Ravichandran Ashwin vs Allan Donald

[Bolo.]

I never saw Marshall or Hadlee bowl, probably the very fag end of their careers, same with Imran. Kapil played till 1994 and so I recall him playing far more. And the thing about longevity is, for me, to a certain point it also shows adaptability between different eras. Donald, to me, basically played in only one era.



I am ranking careers more than just on ability tbf. Also, I do think I saw some failures of Donald that play a role in me not rating him as high. I actually think I might rate Pollock an ATG as well, as he kinda reinvented himself to help his side across eras.

You never rate players you haven't seen?

I don't think any of the players you have listed other than McGrath* played in multiple eras. 80s and 90s was basically a prolonged period of fast bowling paradise, helped out by bad bats. Waqar and Ambrose in particular have an almost identical era to Donald.

*And Pollock, now that you bring him up. But while I think he should rise a little bit relative to some of these players for playing half of his career in a batting era, him failing in a batting era is absolutely not a reason to rate him over clearly better bowlers.

 

[honestbharani]

You never rate players you haven't seen?

I do.. but I try to avoid it as much as I can. Its just easier to rank players when you feel you have better context of the games and the situations etc.

 

[Bolo.]

I do.. but I try to avoid it as much as I can. Its just easier to rank players when you feel you have better context of the games and the situations etc.

Fair.

The rest of your rationale is a little incongruous though.

 

[Johan]

I have been warning you guys about where all this fake Ashwin hype would lead.

Bozo this is your fault.

 

[honestbharani]

You never rate players you haven't seen?

I don't think any of the players you have listed other than McGrath* played in multiple eras. 80s and 90s was basically a prolonged period of fast bowling paradise, helped out by bad bats. Waqar and Ambrose in particular have an almost identical era to Donald.

*And Pollock, now that you bring him up. But while I think he should rise a little bit relative to some of these players for playing half of his career in a batting era, him failing in a batting era is absolutely not a reason to rate him over clearly better bowlers.

That is where we differ. I agree Donald could be more destructive but better means other perspectives too.

 

[honestbharani]

Waqar and Ambrose in particular have an almost identical era to Donald.

I just think of the 1992 WC to 2003 WC period as the "90s era". The CEO pitches started soon after that WC and lasted till about 2015 for the most part. And the era between say the advent of white ball cricket to the 1992 WC as another era in cricket.

Something like pre 1992, 92-2003, 2003-2015, 2016-today is how classify the eras of modern cricket in my head. And I saw quite a bit of the cricket from around 89 to 1992, at least the games that were available in television in India. And the other eras I think watched/followed almost all international cricket played. Heck, I even remember a random county game in 1996 or 1997 when Pollock got 4 wickets in 4 balls in that 60 over OD tournament they had in England, for Warwickshire. Watched it live as I thought it was so exciting that I could see domestic cricket from another country in my TV.

 

[shortpitched713]

Well, for the longest time many non-SC fans used to think having Murali in there was disrespectful to Warne (some probably still do)

Those people are morons.

 

[Bolo.]

That is where we differ. I agree Donald could be more destructive but better means other perspectives too.

Destuctiveness absolutely does matter when it comes down to your top bowlers taking a pile of wickets instead of leaving the job for worse ones. It's cool if you can pull a McGrath and both attack and contain, but he is a special level of quality. And even him, I would rate higher if he took more wickets on pitches that didn't suit, or against bats that were capable of dealing with him. Leaving the wicket taking to less capable bowlers is not a good thing when things are tough.

I just think of the 1992 WC to 2003 WC period as the "90s era". The CEO pitches started soon after that WC and lasted till about 2015 for the most part. And the era between say the advent of white ball cricket to the 1992 WC as another era in cricket.

Something like pre 1992, 92-2003, 2003-2015, 2016-today is how classify the eras of modern cricket in my head. And I saw quite a bit of the cricket from around 89 to 1992, at least the games that were available in television in India. And the other eras I think watched/followed almost all international cricket played. Heck, I even remember a random county game in 1996 or 1997 when Pollock got 4 wickets in 4 balls in that 60 over OD tournament they had in England, for Warwickshire. Watched it live as I thought it was so exciting that I could see domestic cricket from another country in my TV.

Are you sure you are not classifying test eras by ODI WCs? Did anything fundamentally change after 92? And even if there's a difference, classifying Donald as a different era to Waqar/Ambrose seems a bit weird to me. It's an identical timeframe, plus a couple of years.

 

[honestbharani]

Destuctiveness absolutely does matter when it comes down to your top bowlers taking a pile of wickets instead of leaving the job for worse ones. It's cool if you can pull a McGrath and both attack and contain, but he is a special level of quality. And even him, I would rate higher if he took more wickets on pitches that didn't suit, or against bats that were capable of dealing with him. Leaving the wicket taking to less capable bowlers is not a good thing when things are tough.

I never said it does not matter. I just said there are other perspectives to being a better bowler.

