Allan Donald vs Joel Garner

[subshakerz]

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.

 

[Migara]

10fers are more comparable to double tons in terms of frequency.

True. But it is not a resource that is open to many. Maximum only four people per match can achieve it. There is no such limitation for scoring.

 

[subshakerz]

True. But it is not a resource that is open to many. Maximum only four people per match can achieve it. There is no such limitation for scoring.

Yes but realistically if you are batting no.5 onwards the odds you can score a double ton before the innings finishes is very low. Steve Waugh only scored one double ton in his entire career. Two batsmen scoring a double ton in the same innings is really uncommon as well.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

That's his peak tbf. His career was fairly flat (no major ups or down apart from his last yearish), but that is still him at his best, and assessing a player on their peak is going to make them look pretty good in relation.

With Steyn, his inconsistency was was more spell to spell or innings to innings than match to match, but the criticism is fair. For most of his career he was pulling a matchwinning spell out every 3rd innings or so on top of other good innings, regardless of conditions or quality of bats, so I'm not sure his inconsistency was a bad thing. But I am not one to complain about downgrading a player for being inconsistent. Fair enough if that is your preference. I do find it odd that you are downgrading Steyn for his inconsistency and Garner for his consistency in the same thread. I think they were both what their teams needed.

 

[The Sean]

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.

I liked this post for two reasons. First, it's a fair enough argument.

Second, it was the first post in about six ****ing pages of playing catch-up to jolt me back to the realisation of what the actual topic of this thread was.

 

[The Sean]

I wonder why you would accept McGrath, Hadlee and Marshall to be superior to Garner despite them all averaging higher.

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 much relevence.

Feel like I need to be that guy, and note that Marshall's average is actually (very slightly) better than Garner's.

 

[subshakerz]

That's his peak tbf. His career was fairly flat (no major ups or down apart from his last yearish), but that is still him at his best, and assessing a player on their peak is going to make them look pretty good in relation.

With Steyn, his inconsistency was was more spell to spell or innings to innings than match to match, but the criticism is fair. For most of his career he was pulling a matchwinning spell out every 3rd innings or so on top of other good innings, regardless of conditions or quality of bats, so I'm not sure his inconsistency was a bad thing. But I am not one to complain about downgrading a player for being inconsistent. Fair enough if that is your preference. I do find it odd that you are downgrading Steyn for his inconsistency and Garner for his consistency in the same thread. I think they were both what their teams needed.

I dont mind Garner being consistent, but I think his third seamer role didnt allow him to impose himself as a standout matchwinner as much as his ability would have likely allowed him.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I dont mind Garner being consistent, but I think his third seamer role didnt allow him to impose himself as a standout matchwinner as much as his ability would have likely allowed him.

Sure, but given that he was supposedly better than one of two frontline bowlers (rated by many as better than Holding), why wasn’t he promoted to be a frontline bowler?

Genuine questions

 

[Burgey]

Because seniority in a side also counts. Andy Roberts continued to bowl the first over for the WI when Holding had usurped him as their number one bowler.

Or sometimes a bowler needs the new ball to be effective. Hence Patterson took the new ball in Aus in 88/89 with Ambrose and Walsh the change bowlers despite plainly being better than him.

 

[honestbharani]

As an example from amongst the players I have watched, I have absolutely no doubt that Gillespie and Walsh are two bowlers who could have had much better stats had they been the lead bowlers in their sides. They almost all the time had to bowl into the wind and try to bowl dry spells to ensure Ambrose or McGrath on the other end can attack. While I understand the glamour of individual stats for arguments such as these, especially among bowlers, it is very important to note what role their team needed them to play and how well they played it.

And perhaps you would find some who could play every role really well and maybe those bowlers do need to be rated higher. One example I can think of, is Pollock. He often bowled into the wind when bowling with Donald but he also performed really well as the lead bowler, rough stats against one of the greatest sides ever aside. It is not such a simple thing as to go by just bowling average and strike rate in what is basically a team game.

