Ambrose was a miserly bowler, had impeccable line and length, had the advantage of height and got extra bounce but the more I hear from you no queiro the more I get an impression that our views can never ever match, but then who cares right !!!! By the way I respect ur views and strongly disagree with them.

U don't compare the bowlers with the statistics only. A cricketer is judged by statistics as well as skills. Akram played most of his cricket in Asian dead pitches where Dennis Lillee refused to tour. Ambrose and Walsh were never as effective in flat tracks of India, Pak.

One must be day dreaming to say that Wasim was only good with old ball. He was equally good with both good and old ball. The fact that he was deadly with old ball gives him advantage over other great fast bowlers.

To me , Wasim Akram is by far...I repeat by far...the best bowler ever to me. Period.

To say Ambrose was better bowler than Wasim is so unimaginable.