Glenn McGrath vs Allan Donald

[Top_Cat]

Seem to remember Ambi not really rating a mention in other threads, though, when people talk about who the best WI fast bowers were, best of the 90's, etc. CBA checking, though.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

I dont think you are giving McGrath his due here. After his initial tours to India people claimed that he didnt have the tools to succeed in India as he didnt have a lot of pace, didnt move the ball in the air and relied almost completely on getting something of the pitch in order to take wickets which on the deader wickets of India would seem impossible. In 2001, he resorted to bowling a couple of feet wide outside the off stump and pried on the batsman's patience rather than trying to get people out and he received considerable criticism from many who felt that he was outbowled by his bowling partner Jason Gillespie. He returned in 2004/05 and proved all the doubters wrong by getting the ball to reverse consistently and taking loads of wickets with it as well which in my mind is a hallmark of a great bowler

McGrath wasnt a consistent swinger of the ball, but he didnt really need to be, its what made him so accurate.

 

[Ikki]

That's not really what I was saying or disputing. I actually agree with what you said.

My argument was that because McGrath worked around his "weaknesses" and was such a cerebral cricketer that people tend to rate him higher than Donald who actually did possess it all and hence didn't need work-arounds.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

Almost any half decent bowler can vary his lines and lengths, it doesnt really mean that he has a lot of variet in his bowling because he could bowl a good bouncer. The reason I brought Murali into it was to show that even a spin bowler had a higher SR than Ambrose and generally spin bowlers tend to have lower SR and bowl more overs to take the same number of wickets.

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.

When I said Ambrose is overrated, I didnt mean to suggest that he isnt great or that he was no an absolutely superb bowler. Just that in the context of other greats, I wouldn't speak of him in the same breath. His average is barely better than McGrath but that is nullified by the fact that he barely played in the subcontinent, and generally had a better time of the conditions having played most of his best years in a period where pitches were generally more reception to pace bowling than they were in McGrath's prime. And yet, despite all of that, McGrath ended up with a higher SR. Like I said, McGrath for me is the best fast bowler I have ever seen, and Id be surprised if anyone other Malcolm Marshall could consider himself as good or better.

 

[tooextracool]

That's not really what I was saying or disputing. I actually agree with what you said.

My argument was that because McGrath worked around his "weaknesses" and was such a cerebral cricketer that people tend to rate him higher than Donald who actually did possess it all and hence didn't need work-arounds.

Well thats the thing though. Donald needed all those things to be effective at the test match level, McGrath could change his game depending on the conditions. When Donald lost his pace in the early 2000s he wasnt half the bowler that he used to be, struggling to even keep a lid on things let alone take wickets.

 

[SJS]

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.

We have, as fans, an obsession to rate and rank players inspite of their having played in different eras. No amount of attempts to explain to fans that its well nigh impossible to compare like this. It is interesting in this regards to see Rod Laver's reaction to being asked the other day (after Federer had won his 15th grand slam) whether he thought Roger was now the greatest player of all time. Laver hesitated to nominate the greatest of all time preferring to stick to the best of an era. He further said,

"That, to me, is a pretty good compliment to your game, to your tennis, over your career,If Roger gets to 16, 17 grand slams, people in the press are the ones that are wanting to say it, 'Who's the best ever?' My thought is that if you're the best in your era, that's pretty good.

"You probably don't even know who Bill Tilden (the American who won 10 grand slams between 1920 and 1930) is, but was he the best ever? I know that Bud Collins (the veteran American tennis writer) has seen the likes of Tilden play. So it's hard for anyone I think to come out and say who's the best ever. It's like boxing. Who's the best ever in boxing? I don't know anybody who's come up there. To me it's an era."​

And this in a game where one individual matches his skills directly against another. In a team sport like cricket where the individual's success is so intricately linked to his team mates and where the roles are so different from player to player and even from match to match we have really to stop taking this exercise so seriously. We all enjoy doing it but at the end of it, it is just something to be done over a few beers in a bar and restricted to that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Whatever happened to all that 'champion in one era is a champion in any era' talk ?

