions like Tyson was a trundler etc. Please, please please settle this! All the above was done to show Tendulkar > Bradman

[Crookbond]

So you are telling I should believe exaggerated words written in a book which is written with only purpose that is to be sold in which you expect to find such writing but it does not mean you take them literally. You are telling I should not believe what I am watching in videos but the words which I am reading or listening. I never said Harmison was better than Ambrose. Ambrose is an ATG. Point of contention here was pace of the two. I said Harmison was quicker but only pace does not make anyone great. I never confronted about the greatness of Ambrose or any other great bowler. Ambrose is one of my all time favorite fast bowlers.

Unless you have watched all videos of any bowler, your sample is biased and your conclusion can be wrong. Your opinion - by that fact - could be deprecating by the same amount they are exaggerated in the books.

[rkt.india]

Unless you have watched all videos of any bowler' date=' your sample is biased and your conclusion can be wrong. Your opinion - by that fact - could be deprecating by the same amount they are exaggerated in the books.[/quote'] When I say Lillie, Thommo, Holding, Bishop were express quicks. I say this by watching those same videos too. It is not like I have not watched Ambrose. I have watched a lot of cricket in 90s as I started watching in 90s. Even people who are arguing all this might not have watched all the matches because of lack of coverage. They are just arguing because they have read that. Once Boss Bhai had posted an exaggerate article about Viv and his battle with Len Pascoe but once you saw the video of that battle which article was on, yow will say WTF, that is height of exaggeration.

[Crookbond]

When I say Lillie' date=' Thommo, Holding, Bishop were express quicks. I say this by watching those same videos too. It is not like I have not watched Ambrose. I have watched a lot of cricket in 90s as I started watching in 90s.[/quote'] In order to make a decision, you need to have all data. Since you are sampling from some parts the data - you need to make sure that those samples represent the overall population. Youtube (by definition) is for attention wh**** Therefore, 80 % of videos will either be extremely positive or extremely negative while the rest 20% will be somewhere in between (Pareto Law). This makes more a case that your sample is biased and since you draw a conclusion from that biased sample, it may not hold water. Never mind issues in technological content of videos etc. I know you have watched a lot of cricket in the 90s but the problem is that you can't use a few videos to judge a bowler's speed. Shaun Pollock would be also classified as a trundler (forever) if that was the case.

[rkt.india]

Iample, it may not hold water. Never mind issues in technological content of videos etc. I know you have watched a lot of cricket in the 90s but the problem is that you can't use a few videos to judge a bowler's speed. Shaun Pollock would be also classified as a trundler (forever) if that was the case.

But Pollock never was quick in first place. A genuine quick bowler even if loses pace wont start bowling 120s. Case in example Lee, Actor, Bond. They all lost pace, but they did not start bowling 120s-130s. Even after suffering so many injuries, Bond was clocking 150K in his last test series in his 30s and it is not about just age. Dirk Nannes and Shane Harwood from Victoria are two of the oldest pacers going around and still clocks 145 Kph.

[Crookbond]

But Pollock never was quick in first place. A genuine quick bowler even if loses pace wont start bowling 120s. Case in example Lee' date= Actor, Bond. They all lost pace, but they did not start bowling 120s-130s. Even after suffering so many injuries, Bond was clocking 150K in his last test series in his 30s and it is not about just age. Dirk Nannes and Shane Harwood from Victoria are two of the oldest pacers going around and still clocks 145 Kph.

He was not a 110kmph trundler either and it is easy to make that judgment if you watch him bowling on that SA (KAndy?) pitch. Btw, Pollock was not like 140 kmph quick but still in the high 130s when he burst onto the scene with a quick bouncer. But, if succinctly my point is that you can't generalize the pace of yesteryears bowlers by watching a dozen videos on Youtube. It is not scientific.

[Muloghonto]

So you are telling I should believe exaggerated words written in a book which is written with only purpose that is to be sold in which you expect to find such writing but it does not mean you take them literally. You are telling I should not believe what I am watching in videos but the words which I am reading or listening. I never said Harmison was better than Ambrose. Ambrose is an ATG. Point of contention here was pace of the two. I said Harmison was quicker but only pace does not make anyone great. I never confronted about the greatness of Ambrose or any other great bowler. Ambrose is one of my all time favorite fast bowlers.

