Curtly Ambrose vs Glenn McGrath

[aarizzler720]

Curtly Ambrose vs Glenn McGrath is a classic comparison between two of the greatest fast bowlers in cricket history. While both were fearsome in their own ways, they had slightly different styles, strengths, and eras. Here’s a breakdown:

---

Career Stats Summary​

Metric	Curtly Ambrose	Glenn McGrath
Country	West Indies	Australia
Test Matches	98	124
Test Wickets	405	563
Test Bowling Average	20.99	21.64
ODI Matches	176	250
ODI Wickets	225	381
ODI Bowling Average	24.12	22.02
5-wicket hauls (Tests)	22	29
Best Test Bowling	8/45 vs England	8/24 vs Pakistan
Career Span	1988–2000	1993–2007

---

Style & Strengths​

Curtly Ambrose​

• Height: 6'7" – extracted steep bounce from any surface.
• Style: Relentless line and length with awkward bounce; hostile spells.
• Pace: Quick through the air.
• Famous For: Destroying England with 7 wickets for 1 run in 1993 (7/1 at Port of Spain).
• Personality: Quiet, deadly, intimidating presence.
• Legacy: Pillar of the last great West Indies pace attack.

Glenn McGrath​

• Height: 6'5"
• Style: Metronomic control – arguably the best ever at consistent line and length.
• Pace: Medium-fast, relied more on accuracy and bounce.
• Famous For: Targeting the best batters, e.g. dismissing Lara, Tendulkar frequently.
• Personality: Fiery, competitive, mentally strong.
• Legacy: Backbone of Australia’s golden era under Waugh and Ponting.
• In my opinion if Mcgrath was the bully then Curtly also never bowled a bad ball in his life. Who do you think is better. Discuss!

 

[mominsaigol]

Curtly Ambrose vs Glenn McGrath is a classic comparison between two of the greatest fast bowlers in cricket history. While both were fearsome in their own ways, they had slightly different styles, strengths, and eras. Here’s a breakdown:

---

Career Stats Summary​

Metric	Curtly Ambrose	Glenn McGrath
Country	West Indies	Australia
Test Matches	98	124
Test Wickets	405	563
Test Bowling Average	20.99	21.64
ODI Matches	176	250
ODI Wickets	225	381
ODI Bowling Average	24.12	22.02
5-wicket hauls (Tests)	22	29
Best Test Bowling	8/45 vs England	8/24 vs Pakistan
Career Span	1988–2000	1993–2007

---

Style & Strengths​

Curtly Ambrose​

• Height: 6'7" – extracted steep bounce from any surface.
• Style: Relentless line and length with awkward bounce; hostile spells.
• Pace: Quick through the air.
• Famous For: Destroying England with 7 wickets for 1 run in 1993 (7/1 at Port of Spain).
• Personality: Quiet, deadly, intimidating presence.
• Legacy: Pillar of the last great West Indies pace attack.

Glenn McGrath​

• Height: 6'5"
• Style: Metronomic control – arguably the best ever at consistent line and length.
• Pace: Medium-fast, relied more on accuracy and bounce.
• Famous For: Targeting the best batters, e.g. dismissing Lara, Tendulkar frequently.
• Personality: Fiery, competitive, mentally strong.
• Legacy: Backbone of Australia’s golden era under Waugh and Ponting.
• In my opinion if Mcgrath was the bully then Curtly also never bowled a bad ball in his life. Who do you think is better. Discuss!

