Allan Donald vs Michael Holding

[Slifer]

Nah not having that he was that consistent a matchwinner in all conditions.

First of all, he only played 60 tests, in which he averaged the below vs the 3 strongest teams of his time:
39.98 vs Australia
32.68 vs India
38.68 vs South Africa

Tbf that's completely acceptable considering the Indian teams he played against.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Tbf that's completely acceptable considering the Indian teams he played against.

His best performances came in the 2012 tour to India when the team was clearly in a transitional mode and had lost/started losing most of its top players, and the new guys were yet to settle in.
Not to **** on the guy, he did his best and it is indeed a respectable average vs India (did very well on the 2008 tour too, was hopeless in 2011 in England) but it wasn't quite the same team.

I thought he was an excellent player, but saying he's better than Ashwin is a big call. Saying he's an all conditions bowler is also a big one too (he was pretty handy), but clearly he wasn't that great vs the best teams around at the time. If he did pick up wickets, he was expensive.

I know he doesn't get the benefit of playing ~50% of his matches on home pitches, though, so I do cut him some slack there. Just saying, he wasn't better than Ashwin that's all.

 

[Slifer]

His best performances came in the 2012 tour to India when the team was clearly in a transitional mode and had lost/started losing most of its top players, and the new guys were yet to settle in.
Not to **** on the guy, he did his best and it is indeed a respectable average vs India (did very well on the 2008 tour too, was hopeless in 2011 in England) but it wasn't quite the same team.

I thought he was an excellent player, but saying he's better than Ashwin is a big call. Saying he's an all conditions bowler is also a big one too (he was pretty handy), but clearly he wasn't that great vs the best teams around at the time. If he did pick up wickets, he was expensive.

I know he doesn't get the benefit of playing ~50% of his matches on home pitches, though, so I do cut him some slack there. Just saying, he wasn't better than Ashwin that's all.

He's not better than Ashwin, nor is he an all weather bowler but to average what he did vs India whether in transition or whatever, is very very impressive.

 

[subshakerz]

His best performances came in the 2012 tour to India when the team was clearly in a transitional mode and had lost/started losing most of its top players, and the new guys were yet to settle in.
Not to **** on the guy, he did his best and it is indeed a respectable average vs India (did very well on the 2008 tour too, was hopeless in 2011 in England) but it wasn't quite the same team.

I thought he was an excellent player, but saying he's better than Ashwin is a big call. Saying he's an all conditions bowler is also a big one too (he was pretty handy), but clearly he wasn't that great vs the best teams around at the time. If he did pick up wickets, he was expensive.

I know he doesn't get the benefit of playing ~50% of his matches on home pitches, though, so I do cut him some slack there. Just saying, he wasn't better than Ashwin that's all.

I think people are shortchanging Swann a bit. The reason I rate him highly is his matchwinning ability which is not reflected by raw numbers. He was much better than his numbers show.

From 2009 to 2013, in most series, Swann would produce a matchwinning spell. Any spinner who can consistently win you a match a series, home and away, gets more credit to me then one who does a holding job and averages less.

In 2009, Swann averaged 31 in South Africa, but won England a crucial test in Durban.

In 2010, Swann didn't do much in the series but did seal a victory with a fifer against Australia in Adelaide on a batting wicket, something Ashwin has yet to do in SENA.

In 2011, in England against India, in the series you said he was hopeless, he still sealed a victory with 9 wickets in the last test.

In 2012, Swann won matches in both Sri Lanka and India was good in the UAE.

Plenty of other matches won by him in between and after.

Swann didn't end up with the prettiest figures but he was a tremendous asset for England and one of the big reasons for them going to no.1. His job was to win matches when the pacers couldnt and he did it well.

Ashwin is pretty much a matchwinner in the subcontinent and West Indies thus far in his career. Yes, he improved tremendously in Australia this time around, but I dont expect him running through sides outside of spinning conditions. But to make clear, due to Ashwin's sheer wicket output overall, I think its fair to rank him higher.

 

[honestbharani]

I think people are shortchanging Swann a bit. The reason I rate him highly is his matchwinning ability which is not reflected by raw numbers.

From 2009 to 2013, in most series, Swann would produce a matchwinning spell. Any spinner who can consistently win you a match a series, home and away, gets more credit to me then one who does a holding job and averages less.

In 2009, Swann averaged 31 in South Africa, but won England a crucial test in Durban.

In 2010, Swann didn't do much in the series but did seal a victory with a fifer against Australia in Adelaide on a batting wicket.

In 2011, in England against India, in the series you said he was hopeless, he still sealed a victory with 9 wickets in the last test.

In 2012, Swann was good in the UAE and won matches in both Sri Lanka and India.

Plenty of other matches won by him in between and after.

Swann didn't end up with the prettiest figures but he was a tremendous asset for England and one of the big reasons for them going to no.1. His job was to win matches when the pacers couldnt and he did it well.

Matches are won by teams. Swann had the good fortune to play in a very good England line up.

 

[subshakerz]

Matches are won by teams. Swann had the good fortune to play in a very good England line up.

So did Warne. I guess he wasn't a matchwinner then.

 

[honestbharani]

So did Warne. I guess he wasn't a matchwinner then.

Not everywhere, yeah.

