No, it was 27 in meaningful games. Those last 3 Tests are utterly worthless, as he'd have done poorly against whoever he was up against in them, he was no longer anywhere close to the bowler he had been.
If Hayden had played more against him (played a fair few as it was), I'm sure Donald's record would be that much better for the early wicket he'd always have had a substantial chance of getting.
Honestly Honest, that's just a crazy comment. Virtually no-one will EVER be able to run through that batting-line-up very easily under most circumstancs, be they the four greatest seamers in history or any other attack you care to name.
This is far from a notion based solely on stats. It's a working knowledge, gained from years of watching cricket, about how seam > spin. Seamers have advantages that spinners can never enjoy - much, much more substantial than those which spinners have which seamers can never do.
Of course Donald was far better than Warne or Murali. So he had a game or two where he didn't do much on a flat track - so?!?!?! Warne and Murali had loads of them too.
What were the other occasions? Bob Holland's match 4 years earlier?
One of the great posts of all time, for mine. (Dwayne) Bravo!
There was some analysis done earlier, and we looked at how he fared when none were playing, one was playing, two were playing, and three were playing. I'll see if I can find it for you.
The last game of the series was on the SCG on both occasions I think you'll find Richard. A pitch that turned sideways back in those days. There was a reason Australia played 2 spinners on most occasions back in then.What were the other occasions? Bob Holland's match 4 years earlier?
Oh yes... that was... a dead game too. How curious.
West Indies' "weaknesses" against spin are more fantastical than reality, based more on the "well there were no spinners in their side so they must've been weak against it" than anything else. Anyone and anyone will struggle against a high-calibre spin-bowler on a turning surface on some occasions. But West Indies generally dealt with lesser spinners and\or spinners on non-receptive pitches without any undue difficulty, without difficulty which other teams would not endure as well.
Honestly, Pakistan or New Zealand (for example) would almost certainly have done every bit as poorly in those dead Tests against Holland and Border as West Indies in '84/85 and '88/89 did.
Funny how excuses are allowed when supporting your favourites (Donald played too long, Imran played too long and was picked too early, Botham was affected by captaincy) yet none are allowed for those you are arguing against
Because these games were not the only occasions they played on such wickets. There were many others. Had those SCG games been live, I'm very confident they'd have done rather better, as they did against other spinners elsewhere (far better spinners, safe to say, than Holland and Border).
Apart from Border and Holland, to whom do you refer? And please don't give me someone who once or twice took 3-40 against them.
I know.
And Bruce Yardley, very briefly, was a decent bowler. However, I challenge you to find the team which isn't challenged on a turning surface, especially one so extravantly turning as (as you mention) The SCG was at that time.
They are allowed for anyone and everyone. Obviously, though, it's likely I'll only need to mention it when I'm arguing for someone's case. When I'm arguing against it, why on Earth would I need to mention it?
Intellectual honesty? The sake of reasoned discussion?
Which others? I know Sydney was a turner back in those days. I assume many of the sub-continental wickets were too, but I don't know which ones were and which ones weren't.Because these games were not the only occasions they played on such wickets. There were many others. Had those SCG games been live, I'm very confident they'd have done rather better, as they did against other spinners elsewhere (far better spinners, safe to say, than Holland and Border).
Apart from Border and Holland, to whom do you refer? And please don't give me someone who once or twice took 3-40 against them.
I know.
Fat chance you'd get that from Richard.
Eh? What the blazes have either of those got to do with (not) mentioning something that is completely irrelevant to a point you are making?
Iqbal Qasim, Dillip Doshi, Maninder Singh, and maybe a Sri Lankan somewhere too. All superior bowlers to Holland and Border. And while there were indeed a fair few drawn series in the subcontinent, not when WI were involved. Between 1976 and 1986, the period where they flattened all and sundry, West Indies played just a single series each in Pakistan and India, and won them both (1-0 in Pakistan, 3-0 in India, despite being without key personnel on both occasions). Well, actually, they played another in India in 1978/79, but I don't think anyone would suggest that means a thing as it was actually West Indies A playing that series, with the first-team defected to Kerry Packer.
Queen's Park Oval and Bourda have almost never been seam-friendly grounds, and The ARG has rarely offered anything to bowlers of any kind. Generally, spinners had as good a chance as seamers at the aforementioned three. It's only Kensington Oval and Sabina Park that were truly seam-friendly surfaces, and even this hasn't been true in recent years.
They didn't "suddenly give-up", but they fairly obviously cared less than they otherwise would have. I may not have watched those games live, but I've seen footage from both of them, and it's fair to say the WI batsmen often looked like they were less than 100% bothered about run-scoring. I believe this would have been different if the games had been live ones earlier in the series.
It's not irrelevent if it's contradictory evidence. Obviously if I'm arguing that, say, Hayden is a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall there's no point in mentioning that a burger at McDonalds costs 4% more than it did 7 years ago, which would be irrelevant, but it would be intellectually dishonest to fail to mention the fact that Marshall took 300+ test wickets at an average of about 20, and that Hayden is a crap bowler.
not at all.... First of all, we are discussing about the greatest spinners of all time and secondly, you were the one who is mostly saying that all you need is 4 quicks with 20ish averages and you will run through anyone anywhere.... And the main point about that whole Windies not caring thing is........ YOU DON'T KNOW!!! You are seeing footage (not complete recordings either) after God knows how many years since the games were played and you are probably trying to compare the intensity levels of today with that age. You must have watched the games then IN THAT ERA to fully even understand what you are talking about. People who have watched cricket and watched a lot of it back then have told that the Windies simply never "let go"... People like Lloyd, Richards and others have said as much in so many interviews over the years. Sorry, your point about them not caring is juz a lot of nonsense.
Yeah but geez, Allan Border took 11 in a match! You're stretching the bounds of credulity when you argue that the WI batsmen weren't any worse than others against spin when a bloke who played on many other far more spin-friendly decks (the SCG turned from ball one but it has always been slow turn and without the uneven bounce that guys like Anil Kumble used to dominate on in India; it was far from being lethal) and was nowhere near as effective.
