McGrath & Lillee vs Donald & Steyn vs Imran & Akram

[Bolo.]

Ok but when did I capitulate and then return to my previous position?


Superficially except he doesn't have big enough samples in most countries outside Eng and Aus for a real comparison. Two mini series in India, and single series in NZ, Pak, SL and WI.

You never formally capitulate. You just stop arguing when presented with evidence that doesn't support your viewpoint, and then present the same disproven arguments a little later. Most recent example in our conversations: the impact of Kallis' bowling in terms of team composition.

If you want to argue that Akram's sample sizes put him ahead of Donald's better performances, I'm cool with that. Fair enough. It's just not what you have been arguing for in our discourse in this thread.

 

[kyear2]

You never formally capitulate. You just stop arguing when presented with evidence that doesn't support your viewpoint, and then present the same disproven arguments a little later. Most recent example in our conversations: the impact of Kallis' bowling in terms of team composition.

If you want to argue that Akram's sample sizes put him ahead of Donald's better performances, I'm cool with that. Fair enough. It's just not what you have been arguing for in our discourse in this thread.

Yeah, when he can no longer argue, he just stops responding.

 

[subshakerz]

You never formally capitulate. You just stop arguing when presented with evidence that doesn't support your viewpoint, and then present the same disproven arguments a little later. Most recent example in our conversations: the impact of Kallis' bowling in terms of team composition.

What point did I capitulate specifically on Kallis and team composition?

If you want to argue that Akram's sample sizes put him ahead of Donald's better performances, I'm cool with that. Fair enough. It's just not what you have been arguing for in our discourse in this thread.

Actually I was arguing that earlier in this thread before we got into it. Apologies since I thought you knew that context of why I didn't take Donald's stats at face value.

Obviously if Donald had the same averages and additional wickets in Ind, Pak, SL, NZ and WI but played in twice the number of games and series, would be easier to put him ahead.

 

[subshakerz]

Another issue with Donald is that 53 of his 72 tests are in SA, Eng and Aus. His away record here in massively overrated.

He hardly played much outside that.

He has single series in NZ, SL, Pak and WI and two mini series with four tests in India and didn't set the world on fire in any of those places.

How can we compare that with Wasim who had a much longer career and at least 2-3 tours per country?

@Bolo. I argued it here.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, when he can no longer argue, he just stops responding.

Not really. I only stop when it's clear we have a fundamental point of disagreement and aren't going to agree. Otherwise I normally make it clear when I am no longer pursuing an argument.

 

[Bolo.]

What point did I capitulate specifically on Kallis and team composition?


Actually I was arguing that earlier in this thread before we got into it. Apologies since I thought you knew that context of why I didn't take Donald's stats at face value.

Obviously if Donald had the same averages and additional wickets in Ind, Pak, SL, NZ and WI but played in twice the number of games and series, would be easier to put him ahead.

You don't capitulate. You just typically ignore evidence you don't like, and then go onto repeating the same stuff. We've had many posts about the value of Kallis' bowling. The last time we engaged to this degree, I showed you, with the evidence of scorecards, (which was the criterion you called for, instead of trusting the people who watched his career) that his bowling was super valuable, irrespective of how many wickets he took. RSA replaced his bowling rather than his batting.

I do take Donald's stats almost at face value. If he had debuted at 20ish years old (rebel tour), he probably would have been rubbish initially, but better in his late 20s from previous international experience. And a lower proportion of his games would have been mid 30s, when he was trash. Probably balances out.

Akram played more than twice as many away tests as Donald. If you want to say proven is > than unproven, I agree. But it is not what you have been arguing. By the (sensical) measures you regard as important, Donald did perform better. Akram may still be ahead, but not as a result of the points we have been debating.

 

[subshakerz]

You don't capitulate. You just typically ignore evidence you don't like, and then go onto repeating the same stuff. We've had many posts about the value of Kallis' bowling. The last time we engaged to this degree, I showed you, with the evidence of scorecards, (which was the criterion you called for, instead of trusting the people who watched his career) that his bowling was super valuable, irrespective of how many wickets he took. RSA replaced his bowling rather than his batting.

Ah yes now I remember. I admit I still don't understand your argument because I don't see how Kallis opened up a new place in the side.

However, I have matured my view on Kallis that practically he was not used as a 4th or 5th bowler, but as a 3rd or 4th bowler. And the reason his bowling load is less is because he often as he moved along simply didn't bowl.

I have always conceded that early career Kallis was genuine or near specialist level, but that the other two thirds of his career his bowling value reduced.

Akram played more than twice as many away tests as Donald. If you want to say proven is > than unproven, I agree. But it is not what you have been arguing. By the (sensical) measures you regard as important, Donald did perform better. Akram may still be ahead, but not as a result of the points we have been debating.

I was arguing that before we engaged. Please check above.