Rank them : Donald, Imran and Akram

[DrWolverine]

In test cricket

 

[subshakerz]

Imran first. Best bowling peak ever. Awesome in WSC. Fantastic against WI, best team ever.

Then Akram. Most skilled. Highest peer rating in a competitive era.

Then Donald. Held back by low peer rating and middling record against best team of his time, Australia.

 

[Coronis]

Imran first. Best bowling peak ever. Awesome in WSC. Fantastic against WI, best team ever.

Then Akram. Most skilled. Highest peer rating in a competitive era.

Then Donald. Held back by low peer rating and middling record against best team of his time, Australia.

As I said in another thread Donald’s overall record was considerably affected by his final three tests, all against Australia which douses his record against Australia considerably.

Not that I necessarily disagree with the order you’ve done, just wanted to point this out re: Donald. Increases his average in Australia by a whopping 5 runs and increases his average against them by 4.

 

[DrWolverine]

As I said in another thread Donald’s overall record was considerably affected by his final three tests, all against Australia which douses his record against Australia considerably.

Before those last 3 Tests
Overall : 69 Tests. 326 wickets. Avg of 21.6
vs Aus : 11 Tests. 48 wickets. Avg of 27.8
in Aus : 5 Tests. 25 wickets. Avg of 23.48

After
Overall : 72 Tests. 330 wickets. Avg of 22.25
vs Aus : 14 Tests. 53 wickets. Avg of 31
in Aus : 7 Tests. 29 wickets. Avg of 28.44

 

[subshakerz]

As I said in another thread Donald’s overall record was considerably affected by his final three tests, all against Australia which douses his record against Australia considerably.

Not that I necessarily disagree with the order you’ve done, just wanted to point this out re: Donald. Increases his average in Australia by a whopping 5 runs and increases his average against them by 4.

I think it's more than just raw average.

By the early-mid 90s it was clear Australia was the best team in the world.

Donald only had one quality series by ATG standards in five series he played against Australia home and away (six if we include his final test).

Compare that to Akram who in his peak has three quality back to back series against the Aussies.

I think what really solidified Donald's poor reputation in the Aussie eyes was the 96 home series (at his peak) where he was dominated completely in the first test (the entire attack couldnt take a wicket for an entire day against Blewett and Waugh) and then failed in the deciding second test on a green wicket. He came good in the third test but it was too late by then. Donald was the main culprit in that series.

I honestly think Donald had a mental barrier against the Aussies.

 

[kyear2]

I have all three, Lillee and I think O'Reilly in the same tier and really close, so basically down to personal preferences and they all have their issues.

 

[subshakerz]

I have all three, Lillee and I think O'Reilly in the same tier and really close, so basically down to personal preferences and they all have their issues.

Lol geez.

 

[kyear2]

Imran first. Best bowling peak ever. Awesome in WSC. Fantastic against WI, best team ever.

Then Akram. Most skilled. Highest peer rating in a competitive era.

Then Donald. Held back by low peer rating and middling record against best team of his time, Australia.

You keep.mentioning highest peer rating. For most of his career Ambrose was the highest rated bowler, Donald was also best on the world for a period after Sir Curtly. Warne was also top of the roost for a good portion of time.

Yes Wasim could do more with the ball, the others were more effective wicket takers.

 

[kyear2]

Lol geez.

Nothing to laugh at, even when we did our ratings here they are the ones rated around each other.

Really isn't much to separate Imran from Donald. As I said, they all had their issues and caveats.

 

[subshakerz]

You keep.mentioning highest peer rating. For most of his career Ambrose was the highest rated bowler, Donald was also best on the world for a period after Sir Curtly. Warne was also top of the roost for a good portion of time.

Yes Wasim could do more with the ball, the others were more effective wicket takers.

Ambrose and Warne aren't in this poll buddy. Donald is nowhere near Wasim in peer rating. Find me a bat who prefers Donald.

 

[subshakerz]

Nothing to laugh at, even when we did our ratings here they are the ones rated around each other.

Really isn't much to separate Imran from Donald. As I said, they all had their issues and caveats.

You've gone on record saying Imran was ahead before, why so shy to say it now?

And their performance against the best team of their time is a clear differentiator. Also that Donald had much easier home conditions.

 

[kyear2]

Ambrose and Warne aren't in this poll buddy. Donald is nowhere near Wasim in peer rating. Find me a bat who prefers Donald.

You keep saying Wasim was the highest peer rated if his generation, I'm saying for a decent part of his career he wasn't.

I would say that Donald was more consistently consistent than Wasim. Very similar to the same argument you use for Sachin over Lara.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yes Wasim could do more with the ball, the others were more effective wicket takers.

 

[subshakerz]

You keep saying Wasim was the highest peer rated if his generation, I'm saying for a decent part of his career he wasn't.

Who cares? By the end of their careers, players who played them both made their judgment.

I would say that Donald was more consistently consistent than Wasim. Very similar to the same argument you use for Sachin over Lara.

Tendulkar's USP is longevity with his consistency. Donald doesn't have that.

And Donald underperformed against the best team of his time, Tendulkar did not.

