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.

 

[Bolo.]

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.


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

Looking at what RSA fielded when Kallis was out injured, if Kallis did not exist, RSA would have been either have been fieldingng specialist bat + terrible specialist bowler, or specialist bat + terrible bits and pieces player. The fact that Kallis bowled meant that RSA got to play 2 specialist quality bats instead of 1.

Is your argument in the context of this conversation soley about playing more, or do you stand by your big haul position despite it seeming to have a negative impact on team success?

 

[ankitj]

It's time to apply brakes on checklist analysis in this thread. Donald is a worthy ATG with a well rounded record and has no glaring "holes".

 

[Migara]

Why is it believed that the only up helpful conditions are in the SC? I agree with PEWS take that for a bowler who only played in said conditions should have better numbers, but to say he never dated rough conditions isn't correct either.

No need to kid yoir self. We both know what itis.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Steyn>= McGrath>Imran>Lillee>Donald/Akram(Akram doesn’t have that impressive an away record to be rated higher than Lillee, not proven in SA, not that impressive in England, India or WI)

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

On quality I would go for Steyn and Donald, but cause of the better complementary styles Mcgrath and Lillee

 

[subshakerz]

Looking at what RSA fielded when Kallis was out injured, if Kallis did not exist, RSA would have been either have been fieldingng specialist bat + terrible specialist bowler, or specialist bat + terrible bits and pieces player. The fact that Kallis bowled meant that RSA got to play 2 specialist quality bats instead of 1.

Maybe applies more to Kallis in the first 1/3rd of career but I don't recall them playing an extra specialist bat.

Is your argument in the context of this conversation soley about playing more, or do you stand by your big haul position despite it seeming to have a negative impact on team success?

Stand by it. I think big hauls that impact games can swing slightly less impressive stats their way. Smaller more consistent hauls may give neater stats but you rely on others to make the crucial impact.

 

[subshakerz]

It's time to apply brakes on checklist analysis in this thread. Donald is a worthy ATG with a well rounded record and has no glaring "holes".

Aus is a relative weakness.

 

[Bolo.]

Maybe applies more to Kallis in the first 1/3rd of career but I don't recall them playing an extra specialist bat.


Stand by it. I think big hauls that impact games can swing slightly less impressive stats their way. Smaller more consistent hauls may give neater stats but you rely on others to make the crucial impact.

Kallis out injured meant a no rounder or bowler was playing in his place.

Any other bat of comparable quality out injured meant being replaced by a bat.

The value of Kallis' bowling in the bowling was the degree to which he was better than the bowlers who replaced him. Which admittedly doesn't translate to that much as both he and his replacements took a low number of WPM. And Kallis being medioce isn't a huge upgrade on the poor replacements.

The impact his bowling had on the batting is bigger- it's the degree to which a specialist bat was better with the bat than the no rounders/bowlers. This might 'only' be 15-20 runs or so an innings, but this is still a lot. How would Kallis be rated if he averaged in the 70s with the bat instead of bowling?

Arguing for impact ahead of stats would be fine. But Akram has 9 too or fewer wicket hauls in losses. His underperformances are contributing to a lot of losses. Even 3 tenfers in losses aren't winning games. Donald had a lot of more moderate hauls in wins. The way Donald took wickets seems to have been better for team results. Are you arguing for better team results, or simply that you like seeing big numbers, even when those big numbers mean small numbers in other games?

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis out injured meant a no rounder or bowler was playing in his place.

Any other bat of comparable quality out injured meant being replaced by a bat.

The value of Kallis' bowling in the bowling was the degree to which he was better than the bowlers who replaced him. Which admittedly doesn't translate to that much as both he and his replacements took a low number of WPM. And Kallis being medioce isn't a huge upgrade on the poor replacements.

The impact his bowling had on the batting is bigger- it's the degree to which a specialist bat was better with the bat than the no rounders/bowlers. This might 'only' be 15-20 runs or so an innings, but this is still a lot. How would Kallis be rated if he averaged in the 70s with the bat instead of bowling?

So if Kallis had better replacement in case he got injured he would be a better cricketer?

I can think of better arguments for Kallis frankly.

But I think you are also misrepresenting Kallis at that time. His bowling peak from around 95 to early 2000s when he was taking 2 wickets a game also coincided with South Africa being loaded with ARs, batting and bowling. You often had 6, sometimes 7 bowling options, including batting ARs like Cronje and McMillan but also bowling ARs like Symcox, Klusener and Pollock who ensured you already had five bowling options before you even needed to call a batting AR.

So it's just not the case that Kallis was essential, more that he was just that good of a bowler at that time that he could be used frequently and get wickets.

