• 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.

Dennis Lillee vs Allan Donald

Who is the greater test bowler?

  • Total voters
    37
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Donald like Kallis is one of those players stats addicts on CW are going to overrate a tad now more than he was actually rated in his career.

Great bowler but throughout his career he seemed to miss the big moments and big spells when it mattered. No real series winning effort away from home you can point to or signature spells. Just flashy figures.

Best example of Donald's failure to turn it on when it mattered was the big series between SA/Australia at home in 96/97, when Donald was missing in the first 2 tests and then came good in the 3rd with the series lost.

That and the fact that Donald is not even mentioned as an afterthought by batsmen of the era are reasons I don't tend to rate him as highly. Still top 10 though.
 
Last edited:
2

271 & 16/166

School Boy/Girl Captain
Saw both Lillee and Donald at their peak and it's DK.
His ability to intimidate and dominate a batsman was just a class above and to fight back from a devastating back injury to again be the world's best was extraordinary
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
kyear2 said:
I have them 7 and 8, so close. But Donald just pips him. Basically equal tbh
Click to expand...
Yes because as you are also well aware, Donald has a proven record all over the globe including in Asia where Lillee hardly played.....
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Stats, peer / journalistic rating, eye test, all should be factored in, but to what degree.

Peer rating should be at the bottom of that list imo. That can have so many inherent biases involved that it should be taken with a heaping of salt.

I know Coronis and others aren't keep on eye test, because it favors certain batsmen over others, but it's not just aesthetics, it's seeing how they performed against the best of their peers etc.

Stats, as much disliked as they are, are the only honest judge and really where we have to look for these things and deservedly get the heaviest proportion of the end rating.

Also, a west indian's perspective of Donald would be very different than an Australian's based purely on how he did against the two teams.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
kyear2 said:
Stats, peer / journalistic rating, eye test, all should be factored in, but to what degree.

Peer rating should be at the bottom of that list imo. That can have so many inherent biases involved that it should be taken with a heaping of salt.

I know Coronis and others aren't keep on eye test, because it favors certain batsmen over others, but it's not just aesthetics, it's seeing how they performed against the best of their peers etc.

Stats, as much disliked as they are, are the only honest judge and really where we have to look for these things and deservedly get the heaviest proportion of the end rating.

Also, a west indian's perspective of Donald would be very different than an Australian's based purely on how he did against the two teams.
Click to expand...
A beautiful swinging yorker means **** if it doesn’t take as many wickets as @Line and Length
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Captain
subshakerz said:
Donald like Kallis is one of those players stats addicts on CW are going to overrate a tad now more than he was actually rated in his career.

Great bowler but throughout his career he seemed to miss the big moments and big spells when it mattered. No real series winning effort away from home you can point to or signature spells. Just flashy figures.

Best example of Donald's failure to turn it on when it mattered was the big series between SA/Australia at home in 96/97, when Donald was missing in the first 2 tests and then came good in the 3rd with the series lost.

That and the fact that Donald is not even mentioned as an afterthought by batsmen of the era are reasons I don't tend to rate him as highly. Still top 10 though.
Click to expand...
Donald was much more explosive than Kallis and their batting wasn't great in the 90s which isn't his fault (as you know). I agree Lillee is a bit better.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
Stats, peer / journalistic rating, eye test, all should be factored in, but to what degree.

Peer rating should be at the bottom of that list imo. That can have so many inherent biases involved that it should be taken with a heaping of salt.

I know Coronis and others aren't keep on eye test, because it favors certain batsmen over others, but it's not just aesthetics, it's seeing how they performed against the best of their peers etc.

Stats, as much disliked as they are, are the only honest judge and really where we have to look for these things and deservedly get the heaviest proportion of the end rating.

Also, a west indian's perspective of Donald would be very different than an Australian's based purely on how he did against the two teams.
Click to expand...
I think it's obvious record is most important. But I don't see why eye test matters more than consensus of cricketers who actually played the bowler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top