Wasim Akram vs Allan Donald

[h_hurricane]

People tend to think Donald lacks longevity due to him playing just a decade. He was gunning it for Warwickshire in the county before his SA debut. In his first ODI match against India, he destroyed the lineup. The years he missed due to SA's isolation are likely among his best years.

 

[howitzer]

People tend to think Donald lacks longevity due to him playing just a decade. He was gunning it for Warwickshire in the county before his SA debut. In his first ODI match against India, he destroyed the lineup. The years he missed due to SA's isolation are likely among his best years.

Yeah as a bowler he started peaking about 89-ish. Understandable for people to only want to use the segment of his career that he played Tests in for comparisons though.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Yea Donald should have had 400+ wickets

 

[Bolo.]

Why does 'rep' matter so much to you? Rep can be, and often is, wrong.

It's a handy tool for 'proving' a point.

You get to pick which opinions you want to listen to and ignore the others.

You get to dismiss opinions changing as careers progress as revisionism... If it suits your agenda.

You get to ignore if rep was actually correct... If it suits.

 

[subshakerz]

It's a handy tool for 'proving' a point.

You get to pick which opinions you want to listen to and ignore the others.

You get to dismiss opinions changing as careers progress as revisionism... If it suits your agenda.

You get to ignore if rep was actually correct... If it suits.

Um, no. I can't make up rep. If I tried to tell you Walsh was rated better than Ambrose, that is just wrong.

 

[ankitj]

Not unanimously, it's still a split. I know quite a few, including Tendulkar and Dravid, who put McGrath ahead.

Donald has no backers as I have seen.

There were periods when Donald was considered best in the world by cricketing experts. And Wasim was active in those times. I don't know why you think Donald had Gillespie level reputation.

 

[Bolo.]

Um, no. I can't make up rep. If I tried to tell you Walsh was rated better than Ambrose, that is just wrong.

I'm not talking about making up ratings for other people. Im talking about which ones you choose to listen to. There are always people praising for players. Like in the mid 2010s when the English media was spamming that Anderson is better than Steyn. You can go with this as a concensus pick dishonestly.

Or honestly. Depends what you are exposed to. I thought Waqar and Donald were both generally considered much better than Wasim until reading about him on the Internet in the 2000s. Wasim wasn't really rated in testing RSA.

 

[subshakerz]

There were periods when Donald was considered best in the world by cricketing experts. And Wasim was active in those times. I don't know why you think Donald had Gillespie level reputation.

Yes, Donald around 97/98 was widely considered the best in the world based on form and I acknowledge that, as Wasim and Ambrose had begun their own declines.

That doesn't mean in cricket punditry he was considered better as an overall bowler.

It's like suggesting Dravid circa 2004/2005 was a better bat than Tendulkar based on form, which is true, but never as an overall batsman in the eyes of peers/pundits.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not talking about making up ratings for other people. Im talking about which ones you choose to listen to. There are always people praising for players. Like in the mid 2010s when the English media was spamming that Anderson is better than Steyn. You can go with this as a concensus pick dishonestly.

Or honestly. Depends what you are exposed to. I thought Waqar and Donald were both generally considered much better than Wasim until reading about him on the Internet in the 2000s. Wasim wasn't really rated in testing RSA.

Yes and I never said looking at rep or peer rating with contextualizing it.

There are always outlier opinions. Anderson over Steyn opinions could be expected based on Anderson being the only regular worldclass bowler around for much of Steyns peak, but it is far from a normative stance. As is Waqar over Wasim.

Just because it isn't an exact science doesn't mean we dismiss it in our stat arrogance.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes and I never said looking at rep or peer rating with contextualizing it.

There are always outlier opinions. Anderson over Steyn opinions could be expected based on Anderson being the only regular worldclass bowler around for much of Steyns peak, but it is far from a normative stance. As is Waqar over Wasim.

Just because it isn't an exact science doesn't mean we dismiss it in our stat arrogance.

You are remarkably quick to dismiss stats when they don't suit your agenda, and to use them when they do.

Stats come from somewhere. I didn't know how good Donald's stats were in the 90s. What I knew was that he was the best I'd seen at consistently picking up cheap wickets quickly. Reading his stats just confirms this.

This applies to other players as well. You can get some divergence of stats from quality (for example poor fielding), and there are some things that stats really struggle to capture, but in general a mismatch is more likely to come from not reading them properly.

 

[subshakerz]

You are remarkably quick to dismiss stats when they don't suit your agenda, and to use them when they do.

Stats come from somewhere. I didn't know how good Donald's stats were in the 90s. What I knew was that he was the best I'd seen at consistently picking up cheap wickets quickly. Reading his stats just confirms this.

This applies to other players as well. You can get some divergence of stats from quality (for example poor fielding), and there are some things that stats really struggle to capture, but in general a mismatch is more likely to come from not reading them properly.

Depends on the stats. If you just quote me only a low average without many wickets or spells of note, yes I will downplay that. Because the whole point of those stats is to affect games.

It seems clear to me that for you, a bowlers job isn't to win matches, but ensure cheap wicket-taking.

You need to stop this checklist approach. Dig deeper and you will realise there is a reason Donald never got the rep you want to give him now.

 

[StephenZA]

That what his record shows.

That's what your interpretation of his record shows...

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Akram definitely.

 

[subshakerz]

That's what your interpretation of his record shows...

We are all interpreting.

 

[Bolo.]

Depends on the stats. If you just quote me only a low average without many wickets or spells of note, yes I will downplay that. Because the whole point of those stats is to affect games.