 

[subshakerz]

Bowlers have a crucial role in setting up or sealing victories in tests. That's where their matchwinning ability comes into play.

 

[subshakerz]

Not everywhere, yeah.

Well, everywhere he played, he still had a strong Aussie side with him. So no point calling Warne a matchwinner then.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, everywhere he played, he still had a strong Aussie side with him. So no point calling Warne a matchwinner then.

I will give you that one. But the cherry picked stats of Swann does not mean he is better than Ashwin, quite simply. That is ridiculously one eyed. That is all.

 

[subshakerz]

I will give you that one. But the cherry picked stats of Swann does not mean he is better than Ashwin, quite simply. That is ridiculously one eyed. That is all.

Well, I already said Ashwin should be rated higher. But that doesn't mean his is better than Swann is all respects.

It is not cherrypicking. You can go over Swann's record yourself and he was a very consistent matchwinner across conditions in a way Ashwin isn't.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, I already said Ashwin should be rated higher. But that doesn't mean his is better than Swann is all respects.

It is not cherrypicking. You can go over Swann's record yourself and he was a very consistent matchwinner across conditions in a way Ashwin isn't.

Before 2018, I would have agreed with it. Now he has well passed Swann in every respect.

 

[subshakerz]

Before 2018, I would have agreed with it. Now he has well passed Swann in every respect.

Well, Ashwin still flopped in South Africa, New Zealand and England. He was moderately successful in Australia without running through their lineup. His own captain still doesn't rate him good enough to play against a second-rate English batting lineup.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, Ashwin still flopped in South Africa, New Zealand and England. He was moderately successful in Australia without running through their lineup. His own captain still doesn't rate him good enough to play against a second-rate English batting lineup.

I think its obvious you have not seen any of those series and have NFI what you are talking about. Bye.

 

[Bolo.]

I’m not sure who you had the conversation with, but I don’t agree that Donald played a disproportionate amount as a broken old dude, nor to your point that he had much of a slide at the end. He played his last Test at the age of 35, retiring almost as soon as he went in decline after a couple of poor Tests. He got out before his decline could have a real impact on his career numbers.

As for an earlier debut meaning he was great for longer, I guess that’s all conjecture and it would depend on exactly how early he debuted and how long it took him to develop. But to my point about it having an impact statistically: over his career Donald averaged 22 and struck at 47, so if during those early-20s years his numbers weren’t that good – and it is a fair assumption that they wouldn’t have been – then the earlier debut would indeed have affected his overall average and strike rate while adding additional wickets.

35 is old for an out and out quick. He started to lose a bunch of pace around 33 iirc. He was still a good bowler up till his cataclysmic 'cant stay on the park' decline, but not what he was before. You can see it in his numbers to a fair extent.

Had he debutted earlier, his numbers in his early 20s likely wouldnt have been great, but in mid 20s would they likely have been better... most players take a while to find their feet in test cricket.

Lots of speculation, but I think we are probably talking at most a couple of decimal points change in his average either way if he had debutted a couple of years earlier, and had he debutted much earlier, he likely would have retired earlier... again not much change.

Same answer I gave to someone arguing the reverse... if you want to assess.him fairly in terms of longevity, I think he should be thought of as a 400+ bowler with a similar average

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well, Ashwin still flopped in South Africa, New Zealand and England. He was moderately successful in Australia without running through their lineup. His own captain still doesn't rate him good enough to play against a second-rate English batting lineup.

Kohli's idiocy doesnt mean Ashwin has flopped in England.

 

[Flem274*]

Ashwin's average is protected by his droppings overseas, both the stupid ones and the justified ones.

Swann had to front up everywhere.

Ashwin also strongly benefits from DRS. He does not average 24 in 2006. He's very very good, but not within 3 runs of Murali good.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Matches are won by teams. Swann had the good fortune to play in a very good England line up.

Obviously that England batting lineup was going to be good anyway, but Swann was key to the balance of that side: England were able to get away with a 6/1/4 team selection while they had him because they could trust him to bowl a lot of overs on any wicket. Ever since Swann retired we have had to drop a batsman to fit in an allrounder or extra bowler in order to balance workloads for the quicks. (Once Stokes got good he solved that balance issue, but it's still a problem whenever he isn't available, like now...)


PS. I'm not arguing Swann was better than Ashwin, but he was a major part of that England side which reached #1.

 

[honestbharani]

Obviously that England batting lineup was going to be good anyway, but Swann was key to the balance of that side: England were able to get away with a 6/1/4 team selection while they had him because they could trust him to bowl a lot of overs on any wicket. Ever since Swann retired we have had to drop a batsman to fit in an allrounder or extra bowler in order to balance workloads for the quicks. (Once Stokes got good he solved that balance issue, but it's still a problem whenever he isn't available, like now...)


PS. I'm not arguing Swann was better than Ashwin, but he was a major part of that England side which reached #1.

Oh, he completed a piece of the puzzle that was missing from the RSA team of the late 90s or the late 00s, for examples. And he was a key reason why they were #1 and he was magnificent. But to use it in a player V player comparison as some kind of sole deterministic criteria is silly IMHO. Coz most of the times it has very little to do with the players themselves.

 

[harsh.ag]

Ashwin's better overall but Swann was better at certain things.