What's new

Curtly Ambrose - Where would he rank amongst the great fast bowlers of all time?

I remember watching Curtly on Test highlights as a kid and he was just this big, lanky, gangly man who thumped his way to the crease and was great at bouncing opponents out on cracking pitches...pitches which today would receive poor ratings by the ICC.
I can assure you he was more than just a cracked pitch bully or simply a line and length merchant, he was a proper matchwinner.

Curtly Ambrose is one of the main reasons why Australia's era of dominance began in 1995 and not earlier. His spells at Adelaide and Perth (where he took 7-1) in 1992-93 stopped Australia from handing West Indies their first Test series defeat since 1980. The one of the marks of greatness is how well you perform against the best team in your era - Ambrose averaged 21 against the Aussies. Allan Donald, who's also one of my favourites, in contrast averaged 31.

Another example is the 1992 Bridgetown Test vs South Africa - their first against WI since readmission. SAF were coasting in a chase of 200 at 122-2. Losing to SAF then was unthinkable for a black team. Ambrose and Walsh bowled virtually unchanged and SA were dismissed for 148.

Yes he was almost unplayable on those crumbling, uneven pitches in the Caribbean as England found out in Barbados 1990 when he took 8-45 to seal a come from behind series win, and again in Trinidad 1994 when they were shot out for 46 all out in a chase of 194, and as India saw in Barbados 1997 when dismissed for 81 in a chase of 120.

Even on his last legs as a bowler, he still remained as potent as ever. Take the 2000 Trinidad Test vs Zimbabwe. WI only had 99 to defend but Ambrose and co. bowled them out for 63. On an awful tour of England in 2000, their first defeat to them in 31 years, him and Walsh still were leading the way as their top performers.

What's remarkable is cricket wasn't even his first passion. It was basketball. My only criticism was his limited exposure to Asia, and perhaps got moody if things didn't go his way. But make no mistake he belongs in a Top 5 list of ATG bowlers, and second only to Malcolm Marshall in the pantheon of ATG WI bowlers.
 
I rate Donald and Ambrose in his early career.

Pollock and Mcgrath. Boring, boring, boring.

The reason why I do have a negative perception of them is because it’s all very well and good having great line and length and being miserly, but those same bowlers wouldn’t have had a career prior to the 90s.

By that I mean they wouldn’t have got as many wickets as they did. In the 80s and before, you needed more because batsmen had a lot more patience to just leave the ball more often. From the 90s onwards, with the general run rate getting quicker, maybe loss of patience etc, it brought these bowlers in to the game more.

These weren’t bowlers who would force wickets and for me, you are missing a crucial ingredient if you don’t have that. Moreover, I tend to rate bowlers based on how they would do in any era. The metronomes would not last in other eras. They would just be 3rd/4th seamers.

In fact, I remember when Mcgrath burst on the scene, one of the aussie writers did a compelling analysis on his merits as the next potential great. “Good 3rd seamer, but he’s certainly not a replacement for McDermott he hasn’t got that extra gear or anything special about him”.

Now we can say Mcgrath proved that writer wrong. However, he was judging based on what had gone on before. And in that assessment he was right.

If we take it a step further, let’s think about metronomes from the mid 2000s onwards. Have there been any great ones? I can’t remember any. Stuart Clark was touted as the natural heir to Mcgrath. He disappeared soon after. Hazlewood is another one now. However, he’s had to develop his bowling more and will never be bracketed with the likes of Mcgrath.

Yes some medium pacers have done well recently like Anderson, Philander etc, they were accurate, but they had more - they could swing it prodigiously. We can argue that batsmen have learned to deal with the metronomes now too.

A case can be made that metronomes had a window to make hay - and that window was probably 1994-2006. Well done, but in other eras you may just be simple trundlers.

Good counterargument, but keep in mind Ambrose has over 400 Test wickets and had better Test bowling average than both Wasim Akram & Glenn McGrath.
 
Great bowler. But you can always find holes in that record like with any great bowler. No proper tour of Asia where he did well except for 1990 Pakistan. Played on a lot of dodgy wickets in the Caribbean, seaming wickets in England against an extremely mediocre English lineup, pitches in Australia with cracks.

His peak was between Apr 1990 and Apr 1993 where he was at his fastest and he took a lot of wickets on different surfaces.

In the 3 countries he played most of his career, the only surfaces that were consistently flat by modern standards was Sydney and even at his peak he didn't do a lot of damage there.

