Imran Khan vs Allan Donald

[subshakerz]

You also wrote this about Curtly:

"Yet Ambrose takes less than 4 wickets a tests at home at an SR of nearly 56."

The above shows you do value average and sr ie stats, no matter how you try to pretend you don't. And don't come with the context stuff either because we all already told you Ambrose was a shell of himself post surgery but you dismissed it and harped on his lack of "penetration" which for me means SR/wpm/average.

Yes I do value stats that are contextualized and actually have match impact behind them.

Ambrose post surgery is more than half of his career yet is treated like an afterthought here. His SR and WPM at home are outside the norm for ATG pacers and I brought many examples of series where he went missing.

At the end of the day, a nice average without impact, whether it be lack of spells or wickets, is not going to be as valued by me as you.

 

[Slifer]

Yes I do value stats that are contextualized and actually have match impact behind them.

Ambrose post surgery is more than half of his career yet is treated like an afterthought here. His SR and WPM at home are outside the norm for ATG pacers and I brought many examples of series where he went missing.

At the end of the day, a nice average without impact, whether it be lack of spells or wickets, is not going to be as valued by me as you.

Yeah but Ambrose did/does have spells outside the obvious ones. For example, I pointed out a test vs SL at home where Ambrose blasted them out after wi batsmen failed miserably. Without that spell, WI likely would've lost. Then there's the spell vs India at home in the test where India was chasing 120 odd. You won't see it reflected in the wickets column but Ambrose spell and his usual miserly ability and the 3 wkts he picked went a long way to WI winning a test they really shouldn't have. There are more but I'm too lazy.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah but Ambrose did/does have spells outside the obvious ones. For example, I pointed out a test vs SL at home where Ambrose blasted them out after wi batsmen failed miserably. Without that spell, WI likely would've lost. Then there's the spell vs India at home in the test where India was chasing 120 odd. You won't see it reflected in the wickets column but Ambrose spell and his usual miserly ability and the 3 wkts he picked went a long way to WI winning a test they really shouldn't have. There are more but I'm too lazy.

Fair enough but I never said he was completely toothless, just unpenetrative relative to ATG standards.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I didn’t think Donald would get so many votes tbh

 

[shortpitched713]

I didn’t think Donald would get so many votes tbh

The top of the "second tier" pacers, behind the big 5 is a very interesting one. I'd be interested in a multi way ordering between Imran, Donald, Garner, and maybe Wasim and/or another name I'm forgetting off the top of my head. I think all above have a a case to be number 6.

On the other hand, I don't think any have the ability to merit placement over an Ambrose, Steyn, Hadlee, etc, outside of very specific parameters.

 

[subshakerz]

I didn’t think Donald would get so many votes tbh

Yeah it's sad. We have to do something about the stat bod infection here.

 

[kyear2]

I'll take this one point at a time.

There is a reason average is used to help validate quality, it's the only thing that can. It demonstrates consistency. Despite previous efforts to say that it can be easily protected, it can't.

Secondly, I don't know how to get across that you can have good performances in a country, and not have performed well overall in a country.

Imran had one great match in Australia, in that match he had 2 (of his 3) 5 wicket hauls in that country (the other came the match before), and took a quarter of all his wickets in the country in that match, for reference he played 11 matches in Oz as a bowler.

If after that performance and you're still averaging over 28 in said country, with a strike rate of over 67, that means you weren't consistent or consistently great in said country. You had one great performance and was middling there after. Is that overall impact?

Now with regards to the last series, do we also get to take away Viv's and Ponting's last few series to make their records look better? In any event, if we take away that series, Imran still averages over 27 in Australia. It didn't impact his numbers to the degree that we're pretending.

So these accusations of average worship, and using terms like "pretty averages" "blind reading of averages" and "neat stats" is disingenuous and a strawman argument. Average isn't created out of mid air, it demonstrates how efficiently you took wickets, trying to say it doesn't show impact also isn't true. And also, there is also sr, where Imran was objectively abysmal down under.

 

[subshakerz]

I'll take this one point at a time.