Are you sure you are not classifying test eras by ODI WCs? Did anything fundamentally change after 92? And even if there's a difference, classifying Donald as a different era to Waqar/Ambrose seems a bit weird to me. It's an identical timeframe, plus a couple of years.

I think a number of greats retired around the 1992 WC or just before. I think there was a lot of passing of the guard for the test teams around then. Zim got good, RSA came back. Quite a few things changed around then, IMO.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

This overrating is exactly what you deserve . I'm actually going to switch my vote too in the hope it annoys you all more.

Yea that’s pretty much the reason I vote for Ashwin in every thread

 

[honestbharani]

And hey, you can say what you want, but I seem to have thought this way for a while now.

Dale Steyn vs Allan Donald vs Shaun Pollock

Sadly since I saw Donald at his peak against Tendulkar and Lara, it’s a non-contest for me. It’s slam dunk Donald. The comparison reminds me a bit of Hadlee vs Marshall. Hadlee was more skillful but I would choose Marshall without even thinking.

www.cricketweb.net

Dale Steyn vs Allan Donald vs Shaun Pollock

Sadly since I saw Donald at his peak against Tendulkar and Lara, it’s a non-contest for me. It’s slam dunk Donald. The comparison reminds me a bit of Hadlee vs Marshall. Hadlee was more skillful but I would choose Marshall without even thinking.

www.cricketweb.net

Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers of All Time in Tests?

I'm no Lillee fan, far from it but the guy was probably the first great modern bowler. And the fact of the matter is, the likes of Hadlee, Marshall, Imran etc learned the tools of their trade from Lillee. Lillee imo is like the bowling version of Viv. Viv statistically doesn't really stand out...

www.cricketweb.net

Allan Donald vs Joel Garner

Yes and no. Unlike triple centuries, which can be scored without a limit, only one 10 fer can be achieved by a side per match. 10fers are more comparable to double tons in terms of frequency.

www.cricketweb.net

Wasim Akram vs Allan Donald

.

www.cricketweb.net

Dale Steyn vs Allan Donald vs Shaun Pollock

Didn't watch much of Steyn's bowling then? Not as much as I watched Donald or Marshall or McGrath.

www.cricketweb.net

10 Greatest fast bowlers of all time

Been fortunate to see some cracking fast bowlers live. In no particular order: Lillee Thomson Ambrose Marshall Holding Garner Roberts Croft Hadlee Bishop Walsh Wasim Waqar McGrath Imran McDermott Hughes Donald Pollock Lawson Gillespie Harris Johnson Not all of hem are great, but they've all...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[subshakerz]

This overrating is exactly what you deserve . I'm actually going to switch my vote too in the hope it annoys you all more.

You think it would annoy me but I am actually somewhat satisfied that outside a certain cliques, most of us agree he is overrated.

 

[subshakerz]

Bozo this is your fault.

Lol I was just the canary in the coalmine.

 

[Bolo.]

I never said it does not matter. I just said there are other perspectives to being a better bowler.



I think a number of greats retired around the 1992 WC or just before. I think there was a lot of passing of the guard for the test teams around then. Zim got good, RSA came back. Quite a few things changed around then, IMO.

I perspective needs to have a rationale backing it. Mine does, and I've given it.

Greats are always retiring. I think you are refering to the fact that Imran, Marshall, and Hadlee retired around the same time. But Imran was well done as a bowler long before 92, and Marshall was mostly done before as well. The era didn't suddenly shift to a lack of good quicks from their absence. It just transitioned into different good quicks. 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95 are the debut years of the leading quicks from the era IIRC.

I don't think RSA and Zim joining tests did much to change style or quality. Just more teams.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Ashwin gets an easy ride for his away record, but he will be a very memorable cricketer. Probably the single biggest pillar behind India's unprecedented dominance over a continent.

I think he’ll probably be remembered similarly to lower tier ATGs like Botham and Kapil although those two were a bit better away from home

 

[kyear2]

The ones I watched?

Ambrose
Steyn
McGrath
Wasim
Waqar
Walsh
Anderson

Personally wouldn't call Walsh ATG and definitely not Anderson, he just never had the quality. Even Waqar for me is borderline for me for true ATG status.

 

[kyear2]

4 ATG spinners

Murali
Jadeja
Warne
Ashwin

Dude, no.

 

[kyear2]

I only count around 12-13 pacers tops. Agree on spinners.

Yeah, top of my head it's 12 or 13, 15 is pushing it.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Yeah, tip of my head it's 12 or 13, 15 is pushing it.

How many ATG batsmen?

 

[kyear2]

How many ATG batsmen?

Off the top of my head

Batsmen

Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Richards
Hobbs
Lara
Smith
Hutton

Gavaskar
Chappell
Ponting
Kallis
Hammond
_____________

Border
Headley
Sangakkara
Pollock
Dravid
__________

Waugh
Weekes
Barrington
Walcott

The top 13 for sure.

The next 5 are arguable, the last 4 not quite so much, but close.