Allan Donald vs Joel Garner

[_00_deathscar]

I don't need to counter stephen, because even though I don't share his views on this, it's has been done to death a million times over. I keep popping in hoping to find someone else stupid enough to post Donald was a better bowler than Garner. But in that regard it has been the usual suspects.

Wait why is that such a bad call?

 

[Bolo.]

Allan Donald

Not the questions is 'Greater' and not 'Better'. I think Donald had the greater career. There was just more of it, and better highlights.

On one level, I agree with this. Donald was certainly greater by pretty much every measure we typically use to assess individual greatness.

But Garner was part of what is at least close to the greatest team of all time, and contributed massively to its success. Does that deserve a nod? He shouldn't really be thought more highly of because he had stronger teammates. But by the same logic, he shouldn't be marked down in relation to someone like Donald for playing on a stronger team, which we essentially are doing if we take any iteration of 'Donald took more wickets per blah blah blah'.

Better? No idea. I think they were both better in their respective teams than the other would have been, and its too close for me to vote on irrespective of this fact.

 

[subshakerz]

So far in this thread the only real argument for Garner being better than Donald is for him to have a marginally better average and econ rate. Not good enough to overtake someone like Donald who was the best bowler in the world of the late 90s.

 

[Bolo.]

So far in this thread the only real argument for Garner being better than Donald is for him to have a marginally better average and econ rate. Not good enough to overtake someone like Donald who was the best bowler in the world of the late 90s.

You really arent a Garner fan, are you?

I really dont care who you regard as better in this pole, but garner deserves some respect. You cant say, 'lets disregard the fact that garner had some of the best stats ever'. And the fact that he had a style that is arguably the most successful ever. See Mcgrath and ambrose. At some point the burden of proof lies on you. Garner is awesome, feel free to show us why this is wrong.

Stuff like 10 wicket hauls is junk. Clarke/ Jayawardene are not a better bats than Sachin cos they scored more triple centuries.

 

[Burgey]

who was the best bowler in the world of the late 90s.

Lol. No he wasn’t. Fmd

 

[Bolo.]

Lol. No he wasn’t. Fmd

Who was?

 

[subshakerz]

You really arent a Garner fan, are you?

I really dont care who you regard as better in this pole, but garner deserves some respect. You cant say, 'lets disregard the fact that garner had some of the best stats ever'. And the fact that he had a style that is arguably the most successful ever. See Mcgrath and ambrose. At some point the burden of proof lies on you. Garner is awesome, feel free to show us why this is wrong.

Stuff like 10 wicket hauls is junk. Clarke/ Jayawardene are not a better bats than Sachin cos they scored more triple centuries.

Sheesh. Garner can still be awesome and not as great as Donald, no?

I wonder why you would accept McGrath, Hadlee and Marshall to be superior to Garner despite them all averaging higher. Perhaps average alone is not the best judge of who is better?

And yeah, you would expect an ATG to have more than zero double tons / tenfers and only a handful of tons / fifers over the stretch of a career.

Donald, statistically and otherwise, has a greater career and was regarded in higher esteem than Garner as a bowler.

 

[stephen]

Actually Garner might be underrated if anything. He was the best change bowler in history by a massive margin. It's not even close.

 

[Bolo.]

1. Sheesh. Garner can still be awesome and not as great as Donald, no?

2. I wonder why you would accept McGrath, Hadlee and Marshall to be superior to Garner despite them all averaging higher. Perhaps average alone is not the best judge of who is better?

3. And yeah, you would expect an ATG to have more than zero double tons / tenfers and only a handful of tons / fifers over the stretch of a career.

4. Donald, statistically and otherwise, has a greater career and was regarded in higher esteem than Garner as a bowler.

1. Yes. I dont care who you like more, as long as you recognise that they are both spectacular. Both in the Ambrose class in my mind, which is high praise.

2. While I freely admit to being one of the biggest slaves to stats on this site (and am certainly one of the few who is willing to say they believe being a stats slave helps in analysis), I dont regard the difference in average between the guys you are mentioning to be of mich relevence.

3. Dont agree. Holding had 2 ten fors (cross thread debate). Donald had 3. We shouldnt let a couple of games define a career. Garner was better on just about every measure of wpm than Holding, other than this magical (and completely aribitrary, 10wpm thing). Why is 10 an important number, not 9, 8, 7, 1, 0 etc.? Donald, see 4.

4.

On one level, I agree with this. Donald was certainly greater by pretty much every measure we typically use to assess individual greatness.

But Garner was part of what is at least close to the greatest team of all time, and contributed massively to its success. Does that deserve a nod? He shouldn't really be thought more highly of because he had stronger teammates. But by the same logic, he shouldn't be marked down in relation to someone like Donald for playing on a stronger team, which we essentially are doing if we take any iteration of 'Donald took more wickets per blah blah blah'.

Better? No idea. I think they were both better in their respective teams than the other would have been, and its too close for me to vote on irrespective of this fact.

 

[subshakerz]

1. Yes. I dont care who you like more, as long as you recognise that they are both spectacular. Both in the Ambrose class in my mind, which is high praise.

2. While I freely admit to being one of the biggest slaves to stats on this site (and am certainly one of the few who is willing to say they believe being a stats slave helps in analysis), I dont regard the difference in average between the guys you are mentioning to be of mich relevence.

