Glenn McGrath vs Allan Donald

[Ikki]

The difference being Donald was one of the best of his time and McGrath was one of the best of all time.

McGrath is one of the top four I have ever seen bowl (Ambrose, Hadlee, Marshall class). Donald is in the notch below with Wasim, Pollock etc)

The only person I struggle to classify is Waqar.

Donald was a crowds dream but McGrath was a captains dream. A complete two-fer. Bowled wickettaking balls and controlled the pace of the game. It is not disresepect to Donald. Just that I regard McGrath so highly.

While I can understand your take, I struggle to agree with it. If it came to aesthetics and watching the game, Donald was more formidable for me. In terms of their record, I think I showed here, that McGrath has some false perceptions of him and even Donald IMO has a more complete record than him. Donald not only struck freakishly fast, but he gave away little as well.

I could agree with the fact that McGrath did continue and prove himself in the 00s, hence that puts him over, but saying Donald is a rung below Ambrose, for instance? Why? There's nothing to split them really.

 

[Burgey]

most unfair comparison i have heard in a long long time.

mcgrath has done everything possible in test cricket to be ranked among the greatest fast bowlers of all time. his SR, Avg, WPM, longevity and ER are on par with the very best the game has offered. except in avg and ER he is better than ambrose in the rest of the criteria.

ambrose had a horrendous record against india whereas mcgrath did well in india. and ambrose's relatively weaker SR (a little more than 9 overs per wicket) puts him a rung below other stalwarts. donald's record against australia is also not something he would be proud of. and his average is below mcgrath's.

in my book mcgrath>ambrose=donald

but for sheer excitement of watching a fast bowler in full flight ambrose>donald>mcgrath

Yeah mate, but McGrath's Australian.

 

[tooextracool]

I could agree with the fact that McGrath did continue and prove himself in the 00s, hence that puts him over, but saying Donald is a rung below Ambrose, for instance? Why? There's nothing to split them really.

I think Ambrose is extremely overrated on this forum. No denying his greatness, but seriously have to question how hes on the same plane as Mcgrath. Ambrose didnt have the sort of variety (he was more of a one trick pony really) or the intellect that McGrath possessed and quite frankly, he gets away with a lot of slack because he was damn near impossible to tear apart. Doesnt change the fact that in test match cricket he was ineffective in terms of wicket taking far more times than the likes of McGrath and that is represented by the fact that Ambrose has a worse SR than almost all of his peers, even Murali has a marginally better SR than Ambrose.

 

[bagapath]

I think Ambrose is extremely overrated on this forum. No denying his greatness, but seriously have to question how hes on the same plane as Mcgrath. Ambrose didnt have the sort of variety (he was more of a one trick pony really) or the intellect that McGrath possessed and quite frankly, he gets away with a lot of slack because he was damn near impossible to tear apart. Doesnt change the fact that in test match cricket he was ineffective in terms of wicket taking far more times than the likes of McGrath and that is represented by the fact that Ambrose has a worse SR than almost all of his peers, even Murali has a marginally better SR than Ambrose.

I have said a few of those things myself but never been disrespectful of the great man. being "damn near impossible to tear apart" itself is a sure sign of greatness (like being near impossible to dismiss is a sure sign of greatness in a batsman: example - dravid, kallis etc). ambrose was never ever boring to watch and he delivered on big matches against the toughest opponents. i am actually glad he never fired in all cylinders against india. yes, i rate mcgrath higher but dont want to treat ambrose like just another good fast bowler. he was way way better than that.

note: Am assuming your thoughts are not too different from mine. Just that the "overrated" line makes it look like Amby doesnt deserve the adulation he gets here and everywhere.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think Ambrose is extremely overrated on this forum. No denying his greatness, but seriously have to question how hes on the same plane as Mcgrath. Ambrose didnt have the sort of variety (he was more of a one trick pony really) or the intellect that McGrath possessed and quite frankly, he gets away with a lot of slack because he was damn near impossible to tear apart. Doesnt change the fact that in test match cricket he was ineffective in terms of wicket taking far more times than the likes of McGrath and that is represented by the fact that Ambrose has a worse SR than almost all of his peers, even Murali has a marginally better SR than Ambrose.

