He played 27.Barnes only played 26 Tests TBF.
Probably but he can only be judged on what he did factoring how many times he played.Richard said:These days that's the equivalent of about 70 or 80.
Figured I was wrong there.He played 27.
My name is The Sean and I am a pedant.
I'd have Donald over Trueman and Akram, just. However, Lillee comes comfortably ahead of him I think.Trueman and Wasim Akram for starters. Hadlee and Imran I can stomach easily, Ambrose and McGrath I can begrudgingly accept. Lillee disappoints me, naturally.
More than enough to rate him, imo especially considering how devastating he was.Barnes only played 26 Tests TBF.
Opinion differs from person to person .If u think Donald is top 3 pacer of all time ,ur opinion .I respect that .Then u say Wasim is an inferior bowler to Donald ,i won't agree .My opinion . Thats all .If u ask Lara ,he won't agree as well .Also Aussies ,so basically it is all one's perception .Atherton might agree with u .His opinion .Trueman and Wasim Akram for starters. Hadlee and Imran I can stomach easily, Ambrose and McGrath I can begrudgingly accept. Lillee disappoints me, naturally.
Only bowlers I'd place unequivocally ahead of Donald would, as I said, be Marshall and the ubiquitous, almost unplaceable Barnes. But I simply cannot fathom how anyone would seriously put two, never mind three, spinners ahead of Donald. Can only hope, as I said, that the passage of time might lend truer perspective. Can't help but feel that pure weight of wickets has made too much of an impact.
Reckon those who truly admire Ray Lindwall might be pretty sour at some of the names above him too.
The best side in the world for most of Donald's carer was Australia and he averaged 31 against tem - not bad, but hardly indicative of a top 3 or 4 bowler imo.Trueman and Wasim Akram for starters. Hadlee and Imran I can stomach easily, Ambrose and McGrath I can begrudgingly accept. Lillee disappoints me, naturally.
Only bowlers I'd place unequivocally ahead of Donald would, as I said, be Marshall and the ubiquitous, almost unplaceable Barnes. But I simply cannot fathom how anyone would seriously put two, never mind three, spinners ahead of Donald. Can only hope, as I said, that the passage of time might lend truer perspective. Can't help but feel that pure weight of wickets has made too much of an impact.
Reckon those who truly admire Ray Lindwall might be pretty sour at some of the names above him too.
Maybe because some dont consider him good enough....maybe....How is Warne not on EVERYONES list?!
Unless they can swing the ball at acute angles, I don't think they can beat Hilfy...shane warne
pidge
marlon black
murray bennett
hilfy
douggie hondo
mark taylor & boonie in tandem
wasim akram
richies mcflippers
the demon
Thats an interesting list. Nine of the worlds top 16 aggregate wicket takers, all from 1970 onwards PLUS the old master SF Barnes, from 100 years ago.1. Dennis Lillee
2. Curtley Ambrose
3. Shane Warne
4. Imran Khan
5. Richard Hadlee
6. Malcom Marshall
7. Wasim Akram
8. Glenn McGrath
9. Sidney Barnes
10. Allan Donald
Complete misreprisentation (not on your part - is a very common one).The best side in the world for most of Donald's carer was Australia and he averaged 31 against tem - not bad, but hardly indicative of a top 3 or 4 bowler imo.
Fine bowler though - saw him bowl anunbelieveable spell against Australia at the MCG in 1993-94 when the bowled ferociously quick and moved the ball every which way. Was also very good to watch.
I don't. Donald did everything Lillee did and more. Really frustrating the way the Lillee legend allows him to be looked at as ahead of Donald almost as a matter of course.I'd have Donald over Trueman and Akram, just. However, Lillee comes comfortably ahead of him I think.
I think he can TBH, same as George Headley can be. People will play less if there are less Tests being played. 27 Tests in the modern context isn't many; in the 1900s it's plenty and plenty.Probably but he can only be judged on what he did factoring how many times he played.