3. Dont agree. Holding had 2 ten fors (cross thread debate). Donald had 3. We shouldnt let a couple of games define a career. Garner was better on just about every measure of wpm than Holding, other than this magical (and completely aribitrary, 10wpm thing). Why is 10 an important number, not 9, 8, 7, 1, 0 etc.? Donald, see 4.

4.

If having a higher average doesn't stop the others from being better than Garner, on what basis is Garner better than Donald?

 

[Bolo.]

If having a higher average doesn't stop the others from being better than Garner, on what basis is Garner better than Donald?

I have never argued that Garner is better than Donald. I have no idea who is better and don't care which way you argue. I just think they are both awesome and am will fight criticisms of either of them (unless I regard them as legit critiques, like Donald bleeding runs... totally legit critique, which I pointed out, but also made counterpoints to earlier in thread).

 

[subshakerz]

I have never argued that Garner is better than Donald. I have no idea who is better and don't care which way you argue. I just think they are both awesome and am will fight criticisms of either of them (unless I regard them as legit critiques, like Donald bleeding runs... totally legit critique, which I pointed out, but also made counterpoints to earlier in thread).

Fair enough but I take it for granted that we are talking about pace bowlers who are among the top 10 to 15 of all time and are all awesome. Hence the critiques are not to slag the bowlers but focus on the minor differences.

I encountered this pushback in other threads when I mentioned that Ambrose could be one dimensional or Steyn hittable. I assume that others understand this nitpicking is all relative to other ATGs and not an absolute overall assessment of the bowler. Of course they are all objectively awesome, just not perfect.

 

[ankitj]

Allan Donald ICC Test Bowling Ranking

ICC Player Rankings

www.relianceiccrankings.com

Donald was #1 for most of 1998-99 and a couple of times for smaller periods before that too

 

[Bolo.]

Fair enough but I take it for granted that we are talking about pace bowlers who are among the top 10 to 15 of all time and are all awesome. Hence the critiques are not to slag the bowlers but focus on the minor differences.

I encountered this pushback in other threads when I mentioned that Ambrose could be one dimensional or Steyn hittable. I assume that others understand this nitpicking is all relative to other ATGs and not an absolute overall assessment of the bowler. Of course they are all objectively awesome, just not perfect.

Why do spend so much time defending Donald and attacking Steyn? Their styles are very different, but in term of results they sit in very similar categories... bowlers who go for a lot of runs but also take a lot of wickets by ATG standards.

 

[subshakerz]

Why do spend so much time defending Donald and attacking Steyn? Their styles are very different, but in term of results they sit in very similar categories... bowlers who go for a lot of runs but also take a lot of wickets by ATG standards.

Really? My own recollection having watched Donald from the mid 90s onwards was that Donald wasnt someone whose wicket taking model was either smash or grab ala Waqar and Steyn. He was always a threat and not a run buffet. The exception was against Australia in Johannesburg in 97 or at the end of his career when he lost his pace.

 

[Bolo.]

Really? My own recollection having watched Donald from the mid 90s onwards was that Donald wasnt someone whose wicket taking model was either smash or grab ala Waqar and Steyn. He was always a threat and not a run buffet. The exception was against Australia in Johannesburg in 97 or at the end of his career when he lost his pace.

I have never seen a bowler even vaguely in Donalds class who had a radar as bad as him. He tended to bowl length or back of a length, coupled with a lot of lift, which meant he was harder to get away than guys like Waqar and Steyn who were going full and skiddy, but I definitely saw him catch a lot of stick by ATG standards.

When his radar was off, which was very frequent, he used to spray it in a 3.5 meter arc around the bat pretty much randomly. He almost never stopped trying to bowl heat (at least when young, or fresh when older) or move the ball big even when he was spraying it though.

 

[subshakerz]

I have never seen a bowler even vaguely in Donalds class who had a radar as bad as him. He tended to bowl length or back of a length, coupled with a lot of lift, which meant he was harder to get away than guys like Waqar and Steyn who were going full and skiddy, but I definitely saw him catch a lot of stick by ATG standards.

When his radar was off, which was very frequent, he used to spray it in a 3.5 meter arc around the bat pretty much randomly. He almost never stopped trying to bowl heat (at least when young, or fresh when older) or move the ball big even when he was spraying it though.

Again, my recollection is of Donald from 1996-2000, during which I recall he was consistently excellent. I rarely recall him being dominated in that time. I do remember him being unnecessarily short at times though when if he pitched it he could have been more successful. Regardless, both Steyn and Waqar had significantly higher ERs than Donald so I dont think this was as much an issue for him.

To be clear, my issue is not merely that Steyn was expensive, it is that he was inconsistent and would blow hot and cold. In one test, he would be excellent, and the next, he would be taken to the cleaners (more relative to other ATGs). This was a pattern that happened throughout Steyn's career. I prefer ATGs who dont get dominated.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Did Garner ever lead the attack?

 

[Burgey]

Occasionally took the new ball towards the end of his career afaik. Certainly did out here in 84/85

 

[Migara]

You really arent a Garner fan, are you?

I really dont care who you regard as better in this pole, but garner deserves some respect. You cant say, 'lets disregard the fact that garner had some of the best stats ever'. And the fact that he had a style that is arguably the most successful ever. See Mcgrath and ambrose. At some point the burden of proof lies on you. Garner is awesome, feel free to show us why this is wrong.

Stuff like 10 wicket hauls is junk. Clarke/ Jayawardene are not a better bats than Sachin cos they scored more triple centuries.

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.