Imran Khan vs Allan Donald

[DrWolverine]

Lillee > Trueman

 

[subshakerz]

with all due respect, this is not true.

The strongest opposition both men could face was the West Indies, check the records there.

Ok but isn't WIs of Lillees time stronger?

Pak and Indian teams also had very good batting units. Dont underestimate them.

 

[Johan]

Ok but isn't WIs of Lillees time stronger?

Pak and Indian teams also had very good batting units. Dont underestimate them.

The India Trueman ripped apart in his debut series was pretty decent, plus Lillee's numbers against Pakistan are very high, even at home for an ATG pacer.

WI I'd say are even in both eras.

 

[Johan]

Lillee > Trueman

Lillee > Trueman is fair.

but trying to imply a substantial gap between the two is sniffing glue, they are gonna be next to each other in any list, they kinda have to be.

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee > Trueman is fair.

but trying to imply a substantial gap between the two is sniffing glue, they are gonna be next to each other in any list, they kinda have to be.

No they are close.

 

[Coronis]

Donald played five series against them, excluding his last test, and was worldclass in only one. His underperformance cost SA the title of best team in the world frankly when they were competitive with Aus.

lol

 

[Johan]

No they are close.

Equals.

Trueman has the advantage at home, in the Carribean and less relevantly so, in New Zealand. Lillee has the advantage in their Ashes rival's home and it's enough to equalise them for me. I just think Trueman is the most destructive bowler of all time, more so than Steyn, more so than Barnes, more so than Rabada, more so than Cummins, therefore I have him over Lillee, his WPM and SR is transcendent for the era.

 

[subshakerz]

lol

I'm not exaggerating.

 

[subshakerz]

Equals.

Trueman has the advantage at home, in the Carribean and less relevantly so, in New Zealand. Lillee has the advantage in their Ashes rival's home and it's enough to equalise them for me. I just think Trueman is the most destructive bowler of all time, more so than Steyn, more so than Barnes, more so than Rabada, more so than Cummins, therefore I have him over Lillee, his WPM and SR is transcendent for the era.

Why didn't Trueman do well in Aus?

 

[Johan]

Why didn't Trueman do well in Aus?

same thing as Steyn, very attacking bowler but he could be expensive, got some extremely flat pitches in 60s when both England and Australia were seemingly try to draw the game (iirc, 80% of the Ashes matches from the time were draws), only got one full series and did very well in it with 20 @ 26 and a sub 50 SR.

58/59 Ashes is just a disaster I suggest you read on.

 

[Johan]

What I mean by Trueman being the most destructive fast bowler of them all, in that era, strike rates were as follows.

Alan Davidson: 62.30
Ray Lindwall: 59.87
Keith Miller: 61.54
Neil Adcock: 61.45
Wes Hall: 54.28 (notorious India bully)
Alec Bedser: 67.45
Brian Statham: 63.71

Fred Trueman: 49.40

going by WPI/WPM – Bedser isn't fair for this, he is medium and bowled more than Warne on average.

Alan Davidson: 2.26/4.22
Ray Lindwall: 2.01/3.73
Keith Miller: 1.78/3.09
Neil Adcock: 2.26/4.00
Wes Hall: 2.08/4.00
Brian Statham: 1.49/3.60

Fred Trueman: 2.41/4.58

His SR is better than Steyn, Waqar or Rabada WRT to Era (pacers as a whole had a 70+ SR in his time to Steyn's 60, that's without taking into account that Trueman would naturally have a bigger impact on the stats than Steyn due to number of countries) and he was durable enough to bowl as many overs as asked. That is what pushes him over Lillee for me. His destructiveness and aggression transcends his era, that's what makes him special.

 

[Bolo.]

Great record but again let's understand the context.

Short career in terms of number of games centered mostly around his peak with comparatively less away games and very supportive home wickets, and outside of Eng and Aus, only single tours of NZ, WI, SL, Pak, India only four tests.

So his stats are boosted frankly especially compared to peer pacers like Ambrose, Wasim and McGrath with around 100 tests and many more away tours.

What age do you think genuine quicks peak at?

I reckon the typical range for top guys is peaking by early 20s and past it anywhere between late 20s and early 30s, depending on how fit they stay.

 

[subshakerz]

What age do you think genuine quicks peak at?

I reckon the typical range for top guys is peaking by early 20s and past it anywhere between late 20s and early 30s, depending on how fit they stay.

Depends on the bowler but mid 20s to early 30s.

 

[subshakerz]

What I mean by Trueman being the most destructive fast bowler of them all, in that era, strike rates were as follows.