 

[subshakerz]

Sure, but given that he was supposedly better than one of two frontline bowlers (rated by many as better than Holding), why wasn’t he promoted to be a frontline bowler?

Genuine questions

I dont think in his time he was rated ahead of Holding.

 

[subshakerz]

Because seniority in a side also counts. Andy Roberts continued to bowl the first over for the WI when Holding had usurped him as their number one bowler.

Or sometimes a bowler needs the new ball to be effective. Hence Patterson took the new ball in Aus in 88/89 with Ambrose and Walsh the change bowlers despite plainly being better than him.

To be fair to Garner, he did take the new ball later in his career and did very well, with 5 of his 7 fifers coming in that time.

 

[_00_deathscar]

As an example from amongst the players I have watched, I have absolutely no doubt that Gillespie and Walsh are two bowlers who could have had much better stats had they been the lead bowlers in their sides. They almost all the time had to bowl into the wind and try to bowl dry spells to ensure Ambrose or McGrath on the other end can attack. While I understand the glamour of individual stats for arguments such as these, especially among bowlers, it is very important to note what role their team needed them to play and how well they played it.

And perhaps you would find some who could play every role really well and maybe those bowlers do need to be rated higher. One example I can think of, is Pollock. He often bowled into the wind when bowling with Donald but he also performed really well as the lead bowler, rough stats against one of the greatest sides ever aside. It is not such a simple thing as to go by just bowling average and strike rate in what is basically a team game.

But didn't Gillespie **** the bed when he was actually called on to BE the lead bowler? Some players are just that - support cast. My point is (and given I didn't watch/follow THAT closely as...I wasn't alive, I won't comment too much on it), Garner may have been the greatest support cast of all time. ATG/GOAT support cast. Doesn't mean he'd have been an ATG/GOAT actual front line bowler.

 

[_00_deathscar]

To be fair to Garner, he did take the new ball later in his career and did very well, with 5 of his 7 fifers coming in that time.

Fair!

 

[stephen]

Garner was a lot like Cummins - a bowler who is so good and effective that his team often bowl him as a change bowler because they feel they can get more out of their other bowlers opening than they will lose with him bowling change.

And if you're going to be relegated to a change bowler, being behind Marshall and Holding is nowhere near an insult. Most bowlers in history aren't fit to tie their shoelaces, let alone hold the same pill as them.

 

[honestbharani]

But didn't Gillespie **** the bed when he was actually called on to BE the lead bowler?

If you are talking about 2003-04 period, he was past his best by then. He was still immense in BG Trophy in India but I was more referring to the 1999 version.

 

[subshakerz]

If you are talking about 2003-04 period, he was past his best by then. He was still immense in BG Trophy in India but I was more referring to the 1999 version.

Wasnt his best series in India in 2004-5?

 

[subshakerz]

Garner was a lot like Cummins - a bowler who is so good and effective that his team often bowl him as a change bowler because they feel they can get more out of their other bowlers opening than they will lose with him bowling change.

And if you're going to be relegated to a change bowler, being behind Marshall and Holding is nowhere near an insult. Most bowlers in history aren't fit to tie their shoelaces, let alone hold the same pill as them.

Not really. Garner played 26 of his 58 tests as a new ball bowler, all towards the end of his career, I think when Roberts retired. He took 128 wickets @ almost exactly 20 with 5 fifers in that time. Interestingly enough, Holding was third seamer in that time. So having him as a third seamer actually slightly hindered him as a bowler.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[honestbharani]

Wasnt his best series in India in 2004-5?

Yes, but it was an one off. He was not the consistent threat he was in the 98-2003 period

 

[stephen]

Not really. Garner played 26 of his 58 tests as a new ball bowler, all towards the end of his career, I think when Roberts retired. He took 128 wickets @ almost exactly 20 with 5 fifers in that time. Interestingly enough, Holding was third seamer in that time. So having him as a third seamer actually slightly hindered him as a bowler.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

He averaged 1-2 runs higher bowling change instead of with the new ball. That's pretty close to insignificant really.