Mcgrath

 

[aarizzler720]

Mcgrath

Yeah, guy bullied every best batter of his era and was a champion bowler with a champion mindset, also where would you rank ambrose, I think he's pretty close to pidge in terms of accuracy, also he had that height (fear factor) which no one had also did'nt avg more than 26 in any country

 

[mominsaigol]

Yeah, guy bullied every best batter of his era and was a champion bowler with a champion mindset, also where would you rank ambrose, I think he's pretty close to pidge in terms of accuracy, also he had that height (fear factor) which no one had also did'nt avg more than 26 in any country

Ambrose is still a champion top 5 bowler though. Both are legends

 

[aarizzler720]

Ambrose is still a champion top 5 bowler though. Both are legends

Man I have huge respect for pidge that guy is argubably one of the greatest cricketers of all time. 563 test wkts with an avg of 21.6 is just damn good and as the pitches got flatter that dude got better. I also love Ambrose as well he was also bloody consistent also had that height of 6'5 an absolute freakster, his record in Aus is just phenomenal.
My Top 5 bowlers are:
1.Marshall
2.Mcgrath
3. Hadlee
4.Ambrose
5.Wasim

 

[cricketmania22]

Man what a sight Ambrose was.. long leaps, high arm action, awkward bounce and his trademark stare. There was no one like him even in the era of great fast bowlers. He was my personal favorite. However, if I have to choose between him and McGrath as the better bowler, I’ll choose McGrath.

 

[aarizzler720]

Man what a sight Ambrose was.. long leaps, high arm action, awkward bounce and his trademark stare. There was no one like him even in the era of great fast bowlers. He was my personal favorite. However, if I have to choose between him and McGrath as the better bowler, I’ll choose McGrath.

Both were just phenomenal playing for a long time and still avg around 21-22 is just insane!

 

[big_gamer007]

McGrath is the best fast bowler to ever play the game all formats included.

One of the most difficult skills to achieve in any form of life is consistency and McGrath was so consistent with his line and length he beats all his peers.

Amby also is a top level bowler and definitely no slouch either, from bowlers I have watched he is probably top 3.

 

[aarizzler720]

McGrath is the best fast bowler to ever play the game all formats included.

One of the most difficult skills to achieve in any form of life is consistency and McGrath was so consistent with his line and length he beats all his peers.

Amby also is a top level bowler and definitely no slouch either, from bowlers I have watched he is probably top 3.

Who are your top pacers by the way, very keen to hear your opinion

 

[Ab Fan]

McGrath in Tests, McGrath in ODIs

Ambrose was the best bowler in the planet between 1990-1994 but since 1995, he was operating at same level as Walsh.

 

[aarizzler720]

McGrath in Tests, McGrath in ODIs

Ambrose was the best bowler in the planet between 1990-1994 but since 1995, he was operating at same level as Walsh.

Agreed, but Ambrose record everywhere has been phenomenal, In my opinion there really might not be much diff between them in tests, (in ODIs mcgrath was always better). You can maybe toss a coin to see who was better if that's the better way lol

 

[Ab Fan]

Agreed, but Ambrose record everywhere has been phenomenal, In my opinion there really might not be much diff between them in tests, (in ODIs mcgrath was always better). You can maybe toss a coin to see who was better if that's the better way lol

I think McGrath was better in tests as well.

More wickets, higher WPM, more proven in Asia despite pitches getting more flatter in 2000s. The 1995 WI vs Aus series was when Aussies took the crown from Windies.

For instance, look at Ambrose record since 1995:

Matches - 50, Wickets - 185, Avg 21, SR 55

 

[aarizzler720]

I think McGrath was better in tests as well.

More wickets, higher WPM, more proven in Asia despite pitches getting more flatter in 2000s. The 1995 WI vs Aus series was when Aussies took the crown from Windies.

For instance, look at Ambrose record since 1995:

Matches - 50, Wickets - 185, Avg 21, SR 55

Yeah I said as the pitches got flatter pidge got better. Mcgrath was a 22-23 Avg bowler in 90s, It was in 2000s on roads he avg 20 while bowling to Lara, Kallis, Tendulkar, Sanga, Dravid etc. I think Curtly was a beast in 90s, yeah but I think pidge was more of a complete bowler, was just a bloody accurate bowler, has more wkts in ODI wc at an insane average and maybe more matchwinning performances. Probably the bronze cricketer for Aussies after the Don and Warnie. As for Ambrose he had that fear factor the fear in the batter's eyes when a 6'5 mf was bowling to them, also his record in SENA is as good as mcgrath, butyeah in the end it was glenn who had the perfect career and more memorable moments

 

[BouncerGuy]

Both are champion bowlers... it will be hard to pick one.