Eh? Just about every thread we've seen of 'best bowlers' or somesuch ends with people saying "Where's Ambrose?" If anything, Ambi, on this forum, is under-rated.

 

[Top_Cat]

While I can understand your take, I struggle to agree with it. If it came to aesthetics and watching the game, Donald was more formidable for me. In terms of their record, I think I showed here, that McGrath has some false perceptions of him and even Donald IMO has a more complete record than him. Donald not only struck freakishly fast, but he gave away little as well.

I could agree with the fact that McGrath did continue and prove himself in the 00s, hence that puts him over, but saying Donald is a rung below Ambrose, for instance? Why? There's nothing to split them really.

Seems pretty clear he's rating them on info other than their numbers. Same here; McGrath's record is good enough but I rate him higher than Donald just from watching them bowl, really.

 

[Ikki]

Not so sure about that TC. From what I've seen, he usually goes level or even beats McGrath in head-to-head polls.

 

[Ikki]

Seems pretty clear he's rating them on info other than their numbers. Same here; McGrath's record is good enough but I rate him higher than Donald just from watching them bowl, really.

Yes, but when they have essentially the same record, and where they differ is almost aesthetics I find it hard to believe that such a difference between the two can be argued. Donald also bowled until a late age, 35, to McGrath's 37. It's not that Donald didn't have a brain.

I think the reason people tend to rate McGrath ahead on cerebral grounds is that not only was he was very intelligent, but they see other styles as less cerebral. The reason McGrath had to out-think batsmen is because his arsenal was limited. He used small variations and unwavering accuracy. He would seam or cut the ball. Someone like Donald could do that, and swing it also, and was also incredibly fast. You don't really need to think a whole lot when you've essentially got it all.

They were as effective as match-winners as each other. Even their dismissals by batting position is almost identical.

 

[MrIncredible]

I think Ambrose is extremely overrated on this forum. No denying his greatness, but seriously have to question how hes on the same plane as Mcgrath. Ambrose didnt have the sort of variety (he was more of a one trick pony really) or the intellect that McGrath possessed and quite frankly, he gets away with a lot of slack because he was damn near impossible to tear apart. Doesnt change the fact that in test match cricket he was ineffective in terms of wicket taking far more times than the likes of McGrath and that is represented by the fact that Ambrose has a worse SR than almost all of his peers, even Murali has a marginally better SR than Ambrose.

Ambrose a one trick pony. Are u kidding? U obviously never saw him live my friend. When he first burst onto the scene he had one of the deadliest yorkers in the game, plus a nasty bouncer, line and length balls and the list goes on. Cant think of a ball Mcgrath could bowl that Ambrose didnt. That Ambrose was 'ineffective' as u put it was just a matter of playing in a woeful WI towards the end of his career (see all the drop catches etc). And y bring Murali into this? Give Ambrose a few tests home and away vs Zim/Ban and ur sure to see that SR go down.


Ambrose is far from overated from what ive read on this forum. And whats this about his SR the diff between his and Mcgrath's SR is a matter of a few balls. He also has the 3rd lowest average for ne bowler with over 200 wkts and a miserly economy rate. India aside (the only team he averages over 30 against home/away) Ambrose has a good/great record against all teams (particularly away). Last but not least i dont think ne one can over estimate Ambrose's record against the best batting team of his time Australia he was outstanding where others (Donald, Waqar, Wasim) lagged behind. Ambrose overated, not with an average of 20.99 my friend.

