Glenn McGrath vs Allan Donald

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Lara must have done so in a couple of series, because I can remember watching McGrath dominate Lara in certain series.

Is the average you mention just against the respective bowlers?

 

[Ikki]

I think you're missing the part where McGrath used it when it suited the plan he had for the batsman. Just because you can bowl a big inswinger/outswinger doesn't mean you do so every ball. McGrath didn't bowl his stock deliveries all the time and I doubt Donald did either. If they did, neither of them would have been as successful as they were.

No, I simply don't agree with it. McGrath usually swung the ball in England, and even he confessed it was "weird" to do so because he really was not a swing bowler. There really is no certain place to use swing bowling - that's the beauty of it. It can essentially take the pitch out of the equation. McGrath tended to have it more in England because pitches were slower and had less bounce - as well as the conditions being made for swing bowling.

Personally, I think his prowess with regards to swing is being exaggerated. He could do it, but not at will and I think suggesting he used it only as a plan is overstating his adeptness. When the conditions suited it, he would intelligently use it and it would work well. However, I don't think many will remember McGrath as someone who swung much.

You do touch on an important point though. No one, even those who can, will swing the ball every chance or do it recklessly. At least, they wont be as successful. And I think it's understated that Donald also had a brain. The fact that he was a physical beast who could make the ball turn in the air whilst McGrath primarily moved it off the pitch shouldn't garner any extra praise for me. At least, it should be just acknowledged that they were different. Not better than the other because of it. The only measure should be their actual records.

It's my same stance on batsmen. I care little for stroke-play if it means I could have a batsman in my side who was more successful (average, sr) even though he may have been less technically adept.

 

[Ikki]

Lara must have done so in a couple of series, because I can remember watching McGrath dominate Lara in certain series.

Is the average you mention just against the respective bowlers?

It's the average score Lara was on every time his wicket was taken by McGrath.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's the average score Lara was on every time his wicket was taken by McGrath.

So he could have potentially scored 0 runs off McGrath himself?

 

[Ikki]

So he could have potentially scored 0 runs off McGrath himself?

That's very unlikely. Donald's record vs the WIndies > McGrath's record vs the WIndies. So if they are not taking Lara's wicket, conceding runs that are not off his bat, then there should be some reflection of that in their overall average against that country.

Simply, bowlers like McGrath bowl a fair share amount of the overs and are likely to concede a hefty amount of runs. In fact, looking over some of Lara's big scores against Australia that seems to be the case.

 

[Top_Cat]

You do touch on an important point though. No one, even those who can, will swing the ball every chance or do it recklessly. At least, they wont be as successful. And I think it's understated that Donald also had a brain. The fact that he was a physical beast who could make the ball turn in the air whilst McGrath primarily moved it off the pitch shouldn't garner any extra praise for me. At least, it should be just acknowledged that they were different. Not better than the other because of it. The only measure should be their actual records.

Absolutely disagree with that. Numbers may be the most objective measures available for rating players but they're fairly insensitive as measures go. There are other indicators to decide how to rate bowlers, especially when they're so close in terms of records.

Forget, for a moment, who moved the ball more. I can't speak for Goughy but for me, the amount of swing/cut/seam a bowler gets is just one consideration in rating McGrath above Donald. For me, it's also about how they used the conditions they had available, how they reacted to being hit around, who they got out and how they did it, how they targeted them, their tactics against players, at what point in a game they took their wickets, etc. Intangibles.

One example; McGrath and Donald were both brilliant front-runners but I think McGrath was better at pulling back when the batters were on top whereas my perception was that Donald was more likely to drop his bundle, even a little. I also felt that McGrath was better at targeting players' weaknesses and not letting up and had a better plan B if things weren't going well for the team. Now, no amount of poring over their records or scorecard reading is going to be instructive to that level but it's reasons like that why I rate McGrath a touch higher as an all-round quickie.

 

[Ikki]

Absolutely disagree with that. Numbers may be the most objective measures available for rating players but they're fairly insensitive as measures go. There are other indicators to decide how to rate bowlers, especially when they're so close in terms of records.

I actually think we're closer in our opinion than you think. I agree, when it is that close, then it gets to other considerations. My replies have been more in rebuttal to that Donald was "a group or two behind" or "Donald was one of the best of his time and McGrath was one of the best of all time." or "Not even in the same bracket." as Goughy has said.

For me, that argument doesn't make sense and whatever else Goughy is seeing in them as bowlers, they are still not that different and their actual figures speak loudly in proving that.

Forget, for a moment, who moved the ball more. I can't speak for Goughy but for me, the amount of swing/cut/seam a bowler gets is just one consideration in rating McGrath above Donald. For me, it's also about how they used the conditions they had available, how they reacted to being hit around, who they got out and how they did it, how they targeted them, their tactics against players, at what point in a game they took their wickets, etc. Intangibles.

But, as we've seen, in terms of overall record, their success on different pitches, against different countries, etc, is similar, if not in Donald's favour. So I still fail to see how you can split them even in terms of "how they used their conditions, etc". These are reflected in their numbers.

One example; McGrath and Donald were both brilliant front-runners but I think McGrath was better at pulling back when the batters were on top whereas my perception was that Donald was more likely to drop his bundle, even a little. I also felt that McGrath was better at targeting players' weaknesses and not letting up and had a better plan B if things weren't going well for the team. Now, no amount of poring over their records or scorecard reading is going to be instructive to that level but it's reasons like that why I rate McGrath a touch higher as an all-round quickie.