 

[aarizzler720]

Both are champion bowlers... it will be hard to pick one.

In ODIs it's the Pidgeon was among the top 3 wkt takers in 99,03 and 07 WC and won,em all as well. In Tests the debate gets spicier both were just so damn good in their line and length.

 

[pratiktc]

It is misnomer that McGrath was medium fast. He only slowed down in his mid 30s a little else in 90s and early 00s he was as quick and deadly as Ambrose.

Medium fast is the kind of pace Abbas operates at or 2010 Asif levels.

Both McGrath and Ambrose were well above this and had enough pace to push batters back and bowl bouncer spells. Extra bounce off good length was anyway natural gift given their heights.

IMO both were equal quality ATG bowlers. There is really nothing to separate them other than personal preferences. I think skill wise McGrath had a wider range as he could also swing new ball both ways apart from seam movement.

Ambrose also could bowl outswing but relied more on seam and in end he bowled legcutter more

 

[Ab Fan]

Performance wise, Bumrah operates at similar level as Ambrose. Both are phenomenal vs Australia, both had a late start to their test careers ( age 24-25). Both played top teams more regularly than other contemporaries.

After 48 tests, Ambrose also had picked 219 wickets and Bumrah has same number of wickets too but with slightly better average and strike rate.

Only difference is Ambrose had a repeatable action to go on to play 50 tests more . He became less threatening during this phase but was very economical and Bumrah will likely be the same going forward although he would barely last 15-20 tests more.

 

[big_gamer007]

Who are your top pacers by the way, very keen to hear your opinion

From the ones I have seen, the top 4 pretty much selects themselves.

1. Mcgrath
2. Wasim
3. Amby
4. Steyn

These are the bowlers I enjoyed watching:

Shoaib, Waqar, Shane Bond, Anderson, Donald.

From current lot I enjoy watching:
Bumrah, Cummings, Archer, Starc.

I don’t watch SA matches so I don’t really watch Rabada, but he’s pretty good just not good enough for me to take out time to watch him bowl.

 

[sweep_shot]

McGrath wins easily.

McGrath is the best pacer of all time along with Wasim Akram.

 

[Vikram1989]

Ambrose suffered a shoulder injury in 94 due to heavy workloads.he missed the india tour and later came back for nz series but went down the hill steadily. In his book, he said counties used to treat players like slaves and exhaust them out.he said bowlers are treated with cushion currently but he used to play in county immediately 1 week after a home test series.it happened quite a few times.
After 95, bishop and Patrick Patterson back issues also flared up the workload issues.as there was never a good third bowler , He and Walsh have to bowl more.even team environment didn't helped out as Lara was desperately vying for captaincy role undermining Walsh .He explained multiple fights after 96wc disaster, sa whitewash , 95 test series loss against aus etc.few players used to fake injuries before crucial matches to skip and completely damage the morale.he thought of retiring in 98( i guess) but was pushed by Walsh for 400 wickets/100 test matches.

I have always enjoyed ambrose bowling. If u want an intimidating bowler u need ambrose but if u want a steady great opinion then mcgrath. I guess in test matches ambrose produced more back of the wall performances than mcgrath. I can recollect performances against Sa, eng, ind, aus from him.As per him ,he used to be a good batsmen too in his early career with an avg of early 20s . once wi started declining in pace , then he started concentrating on his bowling alone.

 

[Buffet]

I may be missing some names,

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose
Bumrah
IK
Donald
Garner
Lillee


Order for some players can varry a bit depending on specific day, but having watched McGrath and Ambrose both, It got to be McGrath between those two all the time. He was closer to Marshall.

