Wasim Akram vs Allan Donald

[OverratedSanity]

But that is not always the case though. It also depends on the culture of the team and the availability of spots within the team. I mean, how the heck would it be fair to punish Lara for not getting into THAT Windies line up just because Sachin was able to get into the then Indian lineup? Assuming every teenager who debuted as a teenager were the only teenagers who were ever good enough to play at that level is a rather silly assumption coz we have examples of both sides of the coin. Unless we assume Ashraful was suddenly a better 18 year old bat than Ponting was.

No one said its always the case and no one's punishing players for not debuting as teenagers. What I'm talking about is the opposite...people routinely do punish players for actually debuting as teenagers which is dumb. Also obviously context is important. Lara and Ponting were prodigies and would've probably done well if picked earlier.

Also the bolded part doesnt really make much sense to me. Guys like Sachin and Wasim who were selected as teenagers and managed to have some success deserve credit for it instead of being decried for the marginal hit their overall average took as a result. Dont think I said all teenage cricketers even those who were shite are magically better.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Anyway poor donald is going to get ignored in his own thread like Trueman, so this is pretty cool. Sachin's stump cartwheeling there is one of my earliest test cricket memories.

 

[Kirkut]

So many new and original points being made in this thread.

I mean, I can prove that Srinath was better than Walsh by some skilled cherry picking

 

[trundler]

I mean I can prove that Srinath was better than Walsh by some skilled cherry picking

If you can find an 18 year stretch where Srinath was better I'm all ears.

 

[ankitj]

Based on posts on the last page, Akarm was at his peak from 1990 to 1997. This is backed up by numbers. He took 240 wickets in 48 tests at 20.05 a piece and SR of 46.4.

In Donald's best 8 years from 1992 to 1999, he took 284 wickets in 59 tests at 21.83 a piece and SR of 45.7.

But here is the other relevant factor. During Akram's peak 40.0% of his wickets were batsmen playing at #8 to #11. For Donald in the selected period, that number is 28.5%. That's the reason I always place Akram close to bottom in the gold tier (which is itself an elite pack to start with). During his peak though his splendid average and higher wpm does counteract his higher % of tail wickets to an extent.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Anyway poor donald is going to get ignored in his own thread like Trueman, so this is pretty cool. Sachin's stump cartwheeling there is one of my earliest test cricket memories.

There was a fat kid in my building who'd embark on Donald's flying eagle celebration everytime he got a wicket.

 

[Kirkut]

If you can find an 18 year stretch where Srinath was better I'm all ears.

Longevity is an important factor but it should not make a bowling average of 23.56 look better than a bowling average of 20.94.

If longevity is so strong a factor then Holding/Roberts/Garner should be clearly rated below Anderson and Broad since none of the three have played more than 60 tests.

 

[The Sean]

Longevity is an important factor but it should not make a bowling average of 23.56 look better than a bowling average of 20.94.

No one is saying that - that's Waqar's average. Wasim's was the wildly different figure of 23.62.

Yes, I am that guy.

 

[ankitj]

Just binged on highlights of Donald's both spells in that Durban test.

 

[trundler]

Longevity is an important factor but it should not make a bowling average of 23.56 look better than a bowling average of 20.94.

If longevity is so strong a factor then Holding/Roberts/Garner should be clearly rated below Anderson and Broad since none of the three have played more than 60 tests.

 

[honestbharani]

No one said its always the case and no one's punishing players for not debuting as teenagers. What I'm talking about is the opposite...people routinely do punish players for actually debuting as teenagers which is dumb. Also obviously context is important. Lara and Ponting were prodigies and would've probably done well if picked earlier.

Also the bolded part doesnt really make much sense to me. Guys like Sachin and Wasim who were selected as teenagers and managed to have some success deserve credit for it instead of being decried for the marginal hit their overall average took as a result. Dont think I said all teenage cricketers even those who were ****e are magically better.

Fair enough. I agree the ones who succeeded as teenagers deserve credit for it.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Anyway poor donald is going to get ignored in his own thread like Trueman, so this is pretty cool. Sachin's stump cartwheeling there is one of my earliest test cricket memories.

Donald ?
2nd Greatest bowler of 90s after Akram.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Longevity is an important factor but it should not make a bowling average of 23.56 look better than a bowling average of 20.94.

If longevity is so strong a factor then Holding/Roberts/Garner should be clearly rated below Anderson and Broad since none of the three have played more than 60 tests.