 

[bagapath]

absolutely SJS. but in the case of donald and mcgrath, their careers were almost similar for a long long time...

in fact, after 72 test matches mcgrath's record stood at

72 140 2870.5 839 7293 338 8/38 10/27 21.57 2.54 50.9 19 3

Donald's final figures are

72 129 2586.3 661 7344 330 8/71 12/139 22.25 2.83 47.0 20 3

quite difficult to split the two of them on overall achievement.

at the time of donald's retirement mcgrath's numbers were..

82 159 3274.1 965 8346 385 8/38 10/27 21.67 2.54 51.0 23 3

55 more wickets in 10 tests with 3 five wicket hauls is a good significant difference. but is that the clincher we are looking for?

 

[Top_Cat]

That's not really what I was saying or disputing. I actually agree with what you said.

My argument was that because McGrath worked around his "weaknesses" and was such a cerebral cricketer that people tend to rate him higher than Donald who actually did possess it all and hence didn't need work-arounds.

You don't become a great of the game just by working around weaknesses. The best minimise them but they have a core game they do better than anyone else. McGrath didn't bowl like Donald because he'd not Donald. About the only thing McGrath lacked compared to Donald was pace, showed on many occasions he could move the ball as much as anyone and took enough wickets with big movement too. He just didn't go for that big movement all the time because it wasn't his game tactically speaking. This argument is bogus for that reason.

You're essentially arguing that because Donald is more famous for taking wickets with hooping swing than McGrath is, he's a better bowler. That's ridiculous and ignores the many other aspects of good pace bowling that are less glamorous but just as tough to master.

 

[Ikki]

Well thats the thing though. Donald needed all those things to be effective at the test match level, McGrath could change his game depending on the conditions. When Donald lost his pace in the early 2000s he wasnt half the bowler that he used to be, struggling to even keep a lid on things let alone take wickets.

Donald paid the price of a long career, bowling high-octane spells which are reflected in his awesome strike-rate. He was as miserly as McGrath, yet took wickets at a noticeably faster clip. Even post 2000 he kept high standards: avg. 24.86, SR. 54.8. Yet this hides how good he was because it's really only his last series in 2002 against Australia where he falters, breaks down and retires. Other than that, his figures post 2000 are: avg. 20.34, SR. 49.7. The kind of figures McGrath would dream to have. In McGrath's last two years, for example, he scored: avg. 23.02, SR. 54.5.

The fact that a bowler of his energy bowled to 35 is itself an achievement. Malcolm Marshall, for example, retired at 33.

Where I stand is, I find it awkward that Donald is being penalised for having all the tools a fast bowler would love to have in his arsenal. How can one say Donald needed it to be successful, in a pejorative manner? Maybe Donald could have been a McGrath type bowler but then that would mean that he wouldn't have that awesome SR he has. Why penalise him for trying to be the best fast bowler he could be? Yet give extra points for McGrath for not being as complete as Donald?

 

[Top_Cat]

Where I stand is, I find it awkward that Donald is being penalised for having all the tools a fast bowler would love to have in his arsenal. How can one say Donald needed it to be successful, in a pejorative manner? Maybe Donald could have been a McGrath type bowler but then that would mean that he wouldn't have that awesome SR he has. Why penalise him for trying to be the best fast bowler he could be? Yet give extra points for McGrath for not being as complete as Donald?

That's the point; McGrath had all the tools too (other than raw pace). He just used them differently.

 

[Ikki]

You don't become a great of the game just by working around weaknesses. The best minimise them but they have a core game they do better than anyone else. McGrath didn't bowl like Donald because he'd not Donald. About the only thing McGrath lacked compared to Donald was pace, showed on many occasions he could move the ball as much as anyone and took enough wickets with big movement too. He just didn't go for that big movement all the time because it wasn't his game tactically speaking. This argument is bogus for that reason.

Until around 2000/2001 McGrath himself said he had not really swung the ball at all and it really only appeared in the 2nd half of his career - and really not that much. McGrath essentially swung the ball when the conditions seemed to suit him also. When one talks of swing bowling, one does not think of McGrath.

And to really say that he chose not to use it is one thing, but to say he could have but thought he'd succeed more is another. Swing bowling is probably the most successful bowling type for wicket-taking. Had he mastered it, really, he would have used it and how. Especially in the 2000s where after Donald, Waqar and Wasim left it really was less faced by batsman and all the chance it would have been more successful.