 

[aarizzler720]

From the ones I have seen, the top 4 pretty much selects themselves.

1. Mcgrath
2. Wasim
3. Amby
4. Steyn

These are the bowlers I enjoyed watching:

Shoaib, Waqar, Shane Bond, Anderson, Donald.

From current lot I enjoy watching:
Bumrah, Cummings, Archer, Starc.

I don’t watch SA matches so I don’t really watch Rabada, but he’s pretty good just not good enough for me to take out time to watch him bowl.

I gave my best pacers of all time in a post above, I think the GOAT is Marshall closely followed by pidge. in this current era the best pacers are:
1. Bumrah
2. KG
3. Cummins
4. Shamar
5. Scotty Boland along with O'Rouke and Josh Hazlewood

 

[aarizzler720]

I may be missing some names,

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose
Bumrah
IK
Donald
Garner
Lillee


Order for some players can varry a bit depending on specific day, but having watched McGrath and Ambrose both, It got to be McGrath between those two all the time. He was closer to Marshall.

My Top 10 all format pacers are:
1.Marshall
2.Mcgrath
3.Hadlee
4.Ambrose
5.Wasim
6.Donald
7.Pollock
8.Steyn
9.Lillee
10.Imran
Also you can rank Bumrah as well maybe along with steyn

 

[aarizzler720]

McGrath wins easily.

McGrath is the best pacer of all time along with Wasim Akram.

Curtly is also a goat and probs better with Wasim in Tests and on par with pidge or maybe even better. His record isphenomenal everywhere

 

[sweep_shot]

Curtly is also a goat and probs better with Wasim in Tests and on par with pidge or maybe even better. His record isphenomenal everywhere

Nobody mentions Curtley when they talk about top 3 pacers.

I have a feeling you didn't see these guys live and are just going by stats.

From West Indies, there were other pacers who were better than Curtley. They were blessed with so many great pacers.

 

[NishanKonar]

Curtly Ambrose o n fast bouncy pitches. Glen McGrath on every other pitch

 

[atreus]

Nobody mentions Curtley when they talk about top 3 pacers.

I have a feeling you didn't see these guys live and are just going by stats.

From West Indies, there were other pacers who were better than Curtley. They were blessed with so many great pacers.

Ambrose is regarded as potentially the best ever, in Australia and England.

 

[sweep_shot]

Ambrose is regarded as potentially the best ever, in Australia and England.

I said overall. Not just Australia and England.

Curtley is not mentioned among top 3.

McGrath and Wasim get mentioned usually.

 

[aarizzler720]

I said overall. Not just Australia and England.

Curtley is not mentioned among top 3.

McGrath and Wasim get mentioned usually.

As all format bowlers Mcgrath, Wasim, Hadlee etc get more mention, However in tests curtly ambrose is arguably a goat bowler, he and Lara helped a WI team win series in Aus, but you are right pidge and waz will get more remembered more because they produced more memorable moments and had that flair and aggression

 

[Buffet]

My Top 10 all format pacers are:
1.Marshall
2.Mcgrath
3.Hadlee
4.Ambrose
5.Wasim
6.Donald
7.Pollock
8.Steyn
9.Lillee
10.Imran
Also you can rank Bumrah as well maybe along with steyn

I was only listing the test format. For all formats, many names like Steyn, Lillee, Marshall etc will drop out.

 

[atreus]

I said overall. Not just Australia and England.

Curtley is not mentioned among top 3.

McGrath and Wasim get mentioned usually.

Wasim is substantially better than Curtly in One Day Cricket but Ambrose is substantially better in Red Ball Cricket, though Wasim's peer reputation is off the charts. there's probably not much difference between the opinions on Ambrose vs McGrath.

 

[atreus]

Ambrose's ability to destroy great batting units on fast bowling pitches is transcendent, I don't really know if there has ever been a fast bowler as destructive and consistently demonic as Curtly Ambrose on pitches that had something, anything, Seam movement or uneven bounce or high pace and bounce or just overcast conditions. Ambrose could be blocked away and tamed on true batting pitches though, you could never dominate him but you could ignore him, this was especially true in the second half of the career when he bowled less and less.

