Wasim Akram vs Allan Donald

[subshakerz]

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.

Lol the star performer is the entire point, it's how top tier ATGs build their reputations in the first place aside from such middle level consistency.

Maybe I missed how top tier ATGs are expected to be good support bowlers so other can win the games for them.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Argument about Donald's impact was specific to his away record. At home I always said he was a beast.

As for Ambrose, I was against you reading success in his away averages when he didn't actually take that many wickets. He doesn't have a problem with peer rep, Donald does, so I bring it up with Donald.

It's all pretty clear. The features of most of your responses is to misrepresent my arguments and I am sure a few can attest to this.

 

[shortpitched713]

Who explicitly said that Wasim was better than Donald?

@subshakerz

This question requires an answer in order to say that Wasim's rep is definitively higher than Donald's.

A lot of time players will just be questioned about the "most famous" of a category, and the player will say "oh he was the best", because that is what the interviewer is interested to hear. It applies to Wasim vs his rivals, Warne vs Murali, Tendulkar vs Lara, etc. If you asked them point blank "was X better than Y", I think you'd find it much harder to get that positive review, and the reporter/interviewer is smart enough not to ask it like that for exactly that reason.

 

[Bolo.]

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

Lol the star performer is the entire point, it's how top tier ATGs build their reputations in the first place aside from such middle level consistency.

Maybe I missed how top tier ATGs are expected to be good support bowlers so other can win the games for them.

Glorious 180 you are pulling here

Donald obviously was the star performer for his team. Bringing up games in which he was outdone by other outstanding bowlers doesn't change this. Warne and Mcgrath probably starred in 1/3 of games each. It doesn't detract from their quality.

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz

This question requires an answer in order to say that Wasim's rep is definitively higher than Donald's.

A lot of time players will just be questioned about the "most famous" of a category, and the player will say "oh he was the best", because that is what the interviewer is interested to hear. It applies to Wasim vs his rivals, Warne vs Murali, Tendulkar vs Lara, etc. If you asked them point blank "was X better than Y", I think you'd find it much harder to get that positive review, and the reporter/interviewer is smart enough not to ask it like that for exactly that reason.

The question usually asked is 'who is the best/most difficult fast bowler you faced'?

I don't think an international cricketer cares about which bowler is more famous. I take them at their word. If someones answer Wasim or Ambrose, I think it is a fair assumption to think that they rate others slightly below them.

But I can also say that when I hear players give the answer, they usually supply reasons why Wasim or Ambrose is up there for them. For Wasim, it is usually about his skill. Lara says it is because he could get you out even when set, for example.

Now if the question is 'who is your favorite bowler?' then I agree with your reservation.

 

[Slifer]

What


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".

Excellently put.....

 

[subshakerz]

Donald obviously was the star performer for his team. Bringing up games in which he was outdone by other outstanding bowlers doesn't change this. Warne and Mcgrath probably starred in 1/3 of games each. It doesn't detract from their quality.

Not away from home, is my point. Those games in which he was outdone I mentioned were deciding games of series, not random ones. And he has few if any counter examples to show him outshining them for a decisive result.

There is no 180. Read my quotes again they are consistent.

 

[Bolo.]

Not away from home, is my point. Those games in which he was outdone I mentioned were deciding games of series, not random ones. And he has few if any counter examples to show him outshining them for a decisive result.

There is no 180. Read my quotes again they are consistent.

He obviously was. He has the best record.

On a game by game basis, I'm sure he wasn't typically the star. I doubt anybody with that kind of competition was over a decent chunk of series. Are you going to wage war on everyone who played with excellent support, or just him?

 

[subshakerz]

He obviously was. He has the best record.

On a game by game basis, I'm sure he wasn't typically the star. I doubt anybody with that kind of competition was over a decent chunk of series. Are you going to wage war on everyone who played with excellent support, or just him?

He was barely the star. That's the problem.

Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Wasim all had competition yet have more star matches and series away from home.

 

[Bolo.]

He was barely the star. That's the problem.

Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Wasim all had competition yet have more star matches and series away from home.

You are now shifting back into his overall away record, which is outstanding.

You are listing a bunch of the best bowlers ever, who all played a ton more tests than him away. It would be a black mark on their records If they didn't have more standout performances, but not on his. And FTR, Steyn and Wasim did not have his level of competition away.