That's key though. Neither in average nor in ER does Donald really suffer for his approach, yet he is greatly benefited by going for the throat. Lillee is often mention like that; he simply never gave up and never gave an inch. In his time, that's something he was revered for. Maybe that's a subjective difference, or a preference. Yet I try to argue: that's fine if you see it that way, but objectively speaking, they were pretty much level. For me, Donald was no less dominant and no more dominated than McGrath was.

 

[bagapath]

even if mcgrath were to be rated (rightfully) higher than donald, let me acknowledge here that the white lightning achieved in his profession what mere mortals can only dream of in their respective jobs. in fact, his record is so phenomenal that even dreaming of that level of success is beyond most commoners. allan donald walks into the cricketing hall of fame quite easily.

 

[Ikki]

even if mcgrath were to be rated (rightfully) higher than donald, let me acknowledge here that the white lightning achieved in his profession what mere mortals can only dream of in their respective jobs. in fact, his record is so phenomenal that even dreaming of that level of success is beyond most commoners. allan donald walks into the cricketing hall of fame quite easily.

Well said. The difference between Donald's record and, say Marshall's, are his performances at home to Australia. That's essentially it. If Malcolm has such a complete record that garners such praise here, then Donald should not be far behind for even McGrath doesn't have a record as complete - country to country, home and away.

 

[subshakerz]

I would give McGrath the slight edge. Its true that upon reflection of their records, there's not much difference between them. I do think, however, that Donald's record against Australia, and the fact that he was not feared by the Australians as much as Akram and Ambrose, makes him fall slightly in many people's estimation. Even in his prime, he generally only had on good game per series vs. the Aussies.

 

[tooextracool]

I honestly think people exaggerate the pitch conditions of 2001 onwards. I dont think they pitches were ne flatter after 2001 as they were b4. Batsmen exploded because so many good/great bowlers had retired around the same time (Waqar, Wasim, Donald, Ambrose). And give that Murali thing a rest i already showed that his record is heavily influenced by:

A. Very favorable home conditions and B minnows (who Ambrose never played against).

U might not speak of Ambrose and Mcgrath in the same breath but i can assure u that u r in a very small minority. As u should be. If u r goin to penalise Ambrose for not playing in the continent as much then u may as well punish the likes of Lillee et al. Walsh (Ambrose's bowling mate) has an excellent (and extensive) record in the Asia, surely u arent suggesting Walsh> Amrbose. Ne way Mcgrath played in the team with the best batting lineup of his time Ambrose played against that team and tore them to shreds. Again Mcgrath SR is 52 to Ambrose's 55, 3 balls diff big deal. Average 21 vs 22 (rounding up). Not much in it from where i sit.

Err saying that 3 balls is insiginifcant is equivalent to saying averaging 28 and 31 is the same. Harmison by the way averages 31 and if he were averaging 28 most would say he had a successful career. Most importantly though, Ambrose bowled less in subcontinental conditions, bowled on bowler friendly wickets than McGrath and still ended up with an SR that was higher than McGrath.

 

[tooextracool]

Hes gone on record saying that McGrath was the best fast bowler hes ever faced.

No, I believe Lara has said that Wasim Akram was the best he faced, not McGrath.

Lara, McGrath talk each other up - Cricket - Fox Sports

Guess hes a bit confused because hes said that McGrath is the toughest bowler hes faced.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara, McGrath talk each other up - Cricket - Fox Sports

Guess hes a bit confused because hes said that McGrath is the toughest bowler hes faced.

Strange, because around the same time he reiterated that Wasim was tougher.

Lara rates Akram better than McGrath : thewest.com.au

 

[MrIncredible]

Err saying that 3 balls is insiginifcant is equivalent to saying averaging 28 and 31 is the same. Harmison by the way averages 31 and if he were averaging 28 most would say he had a successful career. Most importantly though, Ambrose bowled less in subcontinental conditions, bowled on bowler friendly wickets than McGrath and still ended up with an SR that was higher than McGrath.

3 balls are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, other wise y would we even debate who the greatest fast bowler of all time was since Marshall has a SR of 46 and an average of 20.94 thats 6 balls fewer than Mcgrath and about one run less in average.

I dont know how u can say that Ambrose bowled on more bowler friendly wickets. Ambrose and Mcgrath have similar records in England, and RSA. Mcgrath averages 18 in NZL and ambrose 23. Mcgrath averages 31 in Pakistan and Ambrose 25. Mcgrath is at 29 in SL but ambrose only played there once so ill leave that out. Mcgrath averages 21 in India (very impressive btw) but Ambrose never played in India.The way u tell it its as if Ambrose chose not to tour India (he was injured and left out the squad in 94) but he still has a impressive record in Asia in the limited tests he did play there (6 tests). Finally Mcgrath averages 21 in the WI and Ambrose 20 in Australia. But u should also remember that the OZ batting lineups that Ambrose had to bowl against are on a whole other level from the rag tag WI line up Mcgrath feasted on (Lara and a bunch of no name players).

People hold Mcgrath in high esteem and they should he was a great great bowler arguably the best of all time but Ambrose is also on that level and to suggest (as u did) that there is ne thing but a whisker between these 2 bowlers and to call Ambrose overated and a one trick pony is insulting to say the least!!