You're essentially arguing that because Donald is more famous for taking wickets with hooping swing than McGrath is, he's a better bowler. That's ridiculous and ignores the many other aspects of good pace bowling that are less glamorous but just as tough to master.

Actually, I am not saying that. I am saying that people seem to have this misconception that McGrath was a smarter bowler - hence better - since he did not have as many tools as Donald and still did relatively well. And Donald suffers in comparison for mastering pretty much all facets of fast-bowling? People think he was simply going 100mph and that's about it. To me at least, it's inane not only giving extra-points for McGrath, but almost hindering Donald simultaneously. McGrath had to be more cerebral because he didn't have a skill that Donald mastered. And as successful as he was, he still didn't take wickets at the speed that Donald did.

That's the point; McGrath had all the tools too (other than raw pace). He just used them differently.

He also swung the ball little, comparatively. And his SR is poorer for it. So why give him extra points for it?

Do people give Steve Waugh more kudos for being more limited than a Tendulkar, for instance, because while he could play all shots technically, he cut out those that he couldn't score as well with and got more runs? Do we then say that Tendulkar "needed" his repertoire in order to be successful? Or does Marshall face the same fate as Donald for having pretty much everything? Sounds non-sensical to me.

 

[Top_Cat]

You're still labouring under the mis-apprehension that Donald was a more 'complete' (whatever that means) fast bowler than McGrath. It's bogus and grossly misrepresents McGrath's bowling to support an argument that Donald is better. Until that changes, there's no point in continuing this.

 

[tooextracool]

Actually, I am not saying that. I am saying that people seem to have this misconception that McGrath was a smarter bowler since he did not have as many tools as Donald and still did relatively well. And Donald suffers in comparison for mastering pretty much all facets of fast-bowling? People think he was simply going 100mph and that's about it. To me at least, it's inane not only giving extra-points for McGrath, but almost hindering Donald simultaneously. McGrath had to be more cerebral because he didn't have a skill that Donald mastered. And as successful as he was, he still didn't take wickets at the speed that Donald did.

Err its not really about that at all. No one is suggesting that McGrath was a more intellectual bowler simply because he must have been given that he was slower. Go back a few years and watch how he frequently set Lara up before getting him out.

 

[Ikki]

You're still labouring under the mis-apprehension that Donald was a more 'complete' (whatever that means) fast bowler than McGrath. It's bogus and grossly misrepresents McGrath's bowling to support an argument that Donald is better. Until that changes, there's no point in continuing this.

Well, I guess that definition may differ. But I am talking about the fact that Donald could seam well, swing well, cut well, had a lot of pace and also bowled until he was 35. McGrath did not have all those virtues. He was successful sure, but why give him extra credit since he succeeded without them? Do you think McGrath wouldn't have chosen to swing the ball if he could as well as Donald? I highly doubt that.

Furthermore, even on the account that McGrath did things differently; it's by doing things differently that his SR is noticeably inferior.

I simply see no reason why McGrath should be given extra kudos for it. Because it's on this basis (his intelligence, cerebralness, what have you) that people seem to nudge him past Donald when essentially they performed remarkably similarly - if not in Donald's favour in terms of ratios and weak spots.

 

[tooextracool]

Where I stand is, I find it awkward that Donald is being penalised for having all the tools a fast bowler would love to have in his arsenal. How can one say Donald needed it to be successful, in a pejorative manner? Maybe Donald could have been a McGrath type bowler but then that would mean that he wouldn't have that awesome SR he has. Why penalise him for trying to be the best fast bowler he could be? Yet give extra points for McGrath for not being as complete as Donald?

Donald is far from a 'complete' bowler that you seem to think and the very fact that he was hopeless when he had lost his pace in 2001 emphasises that. He had many of the tools required to succeed but he rarely showed the ability to reverse the ball, nor was he anywhere near as good as McGrath when it came to hitting the seam and getting the ball to move off the pitch as consistently (probably cause he was shorter). Both bowlers had different tools, I think you seriously underestimate McGrath by calling him 'limited' because he had all the tools to do everything Donald could do except for the pace. He didn't always use them because it would have made him considerably less accurate and that would have made him an inferior bowler. This of course has meant that far too many people seem to pigeon hole him as being 'limited'.

