The argument against Donald

[OverratedSanity]

I think what we are saying is that record against Australia is not the reason why McGrath is a better bowler. McGrath's sheer consistency over a very long period puts him ahead. But Donald was good enough to trouble the best of the best, his record against Australia needs to be seen in proper context.

Absolutely this. I have no problems with people rating McGrath higher... He obviously had the better career overall. But the reasons gave always bothered me... Donald not performing that well against Australia, but as I pointed out McGrath wasn't phenomenal against his best opponent (SA) either

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think what we are saying is that record against Australia is not the reason why McGrath is a better bowler. McGrath's sheer consistency over a very long period puts him ahead. But Donald was good enough to trouble the best of the best, his record against Australia needs to be seen in proper context.

Absolutely this. I have no problems with people rating McGrath higher... He obviously had the better career overall. But the reasons have always bothered me... Donald not performing that well against Australia, but as I pointed out McGrath wasn't phenomenal against his best opponent (SA) either

 

[watson]

Allan Donald 1993-1998 V AUS
Tests = 11
Wickets = 48
Ave = 27.85
SR = 58.0
5w = 2
10w =0

McGrath V SA
Tests = 17
Wickets = 57
Ave = 27.33
SR = 71.61
5w = 2
10w = 0

Allan Donald Overall
Tests = 72
Wickets = 330
Ave = 22.25
SR = 47.03
5w = 20
10w = 3

McGrath Overall
Tests = 124
Wickets = 563
Ave = 21.64
SR = 51.9
5w = 29
10w = 3

Obviously McGrath beats Donald hands-down in the 'Longevity' category. But I'm struggling to find other reasons why McGrath is significantly superior to Donald (?)

 

[The Battlers Prince]

He surely isn't far removed from McGrath. Was the best bowler of the Yorker at extreme pace that I saw.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's not the record against their respective teams which makes people rate Donald lower, it's how they both went about their business. McGrath, even when not taking wickets, you could see the Saffers found him tough to play. Donald against the Aussies, was less patient when they didn't just fall over or be intimidated right away.

To me, Donald's best spell against the Aussies was in '94 on the last day at Sydney. Fanie took 6 but Donald bowled an immense, probing, patient but ****ing hostile spell at the other end which gave them absolutely nowhere to go except get out to Fanie. Instead of seeing more of that in the years afterward, we'd see press about how Donald was bowling quicker and more dangerous than ever and watch out Aussies. Possibly he felt pressure having to live up to that but the result was Donald trying to boss his way into the Aussie batters' heads and when it inevitably didn't work, he'd try to bowl even quicker and nastier and get slapped around instead. Was massively hampered by very negative captaincy from Cronje too.

That's why Aussies tend to rate him lower. His record against them flatters him a bit, really.

 

[Burgey]

Allan Donald 1993-1998 V AUS
Tests = 11
Wickets = 48
Ave = 27.85
SR = 58.0
5w = 2
10w =0

McGrath V SA
Tests = 17
Wickets = 57
Ave = 27.33
SR = 71.61
5w = 2
10w = 0

Allan Donald Overall
Tests = 72
Wickets = 330
Ave = 22.25
SR = 47.03
5w = 20
10w = 3

McGrath Overall
Tests = 124
Wickets = 563
Ave = 21.64
SR = 51.9
5w = 29
10w = 3

Obviously McGrath beats Donald hands-down in the 'Longevity' category. But I'm struggling to find other reasons why McGrath is significantly superior to Donald (?)

Because people can't say the 90s was a great era for bowling conditions and for bowlers, and the 2000s were an era of great batting decks but not factor that in when looking at McGrath's record compared with those who averaged similarly but in a better era for bowling.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Because people can't say the 90s was a great era for bowling conditions and for bowlers, and the 2000s were an era of great batting decks but not factor that in when looking at McGrath's record compared with those who averaged similarly but in a better era for bowling.

That indeed is a massive plus for McGrath but would you use that fact to say he's better than Ambrose and Donald whose careers ended in the early 00s? Seems harsh to me... I have no doubt they would have succeeded

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's not the record against their respective teams which makes people rate Donald lower, it's how they both went about their business. McGrath, even when not taking wickets, you could see the Saffers found him tough to play. Donald against the Aussies, was less patient when they didn't just fall over or be intimidated right away.

To me, Donald's best spell against the Aussies was in '94 on the last day at Sydney. Fanie took 6 but Donald bowled an immense, probing, patient but ****ing hostile spell at the other end which gave them absolutely nowhere to go except get out to Fanie. Instead of seeing more of that in the years afterward, we'd see press about how Donald was bowling quicker and more dangerous than ever and watch out Aussies. Possibly he felt pressure having to live up to that but the result was Donald trying to boss his way into the Aussie batters' heads and when it inevitably didn't work, he'd try to bowl even quicker and nastier and get slapped around instead. Was massively hampered by very negative captaincy from Cronje too.

That's why Aussies tend to rate him lower. His record against them flatters him a bit, really.

Ok, that's a good enough reason tbh... I was just a kid when I watched Donald in his pomp and maybe I didn't notice when his head went down against the Aussies or when he tried too hard to bowl fast like you said.
But I don't agree that his record flatters him... Apart from the spell you mentioned I remember several other memorable performances of his against Oz. The one that always stuck with me was when he completely roughed up the Waugh brothers with an unbelievably hostile spell. Had them jumping all over the place... But unfortunately they survived through a combination of skill and luck. Softened them up though and deserved more wickets. Average probably a true enough representation of how he did against them tbh.