 

[Top_Cat]

McGrath was perfectly capable of moving the ball in or away either in the air or off the seam even late in his career (his out-swinger to knock over KP at the Oval, for example). Was even a decent exponent of reverse swing. He just used them different to Donald. In even vaguely helpful conditions, he'd rip the ball miles past the outside edges of anyone at the other end. Sadly, for him, helpful conditions didn't come around too often (certainly, nowhere near as often as they did for Donald and co.) but it's an utter myth that McGrath had a limited arsenal.

Many people use McGrath's 5-fer at Lords in 2005 as an archetypical example of the myth that he was primarily a bowler who only brought the ball back in. Well, on the Lords slope, why would you try anything else if it's working for you? He was a master at summing up the conditions and bowling accordingly, only using the weapons which gave him the greatest chance of success. That's what makes him great.

 

[Ikki]

TBF, Donald's only real trouble is away in Australia (avg: 34.25, sr: 66.3). And, even that record is comparable with Ambrose's Pakistan record at home (avg: 29.33, sr: 72.8). While I don't totally agree with TEC, I think the point that Ambrose wasn't a particularly fast taker of wickets - in terms of all-time greats - does work against him somewhat.

 

[Ikki]

McGrath was perfectly capable of moving the ball in or away either in the air or off the seam even late in his career (his out-swinger to knock over KP at the Oval, for example). Was even a decent exponent of reverse swing. He just used them different to Donald. In even vaguely helpful conditions, he'd rip the ball miles past the outside edges of anyone at the other end. Sadly, for him, helpful conditions didn't come around too often (certainly, nowhere near as often as they did for Donald and co.) but it's an utter myth that McGrath had a limited arsenal.

Many people use McGrath's 5-fer at Lords in 2005 as an archetypical example of the myth that he was primarily a bowler who only brought the ball back in. Well, on the Lords slope, why would you try anything else if it's working for you? He was a master at summing up the conditions and bowling accordingly, only using the weapons which gave him the greatest chance of success. That's what makes him great.

I don't argue that McGrath wasn't very successful, nor that his limitations made him less likely to succeed, but that it meant he had to approach bowling differently - more cerebral. Whilst I have also witnessed McGrath move the ball in the air, I think comparing him to renown swingers is a stretch. Doing it, proving you can do it, is one thing; doing it consistently and taking wickets with it is another.

 

[bagapath]

i heard some batsman turned commentator say donald, and holding before him, had such classical bowling action that it was relatively easier for them to pick his deliveries a fraction sooner than they would otherwise. though you dont see this reflecting this in his career figures, somehow batsmen seem to be more wary of akram kind of bowlers (well, there are not too many as good as him actually) than a donald (or a walsh). now, even mcgrath had a straight forward bowling action like donald's and his out swinger, though very good, was not as lethal as allan's. so i wonder where i heard this comment and if you guys know anything more on this point.

 

[aussie]

i heard some batsman turned commentator say donald, and holding before him, had such classical bowling action that it was relatively easier for them to pick his deliveries a fraction sooner than they would otherwise. though you dont see this reflecting this in his career figures, somehow batsmen seem to be more wary of akram kind of bowlers (well, there are not too many as good as him actually) than a donald (or a walsh). now, even mcgrath had a straight forward bowling action like donald's and his out swinger, though very good, was not as lethal as allan's. so i wonder where i heard this comment and if you guys know anything more on this point.

I have never heard it, but this theory does make alot of sense. Facing the unsual actions & angles of a Akram, Thompson, Waqar, Tyson at their peaks. Would definately have been a more usual thing for top batsmen, than a classical but equally deadly Donald, McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee.

 

[aussie]

Ambrose a one trick pony. Are u kidding? U obviously never saw him live my friend. When he first burst onto the scene he had one of the deadliest yorkers in the game, plus a nasty bouncer, line and length balls and the list goes on. Cant think of a ball Mcgrath could bowl that Ambrose didnt. That Ambrose was 'ineffective' as u put it was just a matter of playing in a woeful WI towards the end of his career (see all the drop catches etc). And y bring Murali into this? Give Ambrose a few tests home and away vs Zim/Ban and ur sure to see that SR go down.