There is a reason average is used to help validate quality, it's the only thing that can. It demonstrates consistency. Despite previous efforts to say that it can be easily protected, it can't.

Secondly, I don't know how to get across that you can have good performances in a country, and not have performed well overall in a country.

Imran had one great match in Australia, in that match he had 2 (of his 3) 5 wicket hauls in that country (the other came the match before), and took a quarter of all his wickets in the country in that match, for reference he played 11 matches in Oz as a bowler.

If after that performance and you're still averaging over 28 in said country, with a strike rate of over 67, that means you weren't consistent or consistently great in said country. You had one great performance and was middling there after. Is that overall impact?

Now with regards to the last series, do we also get to take away Viv's and Ponting's last few series to make their records look better? In any event, if we take away that series, Imran still averages over 27 in Australia. It didn't impact his numbers to the degree that we're pretending.

So these accusations of average worship, and using terms like "pretty averages" "blind reading of averages" and "neat stats" is disingenuous and a strawman argument. Average isn't created out of mid air, it demonstrates how efficiently you took wickets, trying to say it doesn't show impact also isn't true. And also, there is also sr, where Imran was objectively abysmal down under.

And the disingenuous downplaying of Imran continues.

You just want to sidestep a 12 wicket haul, purposely neglecting to mention it was matchwinning effort against a great side that drew a series and that Donald has nothing in his entire career frankly to compare to it.

You purposely neglect to mention that Imran had an excellent series after that in Australia in 81 too. So it wasn't such a one-off series.

And if you want to include Imran's last series there in 1990 as a bat mainly, fine but include Donald's also in 2001 where he was bashed. You don't want to do that though since it's clear there wouldn't be any average advantage for Donald to gloat about.

So you choose to weaselly include Imran's blemishes and then exclude Donald's to pretend this is an even match up in Australia.

 

[kyear2]

The top of the "second tier" pacers, behind the big 5 is a very interesting one. I'd be interested in a multi way ordering between Imran, Donald, Garner, and maybe Wasim and/or another name I'm forgetting off the top of my head. I think all above have a a case to be number 6.

On the other hand, I don't think any have the ability to merit placement over an Ambrose, Steyn, Hadlee, etc, outside of very specific parameters.

Yeah, agree with most of what you're saying here, just forgetting Lillee.

Any of Imran, Donald of Lillee can be legitimately rated as no 6 and heading up this tier. I just they are basically all kinda equal, having various strengths and weaknesses.

As Silfer said earlier Garner deserves to be there skill wise, just not sure if his lack of big hauls and lower wicket tally overall gets him there, or with Trueman just below these guys.

 

[smash84]

Believe it or not, ......... Garner took wickets out of the equation completely and wasn't afraid to pitch the ball up. As Boycott, once said, no one hit Joel, not even Viv.

Ironically it's Imran hitting Garner for 3 sixes in the over (really bowling filth here Garner, I know its ODI but still )

 

[kyear2]

For the record, I'll repeat.

Donald was below par in Australia, for me, Allan Donald was below par in Australia.

Equally for me Imran was below par in Australia and India.

I never said Donald was better than Imran in Australia.

Some people read and see what they want to

 

[subshakerz]

For the record, I'll repeat.

Donald was below par in Australia, for me, Allan Donald was below par in Australia.

Equally for me Imran was below par in Australia and India.

I never said Donald was better than Imran in Australia.

Some people read and see what they want to

Fine except one has actually won a game there on his lonesome and the other has not. I find your attempts to ignore that really odd. It's like ignoring Steyn's 2008 Melbourne test and just say he has a high average.

And do you ignore Donald's SC record since he didn't meet your 5 test standard in any country there? What do you choose to compare Imran's India with?

 

[kyear2]

The top of the "second tier" pacers, behind the big 5 is a very interesting one. I'd be interested in a multi way ordering between Imran, Donald, Garner, and maybe Wasim and/or another name I'm forgetting off the top of my head. I think all above have a a case to be number 6.

