View Single Post
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 18-06-2005, 10:14 AM in reply to Lemming's post starting "I would agree that Ambrose was better..."
Mongoose's Avatar
Mongoose Mongoose is offline
(WI) Passed Lawrence Rowe's 2047 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manchester, North-West England
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Lancashire
Posts: 2,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemming
OK, he may have had a worse economy rate than many top bowlers, but he took wickets, it was his job and he did it bloody well.
Absolutley. Who cares what his economy rate was like when he takes a wicket every 23 runs? A captain would love a bowler to take a wicket every 23 runs even if he went at 5 an over. This is test cricket, not ODIs! If everyone took wickets at 23, you would win a lot of test matches. To bring his economy rate into a question of Waqar's greatness as a test bowler is irrelevant. Eevn considering guys like McGrath and Pollock, to look at their economy rates would be wrong. They take wickets at an average of 21-22. That is what makes them great.
__________________
Just what is going off out there?