Ambrose is far from overated from what ive read on this forum. And whats this about his SR the diff between his and Mcgrath's SR is a matter of a few balls. He also has the 3rd lowest average for ne bowler with over 200 wkts and a miserly economy rate. India aside (the only team he averages over 30 against home/away) Ambrose has a good/great record against all teams (particularly away). Last but not least i dont think ne one can over estimate Ambrose's record against the best batting team of his time Australia he was outstanding where others (Donald, Waqar, Wasim) lagged behind. Ambrose overated, not with an average of 20.99 my friend.

All true, but i think its pretty clear unlike McGrath, Ambrose on flat pitches was generally forced to being a "ultimate metronome", but never really wicker-taking metronome like McGrath & Hadlee, who where superb in the sub-continent.

 

[zaremba]

There have been so many threads of the "Who's better: Igglesden or Pringle" type that all I can be arsed to contribute is that Donald's bowling action was one of the most phenomenal sights I've ever seen in cricket - really quite astonishing. McGrath's action was easy and economical and smooth in its own way, but he was basically a bowler who got results whereas Donald was magnificent as a spectacle.

 

[Ikki]

There have been so many threads of the "Who's better: Igglesden or Pringle" type that all I can be arsed to contribute is that Donald's bowling action was one of the most phenomenal sights I've ever seen in cricket - really quite astonishing. McGrath's action was easy and economical and smooth in its own way, but he was basically a bowler who got results whereas Donald was magnificent as a spectacle.

But how can you really say that? Donald, as shown, also got results, if not even better ones than McGrath. And for a time actually did carry a weaker S.African side on re-entry which is something McGrath was really never faced with.

Dear Zaremba, I'd like to know what your definition of results are then?

 

[tooextracool]

I have said a few of those things myself but never been disrespectful of the great man. being "damn near impossible to tear apart" itself is a sure sign of greatness (like being near impossible to dismiss is a sure sign of greatness in a batsman: example - dravid, kallis etc). ambrose was never ever boring to watch and he delivered on big matches against the toughest opponents. i am actually glad he never fired in all cylinders against india. yes, i rate mcgrath higher but dont want to treat ambrose like just another good fast bowler. he was way way better than that.

note: Am assuming your thoughts are not too different from mine. Just that the "overrated" line makes it look like Amby doesnt deserve the adulation he gets here and everywhere.

I didnt mean to suggest that he wasnt a great bowler or anything like that and the fact that he was difficult to thrash all over the park is indeed what makes him more respected. However, we need to consider that when it comes to test cricket, taking wickets take priority over tying down the batsmen. I've seen far too many Ambrose spells where he went for 1/28 from 20 overs or something along those lines, which still appears to be pretty good statistically but realistically didnt do that much for the side because the opposition would usually have no problems just blocking him and scoring runs at the other end.

 

[tooextracool]

Eh? Just about every thread we've seen of 'best bowlers' or somesuch ends with people saying "Where's Ambrose?" If anything, Ambi, on this forum, is under-rated.

Not really, most of the knowledgable posters or the ones that have actually watched cricket around the time that he played seem to rate Ambrose amongst the top tier of fast bowlers ever and frequently put him on a pedestal either above or with McGrath. Personally, whilst I rate Ambrose very highly, I simply cannot see how he and McGrath are on an even keel. Ambrose has a far greater claim to being the best ODI bowler ever than he does for being the best test bowler ever IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

Eh? Just about every thread we've seen of 'best bowlers' or somesuch ends with people saying "Where's Ambrose?" If anything, Ambi, on this forum, is under-rated.

Btw just did a quick search on a couple of Ambrose vs McGrath polls on this forum and it turns out that Ambrose won both, one by a significant margin as well.

Cricket Web - View Poll Results
Cricket Web - View Poll Results