Dale Steyn vs Allan Donald vs Shaun Pollock

[a massive zebra]

This discussion may actually become interesting when Rabada achieves his 400+ wickets...

Why would this discussion become more interesting when someone not relevant to the discussion achieves a particular milestone?

 

[Migara]

Tests - Steyn
ODIs - Pollock, and it is not even close for others.

 

[Migara]

Even batsmen like Tendulkar & Lara never really had a single great series against peak Donald in the 90s.

Azhar Mahmood says hello.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...er_involve=2011;template=results;type=batting

Mahmood, Gilly, Atherton, S. Wagh, and Langer would have definitely had at least a daddy series against him. I can remember that Aravinda de Silva Averaged 51.0 in the 93/94 series against Donald and Schultz.

 

[Kirkut]

Donald was more old school - gun barrel straight but lightning fast and can move the ball off the pitch occasionally. Steyn was more of a modern fast bowler with speeds as high as Donald along with added diverse skills with slower ball, reverse swing and etc.

So Steyn is easily the winner, but I prefer watching Donald.

 

[Slifer]

I don't understand how Steyn could ever seen ranked easily over Donald especially in tests. Based on what exactly?? More skill?? Akram had more skill than any fast bowler that I've ever seen but he's no way close to being the best. Statistically, Donald had the better average and econ. Steyn the better SR. But Donald was great vs all comers except vs Australia and specifically at home vs Australia. In Australia Donald did just fine. Overall, averaging 31 vs a mostly ATG team is nothing to be ashamed of. Steyn wasn't as universally consistent (worse away from RSA and sucked vs England). I have no bones with people ranking Steyn over Donald but this crap about there being a huge gap is exactly that...crap. I've seen people do the same comparing bowlers like Ambrose to McGrath, where the latter is ranked easily over Ambrose. Hell to the no !!!

 

[smash84]

I don't understand how Steyn could ever seen ranked easily over Donald especially in tests. Based on what exactly?? More skill?? Akram had more skill than any fast bowler that I've ever seen but he's no way close to being the best. Statistically, Donald had the better average and econ. Steyn the better SR. But Donald was great vs all comers except vs Australia and specifically at home vs Australia. In Australia Donald did just fine. Overall, averaging 31 vs a mostly ATG team is nothing to be ashamed of. Steyn wasn't as universally consistent (worse away from RSA and sucked vs England). I have no bones with people ranking Steyn over Donald but this crap about there being a huge gap is exactly that...crap. I've seen people do the same comparing bowlers like Ambrose to McGrath, where the latter is ranked easily over Ambrose. Hell to the no !!!

I guess what wins it for Steyn for me was his ability to run through sides that would win SA matches. From memory, he would do it far more often compared to Donald. Doing a quick stat check He has a lot more 4w and 5w and 10fers as well (although in more matches but his 4w are way higher). And when Steyn was running through sides like that, the pitch would be out of the equation. You knew he would run through no matter what the condition of the match or the pitch. Which is what made him so good. I don't recall Donald ever giving me that kind of vibe.

It is these intangibles that made Steyn so good to watch and why he won SA so many matches.

 

[StephenZA]

Why would this discussion become more interesting when someone not relevant to the discussion achieves a particular milestone?

Because the current discussion is not interesting, but in 8 years time when the next level of subjective stats loading arguments and romanticism get added with Rabada the overall discussion might improve... but probably not.

 

[h_hurricane]

If I am picking an ATG team and I have only one spot left and I need to pick between Steyn and Donald, I would go with Steyn. But no way there is anything more than a razor thin margin separating the two.

FWIW, I consider below 7 bowlers in the same category and the other 8 just below them.

List 1

Marshall
Hadlee
Mcgrath
Ambrose
Steyn
Garner
Donald

List 2

Lillee
Imran
Akram
Younis
Holding
Roberts
Pollock
Walsh

 

[Slifer]

I guess what wins it for Steyn for me was his ability to run through sides that would win SA matches. From memory, he would do it far more often compared to Donald. Doing a quick stat check He has a lot more 4w and 5w and 10fers as well (although in more matches but his 4w are way higher). And when Steyn was running through sides like that, the pitch would be out of the equation. You knew he would run through no matter what the condition of the match or the pitch. Which is what made him so good. I don't recall Donald ever giving me that kind of vibe.