Adelaide in 92/93 was an extremely fresh pitch because it had been kept covered to protect it from wet weather and it had movement, pace and carry unlike a usual Adelaide pitch on which Ambrose could not make an impact on his previous tour.

Pitches in the Caribbean became worse and worse throughout his career. Some of the flatter wickets started becoming underprepared for the Windies quicks POS in 95 was underprepared and extremely damp with a 1 inch thick covering of grass and David Boon could not make out the difference from the outfield. He wrecked Australia in that match but was absolutely mediocre everywhere else in that series. Comprehensively outbowled by McGrath on better but still helpful wickets.

When Pakistan toured Bridgetown in 1993, there was a damp,green patch exactly where Amby/Walsh pitched the ball. Pakistani bowlers bowled fuller and wasted it but the Windies bowlers kept hitting it to destroy Pakistan's batting .

Edgbaston 1995, England prepared a pitch which had grass in the middle and shaved at both ends(clear "preparation) and it backfired with Ambrose snapping through England but on a normal Leeds he could only take a couple of tailenders.

1996/97 West Indies tour of Australia

He struggled on a helpful Gabba surface and as usual struggled at Sydney. But at MCG, on a batting pitch which Mark Taylor called the toughest MCG pitch he had ever seen, and after Australia had quite a few changes, did he come to life. Then performed on a WACA surface with the biggest cracks ever seen. Missed the Adelaide Test where Australia scored 500.

1997 tour of Pakistan

Absolutely pedestrian on true flat surfaces.


1997/98

Got 2/110 on the only pitch (Bridgetown)that didn't have massive seam and variable bounce when England toured


1998/99 tour of South Africa

On the 2 batting surfaces at Durban and Cape Town, he took 1/125



What is important to note is that in the 90's, the only flat surfaces for Tests were found consistently in India and Pakistan and he toured only once.

Pitches in the Caribbean were often underpepared and often prepared in such a way to have dampness exactly where Windies quicks landed the ball. As I showed in that 1995 series example, they could often be underprepared in England as well(though it backfired)and Australian pitches only became consistently flat in the 2000's.

The few flat pitches he played in these 3 countries, he was extremely economical with his bounce and accuracy but others took wickets. Even on helpful surfaces, he was often outstripped by McGrath and even someone like Angus Fraser in the same match.


This is actually very evident in his ODI record. ODI surfaces did start becoming flatter in the 90's itself. Ambrose's record from 1993, when he lost that extra bit of pace, is OK'ish and there is a stark difference to his record previously.



Ambrose in ODI's till March 22, 1993

Matches : 86
Wickets : 136
Average : 19.53
Economy : 3.41
Strike Rate : 34.2

From March 23, 1993

Matches : 90
Wickets : 89
Average : 31.14
Economy : 3.54
Strike Rate : 52.7


He was no longer a wicket-taking bowler from 1993 onwards on flat surfaces as you can see in that huge spike in ODI strike rate.

So, it is incredibly difficult to say that Ambrose would have been successful on flat tracks that became ubiquitous from the 2000's considering that he rarely ever bowled on flat tracks and played a huge chunk of his career on dodgy Caribbean wickets and on helpful surfaces in both England and Australia. He used his high release and accuracy to maintain extreme control on flat decks but could not win matches with his bowling on them especially outside his peak from 1993 when he lost pace. He did not play much in India or Pakistan either and his ODI bowling, primarily on flat decks, from 1993 onwards is evidence of his lack of wicket-taking ability on such decks.

Verdict : A great bowler given the era and context in which he played. Difficult to compare with Steyn and certainly an inferior bowler to the GOAT - McGrath
 
I can assure you he was more than just a cracked pitch bully or simply a line and length merchant, he was a proper matchwinner.

Curtly Ambrose is one of the main reasons why Australia's era of dominance began in 1995 and not earlier. His spells at Adelaide and Perth (where he took 7-1) in 1992-93 stopped Australia from handing West Indies their first Test series defeat since 1980. The one of the marks of greatness is how well you perform against the best team in your era - Ambrose averaged 21 against the Aussies. Allan Donald, who's also one of my favourites, in contrast averaged 31.

Another example is the 1992 Bridgetown Test vs South Africa - their first against WI since readmission. SAF were coasting in a chase of 200 at 122-2. Losing to SAF then was unthinkable for a black team. Ambrose and Walsh bowled virtually unchanged and SA were dismissed for 148.