McGrath did all of that, he was inferior to Ambrose on bowling pitches but by very little but was a lot more creative than Ambrose on flat pitches, and had a bit of reverse and never really lost miles in his legs like Ambrose did. So, I'd rate McGrath higher.

 

[Buffet]

Shane Warne's list of greatest cricketers
1 Sachin Tendulkar 2 Brian Lara 3 Curtly Ambrose 4 Allan Border 5 Glenn McGrath

 

[atreus]

I think McGrath was better in tests as well.

More wickets, higher WPM, more proven in Asia despite pitches getting more flatter in 2000s. The 1995 WI vs Aus series was when Aussies took the crown from Windies.

For instance, look at Ambrose record since 1995:

Matches - 50, Wickets - 185, Avg 21, SR 55

his surgery in 1994 I think left him a reduced bowler in term of pace and how many overs he could bowl.

 

[Bewal Express]

On flat wickets Mcgrath was much more aggressive and a better bowler. Curtly didnt have the aggression in Ind or PK. On Aussie wickets pretty equal

 

[tiger_khan]

Cricket law-makers have been unfair to Ambrose. When he arrived to the scene, he was hurting quite a few batters with his bouncers. Just imagine all six deliveries could have been either lethal bouncers or yorkers...

They banned the bouncers (no-balls) all together back then - later on they brought a rule of maximum bouncers in an over.

McGrath never had a lethal short delivery but he was a master of his own art. I rate McGrath better than Waseem and Waqar. He used to get top order batsmen out, unlike our legends who started to get more wickets with the new-ball in the tail-end of their careers.

I be honest...I'll hate to face either of these legends.

 

[TheSultan]

Anyone who has watched the WHOLE of both their careers will know Ambrose was better. He was more intimidating, quicker and was getting wickets when batsmen used to have patience.

IMO ODIs going mainstream in the 90s ripped patience away from batsmen. Ambrose benefitted from this too, but moreso McGrath who started in 1994.

If McGrath bowled in the 80s, batsmen would happily araam se leave his harmless floaty deliveries outside outside off stump. Even the Aussie commentators in his early career used to say of McGrath “We’ve found a good 3rd seamer but he’s no replacement for McDermott”. The problem is they were judging based on the calibre of batsmen in the immediate era that preceded him. McGrath used to rely on the mistake of batsmen, he couldn’t force anyone out.

Following that, just being part of that Aussie team just gave him a big advantage because of team intimidation.

Ambrose was a better, quicker and more skilled version of McGrath.

 

[Shafikapeo]

I love Curtly Ambrose and fear Glenn McGrath.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Anyone who has watched the WHOLE of both their careers will know Ambrose was better. He was more intimidating, quicker and was getting wickets when batsmen used to have patience.

IMO ODIs going mainstream in the 90s ripped patience away from batsmen. Ambrose benefitted from this too, but moreso McGrath who started in 1994.

If McGrath bowled in the 80s, batsmen would happily araam se leave his harmless floaty deliveries outside outside off stump. Even the Aussie commentators in his early career used to say of McGrath “We’ve found a good 3rd seamer but he’s no replacement for McDermott”. The problem is they were judging based on the calibre of batsmen in the immediate era that preceded him. McGrath used to rely on the mistake of batsmen, he couldn’t force anyone out.

Following that, just being part of that Aussie team just gave him a big advantage because of team intimidation.

Ambrose was a better, quicker and more skilled version of McGrath.

Yet Mcgrath dominated all those typical 80s mentality "tuktuk" players you mention, from Atherton to Dravid to Kallis. It was actually batsmen who tried to attack Mcgrath, got some success against him. Most defensive styled batsmen were his usual bunnies.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

I said overall. Not just Australia and England.

Curtley is not mentioned among top 3.