 

[smash84]

He surely isn't far removed from McGrath. Was the best bowler of the Yorker at extreme pace that I saw.

you probably missed Waqar at his peak. Bowled the meanest yorker ever.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Wait. Are people saying Donald was as good a bowler as McGrath?

In my team, I'd pick him over McGrath, but if you go career wise, Mcgrath probably had the best career for any fast bowler.

 

[Black_Warrior]

It's not the record against their respective teams which makes people rate Donald lower, it's how they both went about their business. McGrath, even when not taking wickets, you could see the Saffers found him tough to play. Donald against the Aussies, was less patient when they didn't just fall over or be intimidated right away.

.

How much of that lies in the difference in their batting ability?

The 90s Australian team had Slater, Taylor, Waugh brothers, Ponting, Blewet, Langer, Martyn etc.

The 90s South Africa team had Kirsten, Hudson, Cullinan, Cronje, McMillan, and a Kallis who wasn't half the batsman

I think its fair to assume Donald was up against a tougher batting side.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't think that's a big factor. The same Donald dominated the Indians at home and away, a better line-up than the Aussies on paper.

I'm just going on what I saw. Donald sent down worse stuff against the Aussies than he did against others. On so many occasions, he bowled rancid short stuff to guys who were brought up to smash it and dutifully did. For all his reputation as a big mover of the ball, we rarely saw it (I know I only got a sense of it from watching him play against other teams) and a big part of why is that he was more often in his own half than against, say, England.

When South Africa as a side just concentrated on winning the game, they beat India in India years before Australia did and just generally beat everyone. Donald was a big reason why. When they played Australia, they engaged in needless dick-waving and they either struggled to beat them or outright lost. Donald, again, was a big reason why. It wasn't very smart cricket and the results are plain to see.

 

[Burgey]

In my team, I'd pick him over McGrath, but if you go career wise, Mcgrath probably had the best career for any fast bowler.

I presume your team isn't playing against Australia then.

 

[benchmark00]

McGrath would have wanted to finish his career on an average below 20, so therefore Donald was the better player.

 

[Jono]

When South Africa as a side just concentrated on winning the game, they beat India in India years before Australia did and just generally beat everyone. Donald was a big reason why. When they played Australia, they engaged in needless dick-waving and they either struggled to beat them or outright lost. Donald, again, was a big reason why. It wasn't very smart cricket and the results are plain to see.

This is such a good point, really feel that this was the case.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't think that's a big factor. The same Donald dominated the Indians at home and away, a better line-up than the Aussies on paper.

The Indian batting line up of the 90s was notorious for being lions at home and lambs abroad. I really wouldn't rate them higher than Australia's not even on paper. Apart from Tendulkar, I don't think that team had a single world class batsman.. The likes of Laxman, Dravid and Ganguly only started flourishing around approximately 99 onwards

I'm just going on what I saw. Donald sent down worse stuff against the Aussies than he did against others. On so many occasions, he bowled rancid short stuff to guys who were brought up to smash it and dutifully did. For all his reputation as a big mover of the ball, we rarely saw it (I know I only got a sense of it from watching him play against other teams) and a big part of why is that he was more often in his own half than against, say, England.

When South Africa as a side just concentrated on winning the game, they beat India in India years before Australia did and just generally beat everyone. Donald was a big reason why. When they played Australia, they engaged in needless dick-waving and they either struggled to beat them or outright lost. Donald, again, was a big reason why. It wasn't very smart cricket and the results are plain to see.

Fair points but can I just ask which particular series you are referring to? are you referring to the 2001-02 home and away series that South Africa lost 0-6?

As far as the 90s are concerned, I really don't think Donald bowled all that bad against Australia and South Africa not winning a series against Australia had more to do with their inability to play Shane Warne than Donald not being good enough.

I think Australia's batting prowess is an important factor here... Why only Donald, even Wasim and Waqar don't have a spectacular record against Australia, Waqar averages 40 in Australia.
I think it has more to do with Australia being a significantly strong test side for most part of the last two decades than anything else.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I presume your team isn't playing against Australia then.

LOL how do you expect me to pick your bowler against your team genius?

 

[robelinda]

Why does everyone keep referring to the 2001/02 series when mentioning Donald? Did these same guys not watch any of the 90's? Thats where Donald bowled pies vs Aus. 97 tour especially, Joburg and PE (barring 1st innings).

 

[Top_Cat]

The Indian batting line up of the 90s was notorious for being lions at home and lambs abroad. I really wouldn't rate them higher than Australia's not even on paper. Apart from Tendulkar, I don't think that team had a single world class batsman.. The likes of Laxman, Dravid and Ganguly only started flourishing around approximately 99 onwards

Donald dominated them at home too.

Fair points but can I just ask which particular series you are referring to? are you referring to the 2001-02 home and away series that South Africa lost 0-6?

Every single one since returning to cricket. The hype was the worst when SA tour here in '97 but was generally pretty rank.

I think Australia's batting prowess is an important factor here... Why only Donald, even Wasim and Waqar don't have a spectacular record against Australia, Waqar averages 40 in Australia.
I think it has more to do with Australia being a significantly strong test side for most part of the last two decades than anything else.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The W's relatively poor record in Australia is absolutely held against them.

 

[benchmark00]

rob, for a video can you superimpose a pie over the ball? So we can literally say someone is bowling pies.

Probably on a video featuring Yuvraj getting hit for sixes would be most fitting.