It is these intangibles that made Steyn so good to watch and why he won SA so many matches.

Steyn took around 4.7 wpm and Donald 4.6, therefore there's nothing to choose there. Steyn took a 5 for every 3.6 tests or so, for Donald it was the same. Steyn has the edge in SR, Donald everything else. People have this lasting memory of Steyn running through lineups, I have memories of Donald running through lineups and having batsmen scared out their minds to face him. And lest we are confused, no where have I ever said I believe Donald is better than Steyn, but imo I think it's a toss up between the two. Until a few weeks ago, Steyn was in my top 5 Pacers and that was without looking at stats and Donald retiring so long ago. But looking back at some old tapes, looking at the stats a little closer plus remembering Donald's deserved reputation, yeah he's up there with Steyn and any other seamer.

 

[smash84]

Steyn took around 4.7 wpm and Donald 4.6, therefore there's nothing to choose there. Steyn took a 5 for every 3.6 tests or so, for Donald it was the same. Steyn has the edge in SR, Donald everything else. People have this lasting memory of Steyn running through lineups, I have memories of Donald running through lineups and having batsmen scared out their minds to face him. And lest we are confused, no where have I ever said I believe Donald is better than Steyn, but imo I think it's a toss up between the two. Until a few weeks ago, Steyn was in my top 5 Pacers and that was without looking at stats and Donald retiring so long ago. But looking back at some old tapes, looking at the stats a little closer plus remembering Donald's deserved reputation, yeah he's up there with Steyn and any other seamer.

I never said there's daylight between the two, just that for me Steyn > Donald for the reasons I mentioned above. For me, Steyn also has reverse swing and a killer outswinger. Tools that help batsmen run through line ups.

For some reason I don't recall Donald running through too many line ups. Would be good to post a few here.

Steyn does have a significantly higher number of 4w hauls too btw.

 

[pardus]

Azhar Mahmood says hello.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...er_involve=2011;template=results;type=batting

Mahmood, Gilly, Atherton, S. Wagh, and Langer would have definitely had at least a daddy series against him. I can remember that Aravinda de Silva Averaged 51.0 in the 93/94 series against Donald and Schultz.

I never ever said zero batsmen had successful series against peak Donald. Though I wouldn't include Gilly or Langer as examples.
Donald was completely past it in 2001/2002. Quiet a few batsmen have had great series performances against Donald. Mostly gritty
kind of batsmen.

I watched Azhar Mehmood's knocks in 1998 live and was super impressed. They were very gritty knocks. Despite zero hype about
those knocks in the cricketing media, I was very glad that Wisden ranked them very high in their list of greatest Test centuries of the
20th century.

Steve Waugh's success was not surprising. During the mid-90s, his batting was the very epitome of "when going gets tough, the
tough get going".

In the 80s and 90s, tough-minded defensive grinders generally did tend to average better against the best pace attacks than attacking
stroke players.

Anyways my main point was whether it is Jayawardene scoring 374 or Sehwag scoring 319 or Stephen Fleming scoring 262 or
Michael Clarke scoring nearly 600 runs in just 3 Tests against Steyn led attacks, I find it very hard to believe that such performances
could have been done against South African attack in the 90s (and Donald was the main lead of that attack). Not just Donald, I would
find it equally hard to believe multiple batsmen could have scored 300s against peak Wasim-Waqar or McGrath led attacks.

Now it could be because batting against pace bowling (especially in countries like India & Sri Lanka) was much easier in 2000s
compared to how it was in the 90s. It could also be because Pollock, Fanie De Villiers, McMillan & Klusener in the 90s were light years
ahead of Morkel, Ntini & Kallis in 2000s. It could be because pitches in the 90s [when South Africa played in India & Sri Lanka] were
much more fast bowler friendly than they were in the 2000s. It could be because batting of Sri Lanka & India in 2000s was much better
than any batting line up Donald faced in the 90s.

Or maybe the rate of scoring in Test cricket (even against great attacks) suddenly picked up in the 2000s allowing batsmen to score huge.

Whatever the reason, the end result is multiple batsmen seemed to have scored 300s and even high 200s against Steyn led attacks,
while not a single one could do it against Donald.

Am I saying everyone should fault Steyn for it? Not at all. But for me it is just a tough thing to swallow psychologically.