McGrath and Wasim get mentioned usually.

Wasim Akram never was top ranked in the test format. Both Mcgrath and Ambrose were better than Wasim in test format. I still consider Wasim akram to be greatest underachiever in cricket given the sheer amount of talent the guy had.
Mcgrath, because he made that Australian side the greatest ever, will be my pick as the GOAT bowler. He just had that invisible aura in him.

 

[TheSultan]

Yet Mcgrath dominated all those typical 80s mentality "tuktuk" players you mention, from Atherton to Dravid to Kallis. It was actually batsmen who tried to attack Mcgrath, got some success against him. Most defensive styled batsmen were his usual bunnies.

Thats a very simplistic take. That’s 2 out of many batsmen. England in general were so in awe of Australia in the 90s and early 2000s, it was just too easy for McGrath. So that devalues a lot of McGrath and Warne wickets for me.

There is some truth that he had a lot of bunnies, it was mainly the ones Australia had a mental hold of, not McGrath per se.

My argument remains. He wouldn’t have been as effective in the 80s. Bowlers like McGrath were relief bowlers

 

[JaDed]

Ambrose in tests, Mcgrath overall

 

[JaDed]

Anyone who has watched the WHOLE of both their careers will know Ambrose was better. He was more intimidating, quicker and was getting wickets when batsmen used to have patience.

IMO ODIs going mainstream in the 90s ripped patience away from batsmen. Ambrose benefitted from this too, but moreso McGrath who started in 1994.

If McGrath bowled in the 80s, batsmen would happily araam se leave his harmless floaty deliveries outside outside off stump. Even the Aussie commentators in his early career used to say of McGrath “We’ve found a good 3rd seamer but he’s no replacement for McDermott”. The problem is they were judging based on the calibre of batsmen in the immediate era that preceded him. McGrath used to rely on the mistake of batsmen, he couldn’t force anyone out.

Following that, just being part of that Aussie team just gave him a big advantage because of team intimidation.

Ambrose was a better, quicker and more skilled version of McGrath.

Mcgrath improved over the years, he made batsman play as well even the traditional test cricketers that would leave a good ball Mcgrath made them play..

 

[Ab Fan]

We can do ifs and buts for many players and come to an assumption that if they played in this era, they won’t have been successful but ultimately a player should be rated on his actual career performance.

The four standout bowlers of that era was McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim and Donald and of the four, McGrath stood out in both the formats with unassailable consistency and amazing longevity.

 

[sweep_shot]

In ODI, McGrath wins by a mile.

In Test, McGrath also wins. McGrath has 563 Test wickets while Curtley has less than 420. Both have similar averages. McGrath also has more 5-fers.

McGrath wins overall.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Thats a very simplistic take. That’s 2 out of many batsmen. England in general were so in awe of Australia in the 90s and early 2000s, it was just too easy for McGrath. So that devalues a lot of McGrath and Warne wickets for me.

There is some truth that he had a lot of bunnies, it was mainly the ones Australia had a mental hold of, not McGrath per se.

My argument remains. He wouldn’t have been as effective in the 80s. Bowlers like McGrath were relief bowlers

Well you can only perform against those you play. What you're saying is not an argument, rather a belief that Mcgrath would've been ineffective against classical styled defensive batsmen. Stats though, tell us a different story.

 

[sweep_shot]

We can do ifs and buts for many players and come to an assumption that if they played in this era, they won’t have been successful but ultimately a player should be rated on his actual career performance.

The four standout bowlers of that era was McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim and Donald and of the four, McGrath stood out in both the formats with unassailable consistency and amazing longevity.

Yes.

Hypothetical scenarios do not matter. What matters are the actual performances/stats.

 

[kron]

Yes.

Hypothetical scenarios do not matter. What matters are the actual performances/stats.

Yea so Anderson is the best bowler if only stats matter given number of wickets right?

And also ashwin and kumble are better than steyn

 

[kron]

In ODI, McGrath wins by a mile.