 

[Ikki]

Err its not really about that at all. No one is suggesting that McGrath was a more intellectual bowler simply because he must have been given that he was slower. Go back a few years and watch how he frequently set Lara up before getting him out.

I've watched McGrath's career in it's entirety. Enough so to see Lara give McGrath a belting. I mean, does it matter for you that Donald was much better against Lara/WIndies, and faced them pretty much at their peak - before they slid down? It's interesting you bring up Lara because Donald got him 6 times in 10 matches (60%) and McGrath got him 15 times in 24 matches (62.5%). Yet Donald got him much earlier in his innings and Lara averaged 31 at the point when Donald got him out and the figure against McGrath is 41.4.

Again, I can't help but feel Donald is not getting his dues.

 

[Ikki]

Donald is far from a 'complete' bowler that you seem to think and the very fact that he was hopeless when he had lost his pace in 2001 emphasises that. He had many of the tools required to succeed but he rarely showed the ability to reverse the ball, nor was he anywhere near as good as McGrath when it came to hitting the seam and getting the ball to move off the pitch as consistently (probably cause he was shorter). Both bowlers had different tools, I think you seriously underestimate McGrath by calling him 'limited' because he had all the tools to do everything Donald could do except for the pace. He didn't always use them because it would have made him considerably less accurate and that would have made him an inferior bowler. This of course has meant that far too many people seem to pigeon hole him as being 'limited'.

You are exaggerating his fall from grace. Donald's last 3 tests were poor but apart from that he was largely great from 2000 onwards. He was essentially crippled by injuries and retired abruptly. This was at age 35, so it's not like he retired because he was limited. He was just old.

In terms of comparing their tools; I would say Donald was a much better seamer than McGrath was a swinger. The fact that he was faster is obvious.

McGrath used what worked for him, and the figures speak for themself. However, I think that does not deserve any extra kudos. Maybe I am overstating it, but I generally see statements akin to: McGrath was too good to swing it or that McGrath was so intelligent he didn't need it. McGrath was a brain, Donald was a fighter. And while I can fathom that to a degree, I can't agree to make that seem as if there was something wrong with Donald for being an awesome bowler who would do what McGrath didn't do - for whatever reason.

 

[tooextracool]

I've watched McGrath's career in it's entirety. Enough so to see Lara give McGrath a belting. I mean, does it matter for you that Donald was much better against Lara/WIndies, and faced them pretty much at their peak - before they slid down? It's interesting you bring up Lara because Donald got him 6 times in 10 matches (60%) and McGrath got him 15 times in 24 matches (62.5%). Yet Donald got him much earlier in his innings and Lara averaged 31 at the point when Donald got him out and the figure against McGrath is 41.4.

Again, I can't help but feel Donald is not getting his dues.

Err I didnt bring Lara up here to compare and see which one of Donald or McGrath dismissed him more or at what average. The point is the manner of the dismissals in which Lara got out to McGrath which had him completely perplexed and adds to the point about him being a cerebral bowler which you seem to think is some sort of myth. Of course Lara belted him around at times, its bloody Lara for God's sake, the most talented batsman of the past couple of decades, of course he carted him as well.

 

[Ikki]

Err I didnt bring Lara up here to compare and see which one of Donald or McGrath dismissed him more or at what average. The point is the manner of the dismissals in which Lara got out to McGrath which had him completely perplexed and adds to the point about him being a cerebral bowler which you seem to think is some sort of myth. Of course Lara belted him around at times, its bloody Lara for God's sake, the most talented batsman of the past couple of decades, of course he carted him as well.

I don't think it's a myth mate. I think it's there, but just how much is it worth when you can basically not be as cerebral yet be just as successful, if not moreso? Essentially, all that counts are wickets and runs. In that small model - Lara/Windies - who succeeded more in your opinion? IMO Donald did better against Lara and WIndies, his record reflects that. So how much stake do you put on the method of McGrath getting Lara out, for example?