Arguing for impact ahead of stats would be fine. But Akram has 9 too or fewer wicket hauls in losses. His underperformances are contributing to a lot of losses. Even 3 tenfers in losses aren't winning games. Donald had a lot of more moderate hauls in wins. The way Donald took wickets seems to have been better for team results. Are you arguing for better team results, or simply that you like seeing big numbers, even when those big numbers mean small numbers in other games?

You are making a logical jump where you assume moderate hauls for Donald are a winning formula (ignoring that SA was just a better team that win more anyways) whereas if you look at most of those matches there was almost always another bowler who had a standout spell which actually sealed the game and Donald played support.

Shultz in SL in 93
DeVilliers in Aus in 94
Klusener in Ind in 96
Pollock in Pakistan in 97
Boje in Ind in 2000

And if you look outside of those tests, many are drawn games mostly due to SA batting strength that Pakistan didn't have. So in effect you are giving credit to Donald for consistently playing second fiddle to other bowlers in his lineup at key moments. Doesn't sound like ATG standard to me.

The only exception is England and I have already given Donald credit for that.

 

[Bolo.]

So if Kallis had better replacement in case he got injured he would be a better cricketer?

I can think of better arguments for Kallis frankly.

But I think you are also misrepresenting Kallis at that time. His bowling peak from around 95 to early 2000s when he was taking 2 wickets a game also coincided with South Africa being loaded with ARs, batting and bowling. You often had 6, sometimes 7 bowling options, including batting ARs like Cronje and McMillan but also bowling ARs like Symcox, Klusener and Pollock who ensured you already had five bowling options before you even needed to call a batting AR.

So it's just not the case that Kallis was essential, more that he was just that good of a bowler at that time that he could be used frequently and get wickets.

I've said already that I'm talking about this century. That's over 130 games. 90s were a very different team, and he would have been replaced by a bat. But you need to contextualize his WPM there too- 6 or 7 bowlers, including 2 ATGs leaves very few wickets to go around. You have a maximum of 10-11 wickets being shared by 4-5 bowlers on average, and you don't take 20 wickets a game.

You've agreed on him being a proper AR at his bowling peak. Your issue was with him the rest of his career. So it's what I'm discussing.

You've agreed on his quality as a bowler. Your issue was with his value. I'm showing you his value for the team he played for. You can understand the value his bowlng brought to his own side in terms of batting?

In a different team, he would have had a different role. In a number of other teams, this would likely have been opening bowler with a much better bowling record. But he didn't, so we need to look at his quality/impact on his own team.

You are making a logical jump where you assume moderate hauls for Donald are a winning formula (ignoring that SA was just a better team that win more anyways) whereas if you look at most of those matches there was almost always another bowler who had a standout spell which actually sealed the game and Donald played support.

Shultz in SL in 93
DeVilliers in Aus in 94
Klusener in Ind in 96
Pollock in Pakistan in 97
Boje in Ind in 2000

And if you look outside of those tests, many are drawn games mostly due to SA batting strength that Pakistan didn't have. So in effect you are giving credit to Donald for consistently playing second fiddle to other bowlers in his lineup at key moments. Doesn't sound like ATG standard to me.

The only exception is England and I have already given Donald credit for that.

I'm looking at Donad and Akram's performances. Akram had a ton of abject failures that his team lost in.

Yes, people took more wickets in a number of wins than Donald. In a couple of them, they would have won even without Donald's contribution. Would you rate Donald higher if he had taken more wickets in some of them, with the same overall record? Which would have potentially meant losing more of others? That's Akram's record. Better overall record + distribution of perfomances for results is just better.

 

[subshakerz]

I've said already that I'm talking about this century. That's over 130 games. 90s were a very different team, and he would have been replaced by a bat. But you need to contextualize his WPM there too- 6 or 7 bowlers, including 2 ATGs leaves very few wickets to go around. You have a maximum of 10-11 wickets being shared by 4-5 bowlers on average, and you don't take 20 wickets a game.

You've agreed on him being a proper AR at his bowling peak. Your issue was with him the rest of his career. So it's what I'm discussing.

You've agreed on his quality as a bowler. Your issue was with his value. I'm showing you his value for the team he played for. You can understand the value his bowlng brought to his own side in terms of batting?

In a different team, he would have had a different role. In a number of other teams, this would likely have been opening bowler with a much better bowling record. But he didn't, so we need to look at his quality/impact on his own team.

That's weird, you want to ignore the period he was best as a bowler.

If you are talking this century his bowling record is a lot worse. The idea he would have been an opening bowlers is nuts. At least half of that period he is barely taking a wicket a game and 2007/8 onwards he really wasn't needed as much given the increase in bowling quality.

I'm looking at Donad and Akram's performances. Akram had a ton of abject failures that his team lost in.