Perhaps because I followed cricket more from late-70s to late-90s, I am just not used to multiple batsmen scoring 300s against ATG
fast bowlers or for example Stephen Fleming-level-batsman scoring 262 in a Test match where say Malcolm Marshall has bowled
30+ overs (no matter how batsman-friendly the conditions). It just doesn't sit with me. Again, that's just me.

I am genuinely curious, are there any other Steyn-level ATG fast bowlers in the present or in the past against whom multiple batsmen
have made 300+ scores? From memory Shoaib Akhtar has had Mark Taylor & Sehwag score 300s against him but I wouldn't put him
anywhere near Steyn level.

 

[Slifer]

I never said there's daylight between the two, just that for me Steyn > Donald for the reasons I mentioned above. For me, Steyn also has reverse swing and a killer outswinger. Tools that help batsmen run through line ups.

For some reason I don't recall Donald running through too many line ups. Would be good to post a few here.

Steyn does have a significantly higher number of 4w hauls too btw.

Smash, you very well know that for a great portion of his career, Donald had DeVilliers, and Pollock to compete for wickets. Hell Steyn was averaging close to 5 wpm ie until the emergence of the likes of Philander, Rabada and Morkel. There after, these 4 fors or whatever nose dived. Either way, they both ended up taking the same number of wpm.

 

[Slifer]

I never ever said zero batsmen had successful series against peak Donald. Though I wouldn't include Gilly or Langer as examples.
Donald was completely past it in 2001/2002. Quiet a few batsmen have had great series performances against Donald. Mostly gritty
kind of batsmen.

I watched Azhar Mehmood's knocks in 1998 live and was super impressed. They were very gritty knocks. Despite zero hype about
those knocks in the cricketing media, I was very glad that Wisden ranked them very high in their list of greatest Test centuries of the
20th century.

Steve Waugh's success was not surprising. During the mid-90s, his batting was the very epitome of "when going gets tough, the
tough get going".

In the 80s and 90s, tough-minded defensive grinders generally did tend to average better against the best pace attacks than attacking
stroke players.

Anyways my main point was whether it is Jayawardene scoring 374 or Sehwag scoring 319 or Stephen Fleming scoring 262 or
Michael Clarke scoring nearly 600 runs in just 3 Tests against Steyn led attacks, I find it very hard to believe that such performances
could have been done against South African attack in the 90s (and Donald was the main lead of that attack). Not just Donald, I would
find it equally hard to believe multiple batsmen could have scored 300s against peak Wasim-Waqar or McGrath led attacks.

Now it could be because batting against pace bowling (especially in countries like India & Sri Lanka) was much easier in 2000s
compared to how it was in the 90s. It could also be because Pollock, Fanie De Villiers, McMillan & Klusener in the 90s were light years
ahead of Morkel, Ntini & Kallis in 2000s. It could be because pitches in the 90s [when South Africa played in India & Sri Lanka] were
much more fast bowler friendly than they were in the 2000s. It could be because batting of Sri Lanka & India in 2000s was much better
than any batting line up Donald faced in the 90s.

Or maybe the rate of scoring in Test cricket (even against great attacks) suddenly picked up in the 2000s allowing batsmen to score huge.

Whatever the reason, the end result is multiple batsmen seemed to have scored 300s and even high 200s against Steyn led attacks,
while not a single one could do it against Donald.

Am I saying everyone should fault Steyn for it? Not at all. But for me it is just a tough thing to swallow psychologically.

Perhaps because I followed cricket more from late-70s to late-90s, I am just not used to multiple batsmen scoring 300s against ATG
fast bowlers or for example Stephen Fleming-level-batsman scoring 262 in a Test match where say Malcolm Marshall has bowled
30+ overs (no matter how batsman-friendly the conditions). It just doesn't sit with me. Again, that's just me.

I am genuinely curious, are there any other Steyn-level ATG fast bowlers in the present or in the past against whom multiple batsmen
have made 300+ scores? From memory Shoaib Akhtar has had Mark Taylor & Sehwag score 300s against him but I wouldn't put him
anywhere near Steyn level.

You're not alone.