In Test, McGrath also wins. McGrath has 563 Test wickets while Curtley has less than 420. Both have similar averages. McGrath also has more 5-fers.

McGrath wins overall.

Anderson is better than both because he had like 700 wickets right?

 

[kron]

I said overall. Not just Australia and England.

Curtley is not mentioned among top 3.

McGrath and Wasim get mentioned usually.

Nonsense Wasim is never in top 3

Averages 28 in SEWAI

Not even close

He is below Steyn, bumrah and Rabada and

 

[kron]

It is misnomer that McGrath was medium fast. He only slowed down in his mid 30s a little else in 90s and early 00s he was as quick and deadly as Ambrose.

Medium fast is the kind of pace Abbas operates at or 2010 Asif levels.

Both McGrath and Ambrose were well above this and had enough pace to push batters back and bowl bouncer spells. Extra bounce off good length was anyway natural gift given their heights.

IMO both were equal quality ATG bowlers. There is really nothing to separate them other than personal preferences. I think skill wise McGrath had a wider range as he could also swing new ball both ways apart from seam movement.

Ambrose also could bowl outswing but relied more on seam and in end he bowled legcutter more

McGrath was quick in his prime. 130 to 142 pace

Anyone who says otherwise is clueless and delusional. Like sweepy.

Without McGrath that Australia team was very very beatable. He made them a force. Without McGrath they don’t win anywhere near as many tests. Or hell even odi.

Ambrose too was lethal but he dint tour India.

Ambrose in Australia team and the results would be the same. I think they are both equally too good

Very hard to compare.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Ambrose was a better Test bowler but he played in an era where bowling was relatively more favorable than today. But he was still a giant.. He would have succeeded in today's era also.

 

[kron]

Ambrose was a better Test bowler but he played in an era where bowling was relatively more favorable than today. But he was still a giant.. He would have succeeded in today's era also.

Yea he would well in any era
McGrath was a metronome. Just relentless.

Ability to run through sides? Then I would say ambrose

Taking key wickets consistently then McGrath.
It’s truly a toss up.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

McGrath wins easily.

McGrath is the best pacer of all time along with Wasim Akram.

Nah, Wasim was never better than Mcgrath or Curtly. He was never ranked number one in test bowling ranking.

Wasim was the 4th best test pacer of the 90s.
Mcgrath
Ambrose
Donald
Wasim

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Thats a very simplistic take. That’s 2 out of many batsmen. England in general were so in awe of Australia in the 90s and early 2000s, it was just too easy for McGrath. So that devalues a lot of McGrath and Warne wickets for me.

There is some truth that he had a lot of bunnies, it was mainly the ones Australia had a mental hold of, not McGrath per se.

My argument remains. He wouldn’t have been as effective in the 80s. Bowlers like McGrath were relief bowlers

A bowler similar to Mcgrath named Joel Garner averaged 20 in the 70s and 80s, so your argument doesn’t really hold.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

McGrath was quick in his prime. 130 to 142 pace

Anyone who says otherwise is clueless and delusional. Like sweepy.

Without McGrath that Australia team was very very beatable. He made them a force. Without McGrath they don’t win anywhere near as many tests. Or hell even odi.

Ambrose too was lethal but he dint tour India.

Ambrose in Australia team and the results would be the same. I think they are both equally too good

Very hard to compare.

I would argue that it was Mcgrath who made the Aussies an ATG team, without him they were inferior to saffers and at par with Strauss’ England. Its a hot take but I have facts to support it.

Mcgrath didn’t play the full Ashes 2005 and Eng won their first ashes after 19 years.

Mcgrath didn’t play BGT 2003-2004 and India managed to draw that series.

In 1997 Ashes, Mcgrath missed one test and England won that, their only victory in that series.

1998 Ashes, missed 5th test, Eng won that game, the only one in that series

2001 ashes, 5th game, Eng won, their only victory

Australias W/L ration without mcgrath is 15/12 =1.25.