Yes he was almost unplayable on those crumbling, uneven pitches in the Caribbean as England found out in Barbados 1990 when he took 8-45 to seal a come from behind series win, and again in Trinidad 1994 when they were shot out for 46 all out in a chase of 194, and as India saw in Barbados 1997 when dismissed for 81 in a chase of 120.

Even on his last legs as a bowler, he still remained as potent as ever. Take the 2000 Trinidad Test vs Zimbabwe. WI only had 99 to defend but Ambrose and co. bowled them out for 63. On an awful tour of England in 2000, their first defeat to them in 31 years, him and Walsh still were leading the way as their top performers.

What's remarkable is cricket wasn't even his first passion. It was basketball. My only criticism was his limited exposure to Asia, and perhaps got moody if things didn't go his way. But make no mistake he belongs in a Top 5 list of ATG bowlers, and second only to Malcolm Marshall in the pantheon of ATG WI bowlers.
I never said he was a cracked pitch bully. I just said he was most effective on such pitches and that he was most effective when bounce was on offer.


If you watched him, like I did, you'd know he couldn't swing it like a Marshall, Waqar or a Wasim and he didn't have the out and out pace of an Akhtar or Lee but he was much more about line and length and there's nothing wrong with that, that was McGrath's whole shtick and he may be the greatest of all time. Ambrose being top 10 all time is no small feat.
 
I never said he was a cracked pitch bully. I just said he was most effective on such pitches and that he was most effective when bounce was on offer.


If you watched him, like I did, you'd know he couldn't swing it like a Marshall, Waqar or a Wasim and he didn't have the out and out pace of an Akhtar or Lee but he was much more about line and length and there's nothing wrong with that, that was McGrath's whole shtick and he may be the greatest of all time. Ambrose being top 10 all time is no small feat.
No I'd agree with most of that and he definitely needed some juice in the wicket to make things happen as Nikhil detailed. He certainly wasn't in Marshall's league in remaining a wicket-taking threat on docile pitches, nor could he set up batsmen like him. That's why I said he's behind Marshall in the WI's pecking order.

I just thought saying he was a big, lanky guy who banged the ball in on dodgy surfaces simplified things a bit too much. If that's not what you meant I apologise. My point was you cannot take 405 wickets at 20.99, have the best Test bowling average of all pacers in the 1990s (min. 100 wickets) and make so many matchwinning contributions over the course of a career if that's your sole talent !


It's fair to say many of the past greats got away with things that they couldn't today. Ambrose had crumbling home pitches that'd now receive ICC demerits; the 2 Ws benefited from lax regulation of ball tampering; and practically every Test nation benefited from biased home umpires in an era without DRS.

However I believe in judging players in the environment they played in instead of imposing today's playing conditions on past eras. His partner in crime Walsh also bowled on those same crumbling pitches as did the Benjamins, Bishop, Rose, King, McLean and many others but none were as effective.

Hope that clarifies my thoughts better.
 
Great bowler. But you can always find holes in that record like with any great bowler. No proper tour of Asia where he did well except for 1990 Pakistan. Played on a lot of dodgy wickets in the Caribbean, seaming wickets in England against an extremely mediocre English lineup, pitches in Australia with cracks.

His peak was between Apr 1990 and Apr 1993 where he was at his fastest and he took a lot of wickets on different surfaces.

In the 3 countries he played most of his career, the only surfaces that were consistently flat by modern standards was Sydney and even at his peak he didn't do a lot of damage there.

Adelaide in 92/93 was an extremely fresh pitch because it had been kept covered to protect it from wet weather and it had movement, pace and carry unlike a usual Adelaide pitch on which Ambrose could not make an impact on his previous tour.

Pitches in the Caribbean became worse and worse throughout his career. Some of the flatter wickets started becoming underprepared for the Windies quicks POS in 95 was underprepared and extremely damp with a 1 inch thick covering of grass and David Boon could not make out the difference from the outfield. He wrecked Australia in that match but was absolutely mediocre everywhere else in that series. Comprehensively outbowled by McGrath on better but still helpful wickets.

When Pakistan toured Bridgetown in 1993, there was a damp,green patch exactly where Amby/Walsh pitched the ball. Pakistani bowlers bowled fuller and wasted it but the Windies bowlers kept hitting it to destroy Pakistan's batting .