Alan Davidson: 62.30
Ray Lindwall: 59.87
Keith Miller: 61.54
Neil Adcock: 61.45
Wes Hall: 54.28 (notorious India bully)
Alec Bedser: 67.45
Brian Statham: 63.71

Fred Trueman: 49.40

going by WPI/WPM – Bedser isn't fair for this, he is medium and bowled more than Warne on average.

Alan Davidson: 2.26/4.22
Ray Lindwall: 2.01/3.73
Keith Miller: 1.78/3.09
Neil Adcock: 2.26/4.00
Wes Hall: 2.08/4.00
Brian Statham: 1.49/3.60

Fred Trueman: 2.41/4.58

His SR is better than Steyn, Waqar or Rabada WRT to Era (pacers as a whole had a 70+ SR in his time to Steyn's 60, that's without taking into account that Trueman would naturally have a bigger impact on the stats than Steyn due to number of countries) and he was durable enough to bowl as many overs as asked. That is what pushes him over Lillee for me. His destructiveness and aggression transcends his era, that's what makes him special.

Ok but Truemans SR was pretty much a home phenomenon since he couldn't take wickets at nearly the same rate in Aus and WI unlike Steyn who was crazy SR everywhere. On that score, even Lillee had a great SR at home but also in England.

 

[Johan]

Ok but Truemans SR was pretty much a home phenomenon since he couldn't take wickets at nearly the same rate in Aus and WI unlike Steyn who was crazy SR everywhere. On that score, even Lillee had a great SR at home but also in England.

in the only two series he played fully away from home in Australia and the West Indies are the 1960 Wisden Trophy and the 1962-63 Ashes, he was a 12 point devitation in the West Indies series and a silly 18 point devitation in Australia among the pacers, like I said, he is a standout in destructiveness from his era.

 

[subshakerz]

same thing as Steyn, very attacking bowler but he could be expensive, got some extremely flat pitches in 60s when both England and Australia were seemingly try to draw the game (iirc, 80% of the Ashes matches from the time were draws), only got one full series and did very well in it with 20 @ 26 and a sub 50 SR.

58/59 Ashes is just a disaster I suggest you read on.

58/59 was results in 2/3 games. All said and done he played four series in Aus and WI and averaged 30, 26, 46, 26 and took less than 4WPM. Good I guess but not comparable to what Lillee did in England. And no he didn't have a sub 50 SR in the second Aus series.

Like I said, the distinct impression from his record is that he was really only consistently
top class at home and had a major drop down away in effectiveness.

 

[Johan]

58/59 was results in 2/3 games. All said and done he played four series in Aus and WI and averaged 30, 26, 46, 26 and took less than 4WPM. Good I guess but not comparable to what Lillee did in England. And no he didn't have a sub 50 SR in the second Aus series.

Like I said, the distinct impression from his record is that he was really only consistently
top class at home and had a major drop down away in effectiveness.

58/59 is the series with serious claims of absurd umpiring fraudery and English players constantly sabotaging each other, to the point that Trueman did not play in all the games even though being well known as the greatest bowler in England by that point.

54/55 West Indies is from when he was extremely young, not a regular in the side and ran into the three Ws on the flattest wickets possible, it was a particularly rough deal for someone playing their first game outside home, I don't really hold that against him.

at the end, he only has two full serieses, both played on extremely flat wickets in West Indies and in Australia and he averaged 26, not amazing but good enough, especially considering he won the series in West Indies pretty much.

 

[subshakerz]

in the only two series he played fully away from home in Australia and the West Indies are the 1960 Wisden Trophy and the 1962-63 Ashes, he was a 12 point devitation in the West Indies series and a silly 18 point devitation in Australia among the pacers, like I said, he is a standout in destructiveness from his era.

The WI series was Wes Hall and nobody else quality so it's not surprising Trueman was the best.

Davidson took 24@20 in the second Aus series and clearly outbowled Trueman who wasn't the standout you are presenting him as.

 

[subshakerz]

not amazing but good enough

Yeah but Lillee clearly did better away in Eng and the WI WSC series for me.

And Lillee was still amazing at home taking 5WPM at a sub 50 SR, overall only a notch below Trueman.

 

[Johan]

The WI series was Wes Hall and nobody else quality so it's not surprising Trueman was the best.

Davidson took 24@20 in the second Aus series and clearly outbowled Trueman.

That is not true, Statham played in three tests, and also clearly outbowled Wes Hall in the series even though later was bowling to a substantially weaker batting on home wickets.

Davidson's numbers considering the quality of the pitches is insane in that series, barring those two, Australia and England's remaining bowlers are averaging 40+.