 

[Flem274*]

dale steyn for me, but i want to give a nod to pollock. amazing player, and despite playing a little too long he still had an incredible career. he always seems to be an afterthought in bowling discussions.

when you factor in being a bowling allrounder, the guy is total h4x. steyn, pollock and philander are the trio for my south african side i have seen (i must have seen donald in odis because of the 2003 wc but i don't remember)

 

[stephen]

Steyn
Donald
Pollock
Tayfield

Is my SA bowling attack. Given they'll have Kallis as well that's a ridiculous attack.

 

[Bolo.]

Steyn was a level above in India? How? Donald's career bowling average in India is 16 (which is stellar beyond words). It is superior to Marshall's, McGrath's and probably that of every great fast bowler who visited India.
Steyn's bowling average in India is 21. Great but significantly less great than Donald's. Yes, for sure Steyn bowled to a better batting line up, but still how is Steyn's performance in India a level above Donald's?

And moreover when Donald bowled in India in 1996 and 2000, it wasn't as if he was bowling to bunnies. Those Indian teams still had Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Azhar (& Laxman in the 2000 series).
India actually won the home Test series in 1996.

And virtually the same Indian batting line up which failed against Donald in 2000 because it was supposedly weak (despite having Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly at the prime of their youth), did pretty well
against McGrath & Gillespie an year later in 2001

That Indian batting line up was darn good at home. It isn't like Donald earned his bowling figures while bowling to Indian batsmen with batting calibers of Devon Malcolm & Courtney Walsh while
Steyn earned his figures while bowling to Indian batsmen with calibers of Bradman & Hobbs. Nah, the gap wasn't that extreme. Psychologically it may have appeared that extreme but in reality it wasn't.

India is not the main reason I rank Steyn ahead in the SC, but I still reckon Steynis ahead by a fair bit. The 99/2000 side was stronger than some lineups Steyn played and weaker than others. You are overselling the 96 lineup though. Much weaker. Not sure anyone but Sachin was averaging 40+ at thst stage. Not a terrible lineup but not a good one, and a massive gap from the powerhouses Steyn typically faced.

Steyn played stronger Pak lineups than Donald and on UAE featherbeds.

And most importantly, he played Lankan home powerhouses on featherbeds while Donald played really weak lineups.

With all due respect, no. Steyn was not a level above or whatever over Donald and especially not in the SC. Donald from his limited tests in Asia has outstanding numbers; just as good if not better than Steyns.

I reckon Steyn is a level ahead in the SC, despite the similar numbers, for reasons stated before. Donald is better outside the SC though, but not by as much, which puts Steyn fractionally ahead overall.

I rank Steyn in my top group of 4 who are just above the next lot, which includes Donald. But no problem with differing opinions here. If you wanted to rank Donald as the best bowler ever with Steyn barely cracking the top 10, that would be fine, cos the margins are so fine.

 

[subshakerz]

Donald vs Steyn is a harder one than I first thought.

I think Donald probably had a yard more pace and more control of inswing, while Steyn had the advantage of reverse swing and his outswing was far deadlier.

Steyn had the ability to go missing for much of a series for no explicable reason, whereas Donald usually gave a sustained consistent level of performance. But Steyn was incredible in that when he become an opening bowler, in virtually every series he played he would win SA at least one match outright. I think it was far easier for the batsman to get the better of Steyn than Donald though.

For some reason, Donald was never quite rated as highly though as Akram and Ambrose in the 90s (especially by the Aussies), while Steyn was pretty much the no.1 bowler of his era without dispute, which has more to do with the competition. Yet Steyn played in a tougher era for bowlers also.

I dunno, if you put a gun to my head, I would choose Steyn, simply because he had the ability to run through sides and win matches on his lonesome more than Donald.

 

[ankitj]

For some reason, Donald was never quite rated as highly though as Akram and Ambrose in the 90s

Not sure if that's true. I recall around 96-97, commentators in commentary box referred to him as best fast bowler in the world very often.

 

[pardus]

Not sure if that's true. I recall around 96-97, commentators in commentary box referred to him as best fast bowler in the world very often.

You are correct. Donald was always clubbed along with McGrath as the best in the mid-90s. Akram & Ambrose hit their peak a little bit earlier (early 90s).
Because Donald was over 26 by the time he played his second Test match, and also because he relied heavily on pure pace, his career was significantly shorter than the rest.
But within such a short career, he achieved a lot.

 

[ankitj]

In 96-97 McGrath had not become the force he later became. It was between Akram and Donald around that time. And Venkatesh Prasad who was leading wicket taker in 96.