Edgbaston 1995, England prepared a pitch which had grass in the middle and shaved at both ends(clear "preparation) and it backfired with Ambrose snapping through England but on a normal Leeds he could only take a couple of tailenders.

1996/97 West Indies tour of Australia

He struggled on a helpful Gabba surface and as usual struggled at Sydney. But at MCG, on a batting pitch which Mark Taylor called the toughest MCG pitch he had ever seen, and after Australia had quite a few changes, did he come to life. Then performed on a WACA surface with the biggest cracks ever seen. Missed the Adelaide Test where Australia scored 500.

1997 tour of Pakistan

Absolutely pedestrian on true flat surfaces.


1997/98

Got 2/110 on the only pitch (Bridgetown)that didn't have massive seam and variable bounce when England toured


1998/99 tour of South Africa

On the 2 batting surfaces at Durban and Cape Town, he took 1/125



What is important to note is that in the 90's, the only flat surfaces for Tests were found consistently in India and Pakistan and he toured only once.

Pitches in the Caribbean were often underpepared and often prepared in such a way to have dampness exactly where Windies quicks landed the ball. As I showed in that 1995 series example, they could often be underprepared in England as well(though it backfired)and Australian pitches only became consistently flat in the 2000's.

The few flat pitches he played in these 3 countries, he was extremely economical with his bounce and accuracy but others took wickets. Even on helpful surfaces, he was often outstripped by McGrath and even someone like Angus Fraser in the same match.


This is actually very evident in his ODI record. ODI surfaces did start becoming flatter in the 90's itself. Ambrose's record from 1993, when he lost that extra bit of pace, is OK'ish and there is a stark difference to his record previously.



Ambrose in ODI's till March 22, 1993

Matches : 86
Wickets : 136
Average : 19.53
Economy : 3.41
Strike Rate : 34.2

From March 23, 1993

Matches : 90
Wickets : 89
Average : 31.14
Economy : 3.54
Strike Rate : 52.7


He was no longer a wicket-taking bowler from 1993 onwards on flat surfaces as you can see in that huge spike in ODI strike rate.

So, it is incredibly difficult to say that Ambrose would have been successful on flat tracks that became ubiquitous from the 2000's considering that he rarely ever bowled on flat tracks and played a huge chunk of his career on dodgy Caribbean wickets and on helpful surfaces in both England and Australia. He used his high release and accuracy to maintain extreme control on flat decks but could not win matches with his bowling on them especially outside his peak from 1993 when he lost pace. He did not play much in India or Pakistan either and his ODI bowling, primarily on flat decks, from 1993 onwards is evidence of his lack of wicket-taking ability on such decks.

Verdict : A great bowler given the era and context in which he played. Difficult to compare with Steyn and certainly an inferior bowler to the GOAT - McGrath

Great analysis.
 
No I'd agree with most of that and he definitely needed some juice in the wicket to make things happen as Nikhil detailed. He certainly wasn't in Marshall's league in remaining a wicket-taking threat on docile pitches, nor could he set up batsmen like him. That's why I said he's behind Marshall in the WI's pecking order.

I just thought saying he was a big, lanky guy who banged the ball in on dodgy surfaces simplified things a bit too much. If that's not what you meant I apologise. My point was you cannot take 405 wickets at 20.99, have the best Test bowling average of all pacers in the 1990s (min. 100 wickets) and make so many matchwinning contributions over the course of a career if that's your sole talent !


It's fair to say many of the past greats got away with things that they couldn't today. Ambrose had crumbling home pitches that'd now receive ICC demerits; the 2 Ws benefited from lax regulation of ball tampering; and practically every Test nation benefited from biased home umpires in an era without DRS.

However I believe in judging players in the environment they played in instead of imposing today's playing conditions on past eras. His partner in crime Walsh also bowled on those same crumbling pitches as did the Benjamins, Bishop, Rose, King, McLean and many others but none were as effective.

Hope that clarifies my thoughts better.
Agreed, Ambrose is a top 10 bowler and anyone who is a top ten bowler is the creme de le creme.

Btw I got to call you out on so called ball tampering by the two Ws. NOthing was ever even seen on the international stage beyond something doubtful, rather than outright cheating like Atherton or the entire modern Aussie team. I think the closest they came was Waqar rubbing the ball on his zip...which was on the side of his trousers. That is dubious at best.

This sadly was propaganda spread by a racist tabloid press in the UK and I think cricket fans should know better.
 
Agreed, Ambrose is a top 10 bowler and anyone who is a top ten bowler is the creme de le creme.