On the other hand, I don't think any have the ability to merit placement over an Ambrose, Steyn, Hadlee, etc, outside of very specific parameters.

Of this I've been very consistent, for me there is a top 5. Even on CW this has been borne out in polls and even the last top 10 ratings. But even among the top 5, the top 3 separate themselves from the pack with Marshall and McGrath again (for various reasons) just eking ahead of Hadlee there as well.

Imran, Donald, Lillee were also destructive and won matches for their teams and just above the next group of Trueman, Garner, Lindwall, Wasim etc.

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose

Imran - Donald - Lillee

Trueman
Wasim
Garner
Lindwall

Think that's more or less where I have everyone, last 4 really is a toss up.

 

[shortpitched713]

Garner is a bit underrated, because he wasn't the "main", bowler for the big part of his career. That was usually Marshall. He's the first one out of the fast bowling ATG hierarchy who that criticism voyld be leveled against.

But he more than made up for it, because he made his gaudy as hell numbers in the relatively difficult change bowling role, and was as effective as any ATG in that harder role. Plus, you can't even say he was a pure line and length defensive bowler, like some (unjustifiable imo) claim about Ambrose or McGrath. He attacked both the Batsmens body, and the stumps with equal intent, and had an excellent Yorker with which to do so.

Only thing against him is a relatively shorter career, but I'd definitely still have him above Wasim, and very competitive with both Imran and Donald, although he had a somewhat different role.

@PlayerComparisons :

Let's get some kind of 4 wayish comparison for the 6th greates fast bowler slot, if you don't mind?

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, agree with most of what you're saying here, just forgetting Lillee.

And Hoggard.

But seriously Lillee's star has really fallen on CW, as his stats and record have been quite naturally picked apart.

He doesn't have either the averages, or the breadth of conditions to merit comparison with the top group (10-12 fast bowlers), great though he was.

 

[Aidan11]

Donald just ahead for me.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Garner is a bit underrated, because he wasn't the "main", bowler for the big part of his career. That was usually Marshall. He's the first one out of the fast bowling ATG hierarchy who that criticism voyld be leveled against.

But he more than made up for it, because he made his gaudy as hell numbers in the relatively difficult change bowling role, and was as effective as any ATG in that harder role. Plus, you can't even say he was a pure line and length defensive bowler, like some (unjustifiable imo) claim about Ambrose or McGrath. He attacked both the Batsmens body, and the stumps with equal intent, and had an excellent Yorker with which to do so.

Only thing against him is a relatively shorter career, but I'd definitely still have him above Wasim, and very competitive with both Imran and Donald, although he had a somewhat different role.

@PlayerComparisons :

Let's get some kind of 4 wayish comparison for the 6th greates fast bowler slot, if you don't mind?

Pretty sure Imran is considered 6th on here. He’s beaten all the other candidates.

 

[shortpitched713]

Pretty sure Imran is considered 6th on here. He’s beaten all the other candidates.

He comfortably beat Wasim, and also Lillee if I remember correctly.

But here he is tied to Donald, and has never had a direct comparison to Garner, according to my search of this forum. I'd hardly say that's a "consensus" for a 6th place lock.

Edit: Transitively though, Imran should beat Garner, as Donald did beat Garner in a close one in one of your polls a couple years back.

 

[smash84]

yeah, I don't think cricketweb really has a consensus outside the top 3 of (Marshall, McGrath, and Hadlee)

 

[shortpitched713]

yeah, I don't think cricketweb really has a consensus outside the top 3 of (Marshall, McGrath, and Hadlee)

Imran is the only one breaking up a clear top 5 of pace bowling consensus. He's the most polarizing too, along with Warne/Murali discussions. That's why I pitted Imran and Warne against each other in a poll, a while back.

Donald would lose to either of Steyn or Ambrose (if it hasn't been done already). But this Imran / Donald poll may well be the closest to consensus for 6th.

Edit: Surprisingly, never been an Ambrose/Donald comparison. They were almost completely overlapping contemporaries, so thought it would be a natural comp.