Yes, people took more wickets in a number of wins than Donald. In a couple of them, they would have won even without Donald's contribution. Would you rate Donald higher if he had taken more wickets in some of them, with the same overall record? Which would have potentially meant losing more of others? That's Akram's record. Better overall record + distribution of perfomances for results is just better.

You seem to want to ignore my point about team quality entirely. PAKISTAN WAS A WEAKER TEAM THAN SA AND LOST MORE. Don't put that all on Akram as a general statement. I can tell you as a Pak fan of that time, majority of the time t was batting collapses after the bowlers had done their job.

Yes, I would have rated Donald higher if he performed better in wins. This seems like such an obvious point I don't know why I have to debate.

You've given zero evidence that Donald's median performance in non-wins (which were mostly batting draws) saved them from losses. It's an assumption. So yeah he could have afforded to clump his wickets and potentially win more for SA.

Donald ends up with a better wicket ratio than Akram likely because he didn't have to tour as many times as Akram did and have his record tested, especially in the SC. Instead he got single tours centered around his peak. You already conceded this point so don't bring up that wicket ratio since it's already clear I have given Akram some breathing space on this issue.

 

[Bolo.]

That's weird, you want to ignore the period he was best as a bowler.

If you are talking this century his bowling record is a lot worse. The idea he would have been an opening bowlers is nuts. At least half of that period he is barely taking a wicket a game and 2007/8 onwards he really wasn't needed as much given the increase in bowling quality.


You seem to want to ignore my point about team quality entirely. PAKISTAN WAS A WEAKER TEAM THAN SA AND LOST MORE. Don't put that all on Akram as a general statement. I can tell you as a Pak fan of that time, majority of the time t was batting collapses after the bowlers had done their job.

Yes, I would have rated Donald higher if he performed better in wins. This seems like such an obvious point I don't know why I have to debate.

You've given zero evidence that Donald's median performance in non-wins (which were mostly batting draws) saved them from losses. It's an assumption. So yeah he could have afforded to clump his wickets and potentially win more for SA.

Donald ends up with a better wicket ratio than Akram likely because he didn't have to tour as many times as Akram did and have his record tested, especially in the SC. Instead he got single tours centered around his peak. You already conceded this point so don't bring up that wicket ratio since it's already clear I have given Akram some breathing space on this issue.

We agreed that he was mediocre by specialist standards. The disagreement was on value. Do you recognize the value that Kallis' bowling brought to the batting in his own team? This is a very simple question.

You can surely recognize that in a different team he may have had a different role.

Yes, he was good enough to open the bowling for a bunch of countries. India, SL, NZ, WI, Zim, Bang for big chuncks of his career at least. Maybe some of the others at times too. I'm not saying he could have done it for 17 years. The typical quick probably lasts less than half this amount of time, and that's without considering batting workload.

I'm not sure which of RSA and Pak were stronger on paper. RSAs batting was trash until 98. I've given you stats before. I think they punched above their weight in the early to mid 90s. Extremely strong from the late 90s. If RSA should have been stronger, it was not by the degree the difference in their win rates indicate.

9 hauls of 2 or less wickets in away losses. You sound like you would have rated Donald higher if he had taken 8 in a win and 0 in a loss instead of 4 in each if 2 wins. If you want to argue that an Inferior record that led to an inferior win rate is superior, the onus is you you to prove why.

 

[subshakerz]

We agreed that he was mediocre by specialist standards. The disagreement was on value. Do you recognize the value that Kallis' bowling brought to the batting in his own team? This is a very simple question.

You can surely recognize that in a different team he may have had a different role.

Yes, he was good enough to open the bowling for a bunch of countries. India, SL, NZ, WI, Zim, Bang for big chuncks of his career at least. Maybe some of the others at times too. I'm not saying he could have done it for 17 years. The typical quick probably lasts less than half this amount of time, and that's without considering batting workload.

Sure but your argument maybe applies to Kallis around the mid 2000s, at best one third of his career.

I'm not sure which of RSA and Pak were stronger on paper. RSAs batting was trash until 98. I've given you stats before. I think they punched above their weight in the early to mid 90s. Extremely strong from the late 90s. If RSA should have been stronger, it was not by the degree the difference in their win rates indicate.

9 hauls of 2 or less wickets in away losses. You sound like you would have rated Donald higher if he had taken 8 in a win and 0 in a loss instead of 4 in each if 2 wins. If you want to argue that an Inferior record that led to an inferior win rate is superior, the onus is you you to prove why.

No SA batting wasn't trash especially compared to combustible Pakistan.

And I don't see how Wasim taking 3 or 4 wickets in losses would have made those into wins. You need to prove that, not me. Or how Donald taking wickets in non-wins prevented losses, which you have asserted again without evidence.

Correlation is not causation.