Glenn McGrath vs Allan Donald

[tooextracool]

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?

I think you're definition of success is quantified in terms of statistics. Donald played on different pitches and in a more bowler friendly era. I can see your point regarding that it doesn't make sense for people to consider McGrath to be miles ahead of Donald, but I simply don't see your point about Lara/WI etc. Ask Lara which bowler he found tougher to face and I guarantee you it would have been McGrath. Hes gone on record saying that McGrath was the best fast bowler hes ever faced. However its besides the point.

The point that I am trying to make is that when required McGrath was capable of swinging the ball around corners and taking wickets as well. Its not as black and white as you seem to be picturing it as though McGrath only had one method of taking wickets and that was to use his brain and seam movement. He had different tools which you still fail to acknowledge. Donald really relied entirely on pace and swing. When he lost one of them in the early 2000s, it was painfully obvious that unless the ball was swinging he was nowhere near as good. McGrath on the other hand, all the way down till his very last series was still effective, Why? Because he had the ability to pick up wickets even when his pace was down or he wasnt getting movement off the pitch.

 

[SJS]

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?

I do not see any significance in those figures as far as the difference between Donald and McGrath is concerned.

There difference lies in the type of bowlers they were. McGrath was a Richard Hadlee type of bowler. probing away with unerring accuracy, rarely bowling a bad delivery and testing the batsman's technique to the limit. You had to be very good to be able to survive and have an uncanny ability to know which ball to play and which to leave. This on batting tracks. On helpful wickets he was unplayable.

Donald on the other hand came at you like a bull, attacking and firing on all cylinders. While McGrath tested the batsman's technique and exploited the smallest chink in his armour, Donald tested their guts and their physical attributes. He was more unpredictable for sure and you needed to have a very good and early sight and idea of what you wanted to do.

McGrath versus Tendulkar has the parry and thrust of fencing while a rampaging Donald in full flow after Mike Atherton has the blood and gore of prize fighters in the ring.

I love both types of battles, they each have their attraction. Both of them are great exponents of their art. How does one chose between Maurice tate of 1924-25 and harold Larwood of 1932-33 or more appropriately between Bedser of 1950-51 and Tyson of 1954-55. And these guys were contemporaries too with over lapping periods.

 

[MrIncredible]

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.

And Ambrose's only real trouble was India. he averaged 25 or under away to all teams that is amazing. Neither Mcgrath nor Donald managed that. Also his SR is 55 Mcgrath's is 52 a diff of 3 balls big deal!! Ambrose is easily in the top rung of great fast bowlers and those of u questioning his position there really need to give it up seriously

 

[MrIncredible]

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.

His record doesnt bear that out. He has a wonderdul record in the Sub continent. 18 wkts in 6 matches @ 22.5 SR 56. One may wonder y his WPM is so low thats because of the dire straits that became of his WI team. In 1997 in Pakistan in 3 tests he was injured in two that he played and WI lost both tests by an inns, which means that Ambrose eveb if healthy would have only had a crack at 20 wickets (as opposed to 40).

 

[subshakerz]

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.

 

[MrIncredible]

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.


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.

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.

 

[aussie]

His record doesnt bear that out. He has a wonderdul record in the Sub continent. 18 wkts in 6 matches @ 22.5 SR 56. One may wonder y his WPM is so low thats because of the dire straits that became of his WI team. In 1997 in Pakistan in 3 tests he was injured in two that he played and WI lost both tests by an inns, which means that Ambrose eveb if healthy would have only had a crack at 20 wickets (as opposed to 40).

Was the surfaces in PAK 90 fla though. I never saw anythign from the series but based on the scores, it seems as if the surfaces where condusive to good bowling & batting.

PAK 97 was definately flat, so yea his injury affected him a bit.

He never toured IND, but as i said he never was known for his ability to reverse swing the ball. I only saw Ambrose from ENG 98 to ENG 2000 live & i can remember alot of times when the surface got a little flat, he was just be super accurate without be a wicket-taking.

 

[aussie]

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.

I wont punish Lillee, since at the back end of his career, as he dropped pacedefinately developed great variation, something the Great Ambi didn't do. Lillee would have definately done well in IND if he had the chance.

His bad performances in PAK 1980, was basically like bowling on 3 ARG type pitches. No bowler would take wickets on that.

 

[WhatisRight]

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

Yep thats right.

Wasim Akram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

check under 'Playing Style'

 

[Langeveldt]

AAD I think will always be my favourite sportsman of all time.. Singlehandedly convinced me that watching cricket was a pleasure, and then like most other kids made me want to be the fastest bowler in the world.. By then watching him play was an absolute privelidge.. I think McGrath was the better bowler though, but we're comparing greatness with greatness here., I think Donald would have burnt out earlier if he was allowed to play International cricket during the bad old days..

 

[Richard]

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.

Most batsmen tended to say Walsh was incredibly difficult because of his awkward action, and Wasim incredibly difficult because of his astoundingly quick arm. This meant that a bowler with the perfect classical action or even a standard one, like Holding, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath or someone, did indeed allow a batsman to sight the ball earlier.