 

[subshakerz]

You are now shifting back into his overall away record, which is outstanding.

You are listing a bunch of the best bowlers ever, who all played a ton more tests than him away. It would be a black mark on their records If they didn't have more standout performances, but not on his. And FTR, Steyn and Wasim did not have his level of competition away.

His overall away was the target of my critique.

Wasim had Imran, Waqar, Mushtaq and Saqlain as competition across his career. Way more than Donald.

Steyn had Philander and Morkel, he was pretty much as successful away after Philander came then before.

So is the reasoning that he didn't play enough away compared to others, hence less star performances? I am willing to accept that as a fair point. It doesn't take away from the thrust of the critique, since he is still given disproportionate credit for away returns that lacked much impact, but I can buy the excuse for not having enough opportunities to achieve more.

 

[Coronis]

His overall away was the target of my critique.

Wasim had Imran, Waqar, Mushtaq and Saqlain as competition across his career. Way more than Donald.

Steyn had Philander and Morkel, he was pretty much as successful away after Philander came then before.

So is the reasoning that he didn't play enough away compared to others, hence less star performances? I am willing to accept that as a fair point. It doesn't take away from the thrust of the critique, since he is still given disproportionate credit for away returns that lacked much impact, but I can buy the excuse for not having enough opportunities to achieve more.

You’ve listed a bunch of players with meh away records as away competition - not sure how that helps your case.

 

[Bolo.]

His overall away was the target of my critique.

Wasim had Imran, Waqar, Mushtaq and Saqlain as competition across his career. Way more than Donald.

Steyn had Philander and Morkel, he was pretty much as successful away after Philander came then before.

So is the reasoning that he didn't play enough away compared to others, hence less star performances? I am willing to accept that as a fair point. It doesn't take away from the thrust of the critique, since he is still given disproportionate credit for away returns that lacked much impact, but I can buy the excuse for not having enough opportunities to achieve more.

You seem to be flipping between overall record/impact/pretty numbers in individual games.

He has the overall numbers away. Only the absolute elite are ahead of him, and not by much other than low game count.

He has the impact. 15 Away series. 4 losses, 11 wins or draws. Of the 11, 7 series results change if he shits the bed in the won tests. Possibly more if he shits the bed in draws, IDK. It's extremely hard to get this level of impact. You need to put in a lot of good performances at the right time and be playing for a team in a goldilocks strength range.

He doesn't have many sparkly spells, partly cos of low number of away tests, and partly a result of having a more balanced record. A balanced record worked for him. Won a lot. If he had more sparkly spells without upgrading his overall record to GOAT, you are likely costing series. Series>sparkles.

 

[subshakerz]

You’ve listed a bunch of players with meh away records as away competition - not sure how that helps your case.

Not really in Wasims case at all. I don't know how you can suggest that. Waqar, Mushtaq and Saqlain were highly competitive away.

Philander/Morkel depends on where Steyn was touring. I can concede Donald had slightly more competition here but Steyn still had a fair bit.

 

[subshakerz]

You seem to be flipping between overall record/impact/pretty numbers in individual games.

He has the overall numbers away. Only the absolute elite are ahead of him, and not by much other than low game count.

He has the impact. 15 Away series. 4 losses, 11 wins or draws. Of the 11, 7 series results change if he ****s the bed in the won tests. Possibly more if he ****s the bed in draws, IDK. It's extremely hard to get this level of impact. You need to put in a lot of good performances at the right time and be playing for a team in a goldilocks strength range.

He doesn't have many sparkly spells, partly cos of low number of away tests, and partly a result of having a more balanced record. A balanced record worked for him. Won a lot. If he had more sparkly spells without upgrading his overall record to GOAT, you are likely costing series. Series>sparkles.

Your logic is based on many false assumptions.

Primarily, Donald having a poor test in those won away games could be the same logic to argue for any supporting bowler in a victory ever. It doesn't mean that their role is irreplaceable though or as important as the actual matchwinner. 'Taking away' Donald from won tests doesn't mean that supportive bowling role wouldn't be replaced by a regular medium pacer. It definitely could have, give that you had guys like Snell, Kallis, Cronje, Ntini, McMillan, etc. chipping in with roughly similar support wickets in those tests. It's the star performers output in those games which can't be expected to be replaced by a regular bowler.