Btw I got to call you out on so called ball tampering by the two Ws. NOthing was ever even seen on the international stage beyond something doubtful, rather than outright cheating like Atherton or the entire modern Aussie team. I think the closest they came was Waqar rubbing the ball on his zip...which was on the side of his trousers. That is dubious at best.

This sadly was propaganda spread by a racist tabloid press in the UK and I think cricket fans should know better.
Cricket fans should know better than to believe either the racist British tabloid press or the denials from our tainted 90s legends who are hardly the paragons of integrity.

They were never caught ? See Aqib Javed from 2:24 here - even Richie Benaud had to comment on how blatant it was.


Waqar was the first cricketer punished for ball tampering in 2000 during a tri-series in Sri Lanka. He was using his nails on the ball.


Our home umpires knew what was going on but never took action. When New Zealand toured Pakistan in 1990, they joined in on the tampering free-for-all:


In the second Test at Lahore, Martin Crowe remembered that he encountered reverse-swing for the first time on his way to a second-innings hundred. "Six supposed outswingers [from Wasim Akram] suddenly became six lethal inswingers. I had never seen it before and I became curious." During the innings, Crowe dropped a delivery from Abdul Qadir at his feet and bent down to pick it up and lob it back to the bowler. "It was totally mutilated on one side with two or three deep scratches gouged out," he said. "I complained to the umpires but they did nothing."

Later in the day the ball went out of shape and was changed. As it was thrown to the boundary by the umpires, Willie Watson and Mark Priest rushed to intercept it. "It bore no resemblance to a cricket ball," Crowe claimed. The pair took it back to the changing-room but, so Crowe noted, Intikhab Alam, the Pakistan manager, came in and took it and it was never seen again.

Ian Taylor, the New Zealand manager, made an official complaint at the end of the match, but it was dismissed with the officials stating that the condition of the ball resulted from a rough outfield and advertising hoardings. "We accepted that Pakistan were the better team," Crowe added, "but we were not going to accept what they were doing with the ball."

Chris Pringle, at the time New Zealand's opening bowler, decided to take the law into his own hands. "There was something going on," he recalled in his autobiography Save The Last Ball For Me. "And whether what I did was the right or wrong way to make the ball look as it did in the next Test, I had to try it."

After another resounding defeat at Lahore, several of the New Zealanders experimented in the nets with scoring one side of an old ball with bottle tops. "With that technique, even guys like Mark Greatbatch and Martin Crowe were swinging the ball miles in the air," Pringle wrote. "We practised long and hard in the nets and were quite excited about the results we were getting with it." Crowe admitted that he ran in to bowl his normal inswingers "only to see the ball curve the other way ... I'd never bowled outswingers in my life!"

On the morning of the first day of the final Test at Faisalabad, Pringle decided to put what he had learned into practice. He found an old bottle top, cut it into quarters, covered the serrated edge with tape, leaving a sharp point exposed. At the first drinks interval the umpires did not ask to look at the ball and, with Pakistan making sedate progress, Pringle started scratching the ball with the bottle top. Pakistan crashed from 35 for 0 to 102 all out. Pringle finished with his Test-best figures of 7 for 52.

"Neither umpire showed any concern or took any notice in what we were doing even though, at the end of the innings, the ball was very scratched," Pringle noted. "One side was shiny but there were lots of grooves and lines and deep gouges on the other side. It was so obvious. It was ripped to shreds ... one side of the ball had been demolished. The umpires were walking across to each other and talking quite a lot. I sensed that they could tell what was going on ... but they didn't want to get involved in anything controversial."

However, while the men in white remained implacable, others were wise to what was happening. Pringle recalled that as he left the stadium after taking his seven wickets on the first day, a local dignitary tapped him on the shoulder and said: "Pringle, it is fair now. Both teams are cheating."

Although the umpires did not check the ball during each session, they did have it during intervals and at the close. And as the game wore on, Pringle became deliberately obvious in an attempt to get a reaction, even gouging the ball as he talked to the umpire. Still nothing was said.

So eagerly was he vandalizing the ball that at one stage he cut himself on the jagged bottle top. Even the sight of a bowler with blood freely flowing from a sliced finger did not cause any disquiet as far as the officials were concerned.

The 2Ws were skilled bowlers regardless, but you cannot deny a lot went under the radar in that era with no match referees or two dozen TV cameras at every match like we see today.
 
Back
Top