 

[kyear2]

You've gone on record saying Imran was ahead before, why so shy to say it now?

And their performance against the best team of their time is a clear differentiator. Also that Donald had much easier home conditions.

1. I do have Imran at the top of said tier, but not by miles. Hence I said personal preference. I really think, and I've also said this before, than Donald is really under rated and appreciated.

2. First up, you keep saying the best team of all time, but that was due to the bowling, especially at their peaks in the '80's. Their batting was below more than a couple teams that comes to mind. And the series you primarily reference in the Caribbean, Viv missed the first match (the one where Imran was MOTM) of what was his last great series. Lloyd was long gone, Greenidge well into his precipitous nose dive and Richardson was the closest to a quality bat outside of Greenidge. It's not the batting line up you professor it to be. Secondly, Donald had better home pitches, but no one probably since Bradman had better home "conditions" than Imran.

Even in his pomp when he was averaging under 20 at home, he was still consistently rated behind Marshall and Hadlee. And as you're the peer rating guy, and we go holistically across his career, he was rated behind, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and arguably Holding as a bowler.

And as pointed out in multiple articles, and by posters, he was the darling of the British and Australian press.

 

[kyear2]

Who cares? By the end of their careers, players who played them both made their judgment.


Tendulkar's USP is longevity with his consistency. Donald doesn't have that.

And Donald underperformed against the best team of his time, Tendulkar did not.

So, Ambrose has a relatively quiet if efficient 2nd half of his career, at his peak, Ambrose was easily better.

Ambrose was the best bowler in the world for about 6 years. When exactly was Wasim the greatest bowler in the world? Warne has a claim after Amby, Donald had a claim as well. Wasim filled his boots vs the weaker teams of his era and had a higher percentage of lower order wickets than any other ATG. Yes there were mitigating factors, but to pretend he was leagues ahead of Donald, if at all, and without his own issues is greatly inaccurate.
And while Donald didn't have Tendulkar level consistency, he was way more consistent then Wasim, who has his ups and downs.

 

[DrWolverine]

AFAIK Akram was never ranked number one in his career.

 

[subshakerz]

So, Ambrose has a relatively quiet if efficient 2nd half of his career, at his peak, Ambrose was easily better.

Ambrose was the best bowler in the world for about 6 years. When exactly was Wasim the greatest bowler in the world? Warne has a claim after Amby, Donald had a claim as well. Wasim filled his boots vs the weaker teams of his era and had a higher percentage of lower order wickets than any other ATG. Yes there were mitigating factors, but to pretend he was leagues ahead of Donald, if at all, and without his own issues is greatly inaccurate.
And while Donald didn't have Tendulkar level consistency, he was way more consistent then Wasim, who has his ups and downs.

Who cares about Ambrose I already consider him a better bowler than Wasim. Still to Donald.

I never said Wasim was leagues ahead. He just has an edge over Donald in my mind based on his rep and more impact abroad.

 

[subshakerz]

1. I do have Imran at the top of said tier, but not by miles. Hence I said personal preference. I really think, and I've also said this before, than Donald is really under rated and appreciated.

I think we all know why you are being so dicey about this. Suddenly you don't care who is ahead and who is behind.

2. First up, you keep saying the best team of all time, but that was due to the bowling, especially at their peaks in the '80's. Their batting was below more than a couple teams that comes to mind. And the series you primarily reference in the Caribbean, Viv missed the first match (the one where Imran was MOTM) of what was his last great series. Lloyd was long gone, Greenidge well into his precipitous nose dive and Richardson was the closest to a quality bat outside of Greenidge. It's not the batting line up you professor it to be. Secondly, Donald had better home pitches, but no one probably since Bradman had better home "conditions" than Imran.

I like you you micro-analyze Imran but don't do the same against Donald.

Imran had three series in his peak against WI, the best team in the world, in 80, 86 and 88, and was quality with the ball in all of them and was MOS in all of them. Overall has outstanding figures against WI.

Meanwhile, Donald only had quality returns in one series out of five (six if we include the last test) against Australia.

Even in his pomp when he was averaging under 20 at home, he was still consistently rated behind Marshall and Hadlee. And as you're the peer rating guy, and we go holistically across his career, he was rated behind, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and arguably Holding as a bowler.

There isn't an issue with peer rating since even I consider Marshall and Hadlee better bowlers than Imran and Lillee as you know was before the time of all these pacers.

Please you need to get over you hang up over Imran. I implore you to take the time to listen to Jarrod Kimber discuss why Imran was so overlooked as an 80s cricketer and only got his due belatedly.

 

[subshakerz]

Please you need to get over you hang up over Imran. I implore you to take the time to listen to Jarrod Kimber discuss why Imran was so overlooked as an 80s cricketer and only got his due belatedly.

Basically, to summarize what Jarrod says, Pakistan and New Zealand were overshadowed by WI in the 80s, Imran was seen as this sort of playboy figure without real attention to how great he really was a cricketer since there wasn't a media machine around him as a player yet, and only started getting his due towards the end and sealed with a WC win. If Imran Khan was here today, he would instantly be recognized as the best player in the world by a distance and wouldn't have to be from a top cricket nation like it was in the 80s to get his dues.