• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Allan Donald vs Joel Garner

Who was the greater bowler?

  • Allan Donald

    Votes: 25 59.5%

  • Joel Garner

    Votes: 17 40.5%
  • Total voters
    42
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Donald. That's only because he achieved things like 10 fors etc that Garner didn't quite achieve. So he was a greater bowler. But I wouldn't necessarily say he was a better bowler if that makes sense.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Donald is massively over rated because, firstly, he home-bowled on extremely pace-friendly decks in a very pace-friendly era and secondly because he went to water against the best side of his era. He would turn up against Australia, bowl a rapid first or second spell then end up being mostly ineffective for the rest of a given match/ series.

Basically he was Steve Waugh's bitch. He was mentally beaten before he bowled a ball. And Waugh didn't even play a pull shot.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Garner is so underrated. So glad he came in so high in the fast bowler survival game.
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Both were fine bowlers but Garner's average and economy rate are superior to Donald's at Test level. Added to this, Garner is an ATG at white ball cricket whereas Donald was less effective.
Donald may have had more 5 wicket hauls (and 3 10 in a match) but that was because he was SA's frontline strike bowler while Garner was, to an extent, playing second fiddle in an awsome WI attack. Despite this, he was a vital and talented component of that attack.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
Burgey said:
Donald is massively over rated because, firstly, he home-bowled on extremely pace-friendly decks in a very pace-friendly era and secondly because he went to water against the best side of his era. He would turn up against Australia, bowl a rapid first or second spell then end up being mostly ineffective for the rest of a given match/ series.

Basically he was Steve Waugh's bitch. He was mentally beaten before he bowled a ball. And Waugh didn't even play a pull shot.
Click to expand...
All the quicks from Donalds era from RSA/Aus turned to water when playing each other. ATGs like Pollock and Mcgrath, as well as excellent bowlers like De Villiers and Gillespie were limping to just over 3WPM. Donald was the only quick from either side getting close to 4 with a significant amount of games IIRC. And thats with him playing his last 2 series against Aus, when his body broke down. Quirk of timing.

Look how far ahead of the others he is before that, as well as the quality of guys he was outperforming.


The only quick who could be relied on to take wickets in RSA AUS games until years after he retired. I assume you are marking everyone else down as well, and more so than him?
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Bolo. said:
All the quicks from Donalds era from RSA/Aus turned to water when playing each other. ATGs like Pollock and Mcgrath, as well as excellent bowlers like De Villiers and Gillespie were limping to just over 3WPM. Donald was the only quick from either side getting close to 4 with a significant amount of games IIRC. And thats with him playing his last 2 series against Aus, when his body broke down. Quirk of timing.

Look how far ahead of the others he is before that, as well as the quality of guys he was outperforming.


The only quick who could be relied on to take wickets in RSA AUS games until years after he retired. I assume you are marking everyone else down as well, and more so than him?
Click to expand...
Yea no all the Aussie bowlers had broken toe nails.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah I’m marking him down because he was as hard as a lemonade sandwich when things went against him. It was actually cringeworthy to watch
 
Shri

Shri

Mr. Glass
Bolo. said:
All the quicks from Donalds era from RSA/Aus turned to water when playing each other. ATGs like Pollock and Mcgrath, as well as excellent bowlers like De Villiers and Gillespie were limping to just over 3WPM. Donald was the only quick from either side getting close to 4 with a significant amount of games IIRC. And thats with him playing his last 2 series against Aus, when his body broke down. Quirk of timing.

Look how far ahead of the others he is before that, as well as the quality of guys he was outperforming.


The only quick who could be relied on to take wickets in RSA AUS games until years after he retired. I assume you are marking everyone else down as well, and more so than him?
Click to expand...
i now understand why players and coaches hate cricket analysts like kimber who point things out while strategizing using data

good stuff
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
The Sean said:
I see this line or similar used a lot here, where has it come from?
Click to expand...
Exaggerated version of a plethora of reasons used to excuse Warne's performances vs India on here. Bad form/injury/recovering from injury/divorce etc. etc. Basically he never played India at 100%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top