Holding Career was 13 year long, If any 13 year stretch From Anderson career can match the quality of Holding career, Anderson should be rated higher IMO.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I mean, I can prove that Srinath was better than Walsh by some skilled cherry picking

Its easy. No need of Cherry Picking.

% of Top order wickets
Walsh 34.1%, Srinath 38.6%

Srinath better.

Tested and Proven method

 

[gftw]

Holding Career was 13 year long, If any 13 year stretch From Anderson career can match the quality of Holding career, Anderson should be rated higher IMO.

I agree with this logic for comparing bowlers. Obviously Holding and Garner would still be better even with this method, but someone like Roberts? I mean Roberts had a 9 year career where he averaged around 25.5. Since the beginning of 2014, Anderson has played 78 tests and averaged about 22 overall with an away average of about 25 and will likely continue this for another year or twice. A lot of those years also had conditions that were a lot more batting friendly than conditions during Robert's career and Anderson also had significantly worse bowling and fielding support away from home than Roberts. But instead of rewarding Anderson for having a career about twice as long as Roberts, CW will punish him for his poor start by ignoring the significantly better longevity and comparing their overall numbers and concluding that Anderson is a tier below Roberts when they're definitely in the same tier.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I still can't decide who to vote for. It'll probably take another three pages of this kind of wisdom to break the tie.

 

[smash84]

I still can't decide who to vote for. It'll probably take another three pages of this kind of wisdom to break the tie.

This kind of wisdom has an interminable supply on CW. Your decision is as good now as it will be 3 pages later

 

[subshakerz]

Even this is probably underselling young Wasim a bit. He was raw and understandably a little inconsistent, but that period saw him produce several legitimately great performances. He gave Pak a historic win vs WI in the 86 home series and came away with decent figures in the 1987 series in India when both Kapil and Imran struggled on pretty flat decks for the quick bowlers. Probably best of all, he almost pulled off a series win in WI in 88 by taking 7 wickets in the deciding test. If not for a tailend partnership, he'd have been primarily responsible for breaking the WI unbeaten streak. He accomplished all that before turning 22. McGrath, Ambrose, Donald hadn't even begun their test careers at that age. Marshall had played 3 tests and averaged 88.

Those kind of performances are rare and just add to a player's legacy. Going "Oh but his average is 2 points worse because he was actually decent enough to play cricket as a teenager" so he's worse is a very CW thing. Dumbest collective opinion on a supposedly smart cricket forum.

Yup, plus he took a tenfer in NZ in his second test. I agree he had some class performances in that time but clearly was in the developing phase of his career which was longer than most because he was 18. As you say, he shouldnt be penalized for what he did as a teen but given credit.

 

[subshakerz]

Anyway poor donald is going to get ignored in his own thread like Trueman, so this is pretty cool. Sachin's stump cartwheeling there is one of my earliest test cricket memories.

Remember warching this battle. It was my first exposure to Donald and what he is capable of.

 

[Bolo.]

Wasim hardly bowled in those last two series.

Wasim's pace declined in 97/98 likely due to his diabetes. But he was still a dangerous bowler in spurts from then until his retirement. Whereas Donald himself said that his pace was his USP, and once it left him he became a 3rd or 4th seamer in the attack by 2002-2003.

Again. Your memory is wrong. Or possibly based on ODIs if you are talking about stuff like 2002-2003. He was never a Wasim quality ODI bowler, but this is not what we are discussing. Donald played 2 tests in 2002 and then retired, much like Wasim.

Donalds MO was express. But he he also had prodigious lift, could seam the ball, and bowl conventional and reverse. When express left him in the 2000s he was fine. Im not gonna argue that Donald bowling 135-140> Donald at 150, but he did fine. Was taking 4.X WPM @ 20 as a FM.

He went sub 25 @3.5 WPM in the 2000s, despite his precipitous decline at the end, when he was literally hobbling in at 125 or so.

Wasim went at 2.4 WPM @30 in the 2000s. Ya, he was still capable of doing some great bowling in the decade. But you cant compare these records.

You can rip into Donalds record in the 2000s if you want within the context of ATG discussions. But it is utterly ridiculous to rip into his 2000s record when comparing him to Wasim. There are many legit reasons to rank Wasim ahead of Donald, but the argument you are clinging to is just categorically wrong.