Basically their won percentage dropped from 75% to 50%.


This is also why I consider the West Indies of 80s a way better test team than Aus because unlike Aus they didn’t rely on one ATG pacer, they had 4 ATG pacers operating side by side.

 

[kron]

I would argue that it was Mcgrath who made the Aussies an ATG team, without him they were inferior to saffers and at par with Strauss’ England. Its a hot take but I have facts to support it.

Mcgrath didn’t play the full Ashes 2005 and Eng won their first ashes after 19 years.

Mcgrath didn’t play BGT 2003-2004 and India managed to draw that series.

In 1997 Ashes, Mcgrath missed one test and England won that, their only victory in that series.

1998 Ashes, missed 5th test, Eng won that game, the only one in that series

2001 ashes, 5th game, Eng won, their only victory

Australias W/L ration without mcgrath is 15/12 =1.25.

Basically their won percentage dropped from 75% to 50%.


This is also why I consider the West Indies of 80s a way better test team than Aus because unlike Aus they didn’t rely on one ATG pacer, they had 4 ATG pacers operating side by side.

No debate

West Indies of 80s to early 90s is the goat test team.

No doubt

Way better than overrated Aussies of 97 to 2006 who were extremely beatable in certain conditions and also without McGrath they lose a lot of their match winning ability.

 

[mominsaigol]

I would argue that it was Mcgrath who made the Aussies an ATG team, without him they were inferior to saffers and at par with Strauss’ England. Its a hot take but I have facts to support it.

Mcgrath didn’t play the full Ashes 2005 and Eng won their first ashes after 19 years.

Mcgrath didn’t play BGT 2003-2004 and India managed to draw that series.

In 1997 Ashes, Mcgrath missed one test and England won that, their only victory in that series.

1998 Ashes, missed 5th test, Eng won that game, the only one in that series

2001 ashes, 5th game, Eng won, their only victory

Australias W/L ration without mcgrath is 15/12 =1.25.

Basically their won percentage dropped from 75% to 50%.


This is also why I consider the West Indies of 80s a way better test team than Aus because unlike Aus they didn’t rely on one ATG pacer, they had 4 ATG pacers operating side by side.

Aus had a better batting side at the time but only slightly. Sa was overall a more allrounded team.

Mcgrath made the difference 100%. Sa typically beat aus if mcgrath was absent.

 

[Vikram1989]

I would argue that it was Mcgrath who made the Aussies an ATG team, without him they were inferior to saffers and at par with Strauss’ England. Its a hot take but I have facts to support it.

Mcgrath didn’t play the full Ashes 2005 and Eng won their first ashes after 19 years.

Mcgrath didn’t play BGT 2003-2004 and India managed to draw that series.

In 1997 Ashes, Mcgrath missed one test and England won that, their only victory in that series.

1998 Ashes, missed 5th test, Eng won that game, the only one in that series

2001 ashes, 5th game, Eng won, their only victory

Australias W/L ration without mcgrath is 15/12 =1.25.

Basically their won percentage dropped from 75% to 50%.


This is also why I consider the West Indies of 80s a way better test team than Aus because unlike Aus they didn’t rely on one ATG pacer, they had 4 ATG pacers operating side by side.

I dont think its completely due to mcgrath. Saffers were never same after cronje saga.mcgrath wasn't able to stop 96 delhi loss, 2001 india series loss, wi 99 series ( 2 matches were lost ), oval 2005 draw in a must scenario.sa lost test series in 97 aus due to waugh controversy.Mcgrath definitely made an impact but not that 25 percent attributed by u. As @Buffet shown earlier in other thread , mcgrath took only one 5 fer in sub continent. So its a lots of collective success at various stages.

 

[TheSultan]

A bowler similar to Mcgrath named Joel Garner averaged 20 in the 70s and 80s, so your argument doesn’t really hold.

He was not similar, garner was taller, quicker and got more bounce.