Where does Ambrose stand amongst the great fast bowlers of west indies?

[sumantra]

for me, in no. 4...right after,

1. Malcom Marshall
2. Micheal Holding
3. Joel Garner
4. Curtley Ambrose

 

[hendrix]

number 2

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

1. Marshall
2. Ambrose

 

[robelinda]

2.

 

[kyear2]

I would also would say No. 2, but not that far ahead of Holding as most believe.

 

[Red Hill]

1 or 2. The difference between him and Marshall is minimal.

 

[benchmark00]

1. Nixon McLean
2. Curtly Ambrose

 

[benchmark00]

3. Mervyn Dillon ftr

 

[kyear2]

1 or 2. The difference between him and Marshall is minimal.

Not IMHO, Marshall is well ahead of Ambrose and as i opined above, Ambrose is closer to Holding than Marshall.

 

[watson]

Marshall first, and Ambrose second is pretty easy is to work-out.

The real puzzle is where to rank Andy Roberts? He was not as fast as most of the other greats, but he was the prototype of the modern West Indian fast bowlers (ie. mixed pin-point accuracy with intimidation) and therefore deserves a lot of credit. That is, in one way or another he showed them all how it was done. So tentatively;

1. Mashall
2. Ambrose
3. Roberts
4. Holding
5. Garner
etc

 

[kyear2]

Marshall first, and Ambrose second is pretty easy is to work-out.

The real puzzle is where to rank Andy Roberts? He was not as fast as most of the other greats, but he was the prototype of the modern West Indian fast bowlers (ie. mixed pin-point accuracy with intimidation) and therefore deserves a lot of credit. That is, in one way or another he showed them all how it was done. So tentatively;

1. Mashall
2. Ambrose
3. Roberts
4. Holding
5. Garner
etc

Marshall
Ambrose
Holding
Garner
Roberts
Croft
Hall
Walsh
Martindale
Bishop

Bishop though had the potential to be No. 2, if not No. 1. He was just amazing before his first injury and just frighteningly fast.

 

[Red Hill]

You could throw a blanket over the lot of them to be honest, but I'm curious why you rate Croft better than Hall.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

1. Marshall
2. Ambrose
3. Fidel Edwards

 

[Jono]

Hands down the best beach cricketer to come from the West Indies:

 

[kyear2]

You could throw a blanket over the lot of them to be honest, but I'm curious why you rate Croft better than Hall.

Really, cast a blanket from Marshall to Walsh?

Regarding the second point, Hall should be ahead of Croft, though Croft went through a little period in the late '70's where he was out performing Garner, Holding and Ronerts.

 

[Red Hill]

Really, cast a blanket from Marshall to Walsh?

Regarding the second point, Hall should be ahead of Croft, though Croft went through a little period in the late '70's where he was out performing Garner, Holding and Ronerts.

Marshall, Ambrose, Garner & Holding are the ones you could fit under a (biggish) blanket.

 

[Red Hill]

Is Garner the best 1st change bowler ever?

 

[benchmark00]

That microphone is so symbolic.

 

[Red Hill]

I know, there's so many comments I could make on that photo. But you know, family site and all...

 

[kyear2]

Marshall, Ambrose, Garner & Holding are the ones you could fit under a (biggish) blanket.

Ambrose in about 20 more tests than Marshall and with less competition for wickets than Marshall ended with the same number of five wicket hauls. Ambrose struck at 54 and that is because at times when things were not going great he was just too defensive, which is why I rate him below McGrath for exampe. At his bbest though he was just as destructive as Marshall and probably more so than McGrath. Garner was never a true number one and more than any of the others benefitted from Marshalls emergence and even though his WPM is pretty high, in 58 tests he had only 7 five wicket hauls, that tells me he was never the destroyer but rather the Robin to Marshall's/ Holding's Batman. he didn't have the Marshall's variety or Ambrose's killer instinct when he smelled blood. Holding was in the late '70's the equal to Lillee and ability wise the closest to Maco, he just was too injury prone and couldn't stay healthy to consistently be the force that he could have been. Waht he did to Boycott, the Oval and in India in '83 though shows what he could do when healthy and motivated.
Still he was no Marshall, but for me, no one really was.