F-off about your few minutes of youtube clips, seriously. So Steve Waugh is lying to sell books, Sherwin Campbell (who i know personally) is making stuff up to over-glorify west indians, every single wisden article written on Ambrose's furious pace is a fabrication to sell news but *YOU* - you the kid who's been watching cricket from the *** end of 1990s knows better. There is a phrase for your viewpoint: delusions of grandeur. Those who think they know better than the professional cricketers who've been through the thick of it are nothing more than ignorant A-holes more interested in being right than educated on the topic. As i said, your few minutes of youtube clips versus pro opinion from who've faced them. I dont care what *YOU* think. If a guy looks like a trundler on tv but the guy who faced him says he is Akhtar-esque fast, i will go with his word than your video clips. To do otherwise, is to be delusional, pure and simple. And disrespectful towards the game and its practitioners. Basically they are liars and know nothing but a kid watching youtube knows better. Pathetic, really.

[fineleg]

On the one hand: 1. We have accounts by International professional cricketers who have faced a quick bowler and can compare him with other quicks they have personally faced. On the other hand: 2. We have fans watching youtube video (or even TV) and drawing conclusions. Seriously, who would sound more credible? Pls. pause and think.

[Muloghonto]

Muloghonto - I want you to settle this youtube gimmick in this thread itself. In the past, we have seen experts (ahem ahem)on ICF who used some video editing tools to determine the speed of the bowlers in earlier eras like Tyson, Thompson, Lilleee etc. They have come to bizarre conclusions like Tyson was a trundler etc. Please, please please settle this! All the above was done to show Tendulkar > Bradman

There is nothing to settle, those who think they can use non-standardized camera angles to judge how far back a wicketkeeper is standing and how fast someone are bowling are, to put it simply, full of beans and do not know that their extrapolations mean nothing and is scientifically invalid. maybe this is why nobody who is worth their salt has ever written a book or an article on bowlers extrapolating how fast they are from youtube videos.

[Muloghonto]

In order to make a decision, you need to have all data. Since you are sampling from some parts the data - you need to make sure that those samples represent the overall population. Youtube (by definition) is for attention wh**** Therefore, 80 % of videos will either be extremely positive or extremely negative while the rest 20% will be somewhere in between (Pareto Law). This makes more a case that your sample is biased and since you draw a conclusion from that biased sample, it may not hold water. Never mind issues in technological content of videos etc. I know you have watched a lot of cricket in the 90s but the problem is that you can't use a few videos to judge a bowler's speed. Shaun Pollock would be also classified as a trundler (forever) if that was the case.

Even if you watched the entire youtube video library on Ambrose, i doubt it would add up to over 2-3 hours of footage. That is one sessions worth of play. If its assinine to say 'I've seen Ambrose in one test and he is xyz stuff' then its far more assinine to say it on the basis of a couple of hours of footage

[StatsRock]

So you are telling I should believe exaggerated words written in a book which is written with only purpose that is to be sold in which you expect to find such writing but it does not mean you take them literally.

HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

[NameGoesHere]

F-off about your few minutes of youtube clips, seriously. So Steve Waugh is lying to sell books, Sherwin Campbell (who i know personally) is making stuff up to over-glorify west indians, every single wisden article written on Ambrose's furious pace is a fabrication to sell news but *YOU* - you the kid who's been watching cricket from the *** end of 1990s knows better. There is a phrase for your viewpoint: delusions of grandeur. Those who think they know better than the professional cricketers who've been through the thick of it are nothing more than ignorant A-holes more interested in being right than educated on the topic. As i said, your few minutes of youtube clips versus pro opinion from who've faced them. I dont care what *YOU* think. If a guy looks like a trundler on tv but the guy who faced him says he is Akhtar-esque fast, i will go with his word than your video clips. To do otherwise, is to be delusional, pure and simple. And disrespectful towards the game and its practitioners. Basically they are liars and know nothing but a kid watching youtube knows better. Pathetic, really.

Word. To think that people these days are dissing Ambrose. :haha: And putting him the same sentence as Harmison, effing Harmieffingson!