It seems clear to me that for you, a bowlers job isn't to win matches, but ensure cheap wicket-taking.

You need to stop this checklist approach. Dig deeper and you will realise there is a reason Donald never got the rep you want to give him now.

Taking lots of cheap wickets is how you win matches. He did this.

You seem to want an uneven split in wickets. You forget that for every above average performance you must also have a below average one. It's not possible to work out which is better without actually watching, but for a quality team (which he played for), even is likely better.

Ignoring draws, him taking 10 one match and 0 the next is most likely giving 1 win and 1 loss. Him going 5/5 will win a fair chunk more than it loses.

 

[subshakerz]

Taking lots of cheap wickets is how you win matches. He did this.

You seem to want an uneven split in wickets. You forget that for every above average performance you must also have a below average one. It's not possible to work out which is better without actually watching, but for a quality team (which he played for), even is likely better.

Ignoring draws, him taking 10 one match and 0 the next is most likely giving 1 win and 1 loss. Him going 5/5 will win a fair chunk more than it loses.

Disagree. Unless you are playing poor opposition, you are not going to be a match-winner every game. Series results are often decided by a single game. Have a series of middle hauls isn't going to win a single game against strong opposition. To win a game needs a superlative performance most of the time.

Him going 5/5 means he is a support bowler to more wicket-taking bowlers in those games, and if you look at his career, it was guys like Shultz, Fanie and Pollock who stood up and had the actual signature spells that drew/won series abroad in SL, Aus, Ind and Pak, his cheap wickets weren't the game changer.

Look at the other top tier ATGs and you will see that they had this imbalance too, but that is exactly why they are rated so highly. They saved their best for when it mattered most.

Steyn is a good example because his series in Eng and Aus are littered with poor returns in many games but his signature spells won SA the series in multiple tours.

 

[Jumno]

Stats wise, Jayasuriya is a very good example of this. He was a huge impact player and could win games for Sri Lanka. He was a destructive batsman and frightened the life out of fans.

People who saw Jaya play knew this. 1996 world cup, 07 WC final, Sharjah 189, his 99 2001 coca cola cup final.

Indian fans just wanted to get him out early.

Yet his average is nearing 33. He was definitely better than that.

 

[subshakerz]

Stats wise, Jayasuriya is a good example of this. He was a huge impact player and could win games for Sri Lanka. He was a destructive batsman and frightened the life out of fans.

People who saw Jaya play knew this. 1996 world cup, 07 WC final, Sharjah 189, many knocks.

Yet his average is nearing 33. He was definitely better than that.

Well let's say we are comparing Jayasuria with another batsman of a better average of 35 and SR who scores roughly in the range of 30 to 40 runs every game.

Bolo's argument is essentially that the second player is better than Jayasuria as his performances are more 'balanced'. I argue Jayasuria is better as he was a matchwinner on his day and saved his best for big occasions.

 

[Bolo.]

Disagree. Unless you are playing poor opposition, you are not going to be a match-winner every game. Series results are often decided by a single game. Have a series of middle hauls isn't going to win a single game against strong opposition. To win a game needs a superlative performance most of the time.

Him going 5/5 means he is a support bowler to more wicket-taking bowlers in those games, and if you look at his career, it was guys like Fanie and Pollock who stood up and had the actual signature spells that drew/won series abroad in Aus, Ind and Pak, his cheap wickets weren't the game changer.

Look at the other top tier ATGs and you will see that they had this imbalance too, but that is exactly why they are rated so highly. They saved their best for when it mattered most.

Steyn is a good example because his series in Eng and Aus are littered with poor returns in many games but his signature spells won SA the series in multiple tours.

RSA had the bowling to take 15 wickets without him. 20 is a push.

It doesn't matter who the star performer is, just that the lineup does enough. RSA lose all of the tests you are mentioning if Donald takes a couple fewer wickets. They are great examples of why you are wrong.

In a different team, you might get a different answer. Like one with poor bowling, or strong batting that is pushing for draws and series wins. But they don't apply to Donald, except maybe against AUS, who he took nearly 7wpm against in wins and just over 2 in losses, so the split is already there.

 

[kyear2]

You are remarkably quick to dismiss stats when they don't suit your agenda, and to use them when they do.

Stats come from somewhere. I didn't know how good Donald's stats were in the 90s. What I knew was that he was the best I'd seen at consistently picking up cheap wickets quickly. Reading his stats just confirms this.

This applies to other players as well. You can get some divergence of stats from quality (for example poor fielding), and there are some things that stats really struggle to capture, but in general a mismatch is more likely to come from not reading them properly.

What everyone needs to understand about Subz is that he has one core agenda and everything else revolves around that.

It's led to him openly trying to devalue Kallis, Ambrose and now Donald all to similar results.

Sticking to the bowlers, Ambrose wasn't penetrative enough, and just managed to maintain a pretty average, which you can't unless you continue to take wickets by the way. And this despite him having an almost identical s/r to Imran. Donald again, just maintained a pretty average but lacked impact to win matches. This despite Donald actually having more victories in his career and more 5 wicket hauls in said victories. He also conveniently brings up peer rep (for Donald not Ambrose, why allow consistency to be a thing), despite the fact that Donald was playing for the recently readmitted SA and being overshadowed.

The notion of performance consistency also seems to avoid him. As someone else pointed out, having big performances then disappearing isn't helpful to team's consistently winning. But consistent, even if lower performances, with a healthy smattering of 5 wicket hauls contributes to the consistency of the team and to maintaining these "pretty averages".