Yet despite this the likes of Walsh were notably a class behind this lot. And Wasim certainly wasn't a class above. It was awkward, but in the end it doesn't seem to have resulted in much more than that.

As for the question, it's one I've asked myself many times. I've always sufficed to say that there was precious little to divide Donald, Ambrose, McGrath, Wasim and the Pollock of 1995/96-2001. Anyone who thinks there is, IMO, is underrating someone and overrating someone else. I loved Donald because he was such a thrill to watch, so hence I'd pick him over any of them, but it's as simple as that.

 

[Richard]

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).

Both clearly made a huge impact on the explosion of runs. The number of seam-friendly pitches quite clearly decreased enormously from the start of the 2001/02 season onwards (that has gradually reversed again in recent years but it's still not back to anything like what it was pre-2001/02). Equally, lots of outstanding bowlers disappeared at almost that exact time.

I'd say it's head-in-the-sand to deny either.

 

[AaronK]

Hard one for me but i would go with Donald.. because of his pace..

 

[MrIncredible]

I wont punish Lillee, since at the back end of his career, as he dropped pacedefinately developed great variation, something the Great Ambi didn't do. Lillee would have definately done well in IND if he had the chance.

His bad performances in PAK 1980, was basically like bowling on 3 ARG type pitches. No bowler would take wickets on that.

That Lillee would have done well in India i have no doubt but i also believe Ambrose could have done just as well given the success of other good/great fast bowlers in India ( Walsh, Marshall, Mcgrath, Gillespie, etc). Ambrose didnt lose ne of his venom towards the end of his career:
filtered 1997-2000 30 52 1019.5 316 2160 110 6/51 8/75 19.63 2.11 55.6 5 0

What was obvious was that he was playing in a continually declining team where batsmen would attempt to see him off (if they could ) and attack the lesser bowlers. As a result, and due to the WI deplorable batting lineup WI often lost tests by inns or 10 wkts where Ambrose would only have a shot at 10 rather than the usual 20 wkts. EX: Pak 97, RSA 98, Aust 96-97 etc. As a result his WPM and SR suffered.

 

[MrIncredible]

Both clearly made a huge impact on the explosion of runs. The number of seam-friendly pitches quite clearly decreased enormously from the start of the 2001/02 season onwards (that has gradually reversed again in recent years but it's still not back to anything like what it was pre-2001/02). Equally, lots of outstanding bowlers disappeared at almost that exact time.

I'd say it's head-in-the-sand to deny either.

I'd say that wickets just overnight became flat is a bit far fetched. From my observations only in Australia did wickets become noticeably flatter. I can only speak for wickets in the WI, but they have always been the same way for years now (ARG flat, Sabina/Kensington bouncy, QPO uneven). India, Pakistan, SL have never been ne thing but flat just that batting averages became more inflated because of the lesser bowlers operating on them. FTR what seam friendly wickets are u talking about??

 

[Ikki]

And Ambrose's only real trouble was India. he averaged 25 or under away to all teams that is amazing. Neither Mcgrath nor Donald managed that. Also his SR is 55 Mcgrath's is 52 a diff of 3 balls big deal!! Ambrose is easily in the top rung of great fast bowlers and those of u questioning his position there really need to give it up seriously

You're being misleading. Donald's only problem was Australia at home. Ambrose vs India both home and away and away at Pakistan.

Ambrose may be 3 balls away from McGrath, but he is 8 away from Donald. And I am not questioning his him being in the top rung, not at all. I am questioning why Donald does not join Ambrose.

 

[Ikki]

I'd say that wickets just overnight became flat is a bit far fetched. From my observations only in Australia did wickets become noticeably flatter. I can only speak for wickets in the WI, but they have always been the same way for years now (ARG flat, Sabina/Kensington bouncy, QPO uneven). India, Pakistan, SL have never been ne thing but flat just that batting averages became more inflated because of the lesser bowlers operating on them. FTR what seam friendly wickets are u talking about??

I agree with you; the pitches became flatter over time. Some people seem to suggest as if the curators conspired to flatten all pitches at the same time.

 

[MrIncredible]

He does and there is an argument that he is even better than Ambrose. Um Ambrose averages 25 in Pakistan thats far from being a struggle (BTW Ambrose never played India away). I just took exception to that dude who labelled Ambrose as a one trick pony and not worthy of being in the top rung.

IMO top rung fast bowlers:

Pak: Imran, Wasim
RSA: Donald
Eng: Trueman
NZL: Hadlee
Aus: Lillee, Mcgrath
WI: Marshall, Ambrose

Spinners

Aust: Warne, Grimmett, Oreily
Eng: Laker, Verity
SL: Murali

Batsmen

Aust: Bradman, Waugh S, Border, Ponting, Chappell G, Trumper
Eng: Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hammond, Barrington, Hutton
WI: Headley, Richards, Lara , Sobers
IND: Gavaskar, Tendy
RSA: G Pollock
Pak: Miandad

 

[Ikki]

I agree with you on the whole. I made a mistake, I meant Ambrose at home against Pakistan where he averaged 29.33 runs per wicket and struck each wicket for 72.8 balls.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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./QUOTE]

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.