The whole point in won tests is for key bowlers to have a disproportionate role in victories which makes their value that much more to the team. You are making a virtue of Donald being routinely upstaged by better matchwinners.

He doesn't have many sparkly spells, partly cos of low number of away tests, and partly a result of having a more balanced record. A balanced record worked for him. Won a lot. If he had more sparkly spells without upgrading his overall record to GOAT, you are likely costing series. Series>sparkles.

Pure speculation. What we can be sure of is if Shultz, Fanie and Pollock didn't produce those matchwinning spells, beyond the support bowler level, those series wouldn't have been drawn or won.

 

[Bolo.]

Your logic is based on many false assumptions.

Primarily, Donald having a poor test in those won away games could be the same logic to argue for any supporting bowler in a victory ever. It doesn't mean that their role is irreplaceable though or as important as the actual matchwinner. 'Taking away' Donald from won tests doesn't mean that supportive bowling role wouldn't be replaced by a regular medium pacer. It definitely could have, give that you had guys like Snell, Kallis, Cronje, Ntini, McMillan, etc. chipping in with roughly similar support wickets in those tests. It's the star performers output in those games which can't be expected to be replaced by a regular bowler.

The whole point in won tests is for key bowlers to have a disproportionate role in victories which makes their value that much more to the team. You are making a virtue of Donald being routinely upstaged by better matchwinners.


Pure speculation. What we can be sure of is if Shultz, Fanie and Pollock didn't produce those matchwinning spells, beyond the support bowler level, those series wouldn't have been drawn or won.

The point of a team game is for the team to win. You are making it look suspiciously like you would have been more impressed with him if he had gone huge in a match that was won anyway and bombed in another that would have cost a series. And you say other people are too focused on pretty stats and you want impact...

Of the 7 series I picked, 1 might be contentious. He's nearly 7 WPM @ around 15 in the others, highest wicket taker in 4/6. We can't know that a B stringer is not going to step up and take the 7-80ish needed for a win in the Fanie game after Donald gets hit out the attack. But it's very unlikely. Or even that Cummins doesn't score a matching double in the WC after Maxwell goes for a duck. We can know that he was remarkably good at doing enough in an unusually high percentage of won games that determined series results.

I wasn't counting the Shultz game FYI. You can't fault a bowler who averages 7 in a match, but they obviously would have won that without Donald. Probably cruised to a huge win without Shultz even.

 

[subshakerz]

The point of a team game is for the team to win. You are making it look suspiciously like you would have been more impressed with him if he had gone huge in a match that was won anyway and bombed in another that would have cost a series. And you say other people are too focused on pretty stats and you want impact...

Of the 7 series I picked, 1 might be contentious. He's nearly 7 WPM @ around 15 in the others, highest wicket taker in 4/6. We can't know that a B stringer is not going to step up and take the 7-80ish needed for a win in the Fanie game after Donald gets hit out the attack. But it's very unlikely. Or even that Cummins doesn't score a matching double in the WC after Maxwell goes for a duck. We can know that he was remarkably good at doing enough in an unusually high percentage of won games that determined series results.

I wasn't counting the Shultz game FYI. You can't fault a bowler who averages 7 in a match, but they obviously would have won that without Donald. Probably cruised to a huge win without Shultz even.

Wait are you saying he took 7 WPM @ around 15 in the 7 deciding games of series that were won or drawn away from home?

 

[Bolo.]

Wait are you saying he took 7 WPM @ around 15 in the 7 deciding games of series that were won or drawn?

6 games. I'm only counting his big impact games here. There were 10 in total. 3 games were innings wins that he didn't do much in despite not doing anything wrong (average 17, but only 3wpm). One was close and he didn't do much. 6.14 wickets per game at a bit under 17 including his poor one but excluding the innings wins.

 

[subshakerz]

6 games. I'm only counting his big impact games here. There were 10 in total. 3 games were innings wins that he didn't do much in despite not doing anything wrong (average 17, but only 3wpm). One was close and he didn't do much. 6.14 wickets per game at a bit under 17 including his poor one but excluding the innings wins.

Which games are these pls?

 

[Bolo.]

Which games are these pls?

SSC 93 Harare 99 Bengaluru 2000 for innings
Faisalabad 97 for the poor one.