Imran Khan vs Allan Donald

[kyear2]

Imran was great at home and ATG in WI, reasonably good in Aus(if you look at the context of his last tour and the brilliant performances in WSC)and Eng. He was ok in Ind. Donald was great at home, great vs Eng, reasonably good vs WI, good vs Aus(but far below Ambrose vs Aus or Imran vs WI or Steyn vs Ind). So Imran. For fast bowlers I’d go:

Marshall
Mcgrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose/Imran
Dobald
Lillee/Akram

There was no context to his last tour, we've discussed this. He averaged 27 before and 28 after, it didn't make the difference you state that it does. But beyond that, do we deduct all other bowlers last tours from their resumes?

He wasn't ok in India, he wasn't ok in Australia. He's being compared to what Marshall and Hadlee (from his era) did vs them. You can't say that was decent.

Similarly Donald wasn't good vs Australia. He too below par.

And WSC, you've mentioned it a few times. Are we also using it for Barry, and Viv? Lillee?

I have no issue with your ratings at all, mostly agree with them (Trueman over Wasim apart), but it's the excuses.

Again, might just be semantics, but from my perspective, can't be making that many excuses at this level. But again, your ATG, might be my very good, but

 

[kyear2]

It’s just that for Aus, Imran has the context of last tour, where he bowled like half the overs Wasim did, and the WSC performances that push his case. In Ind, no such context. Donald and Imran are close in Aus, I’d take Imran in the end cause of his WSC performances. And in my next post, I have said Donald was good vs Aus. And I agree by ATG standards, none of them were brilliant in Aus

The last tour, didn't impact his average that much and as discussed, he still opened the bowling, having the best of the new ball. There was one match of the three when he didn't carry a bowling load, in one of the matches he had more overs than any of the other fast bowlers.

I'm not for a second saying he was in his prime, but no bowler was in his last tours. Marshall was crap the last two years. It can't be used as an excuse here, and again. It didn't change his average, it was still 27.

WSC, that's a more complicated and nuanced argument, but wouldn't use it in this instance. I've never used it to push Viv or Lillee's case.

 

[Slifer]

We are all aware that inspite of his "impactful" series away, Imran averages more, has a lower sr and wpm than Donald. Imran did better away to the best team of his time WI than Donald did his. But that's not the be all and end of these analysis.

Consistency across teams/countries imo, is for me more important. Donald was great in Asia, WI, and England. His sample sizes vs the NZ not enough.

In Australia lest we are confused, Donald did just fine. Donald was averaging 23 and striking at 51 after 5 tests over two series in Australia. Then he played that series there in 2001 literaterally on his last legs vs a batting lineup that was the best test cricket has seen since the Invincibles. And he ended up with the figures he has now. But make no mistake, Donald was more than just average in Australia.

 

[subshakerz]

God, this blind reading of averages to determine quality in CW is so strong, even among seasoned posters you would expect better of.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

The last tour, didn't impact his average that much and as discussed, he still opened the bowling, having the best of the new ball. There was one match of the three when he didn't carry a bowling load, in one of the matches he had more overs than any of the other fast bowlers.

I'm not for a second saying he was in his prime, but no bowler was in his last tours. Marshall was crap the last two years. It can't be used as an excuse here, and again. It didn't change his average, it was still 27.

WSC, that's a more complicated and nuanced argument, but wouldn't use it in this instance. I've never used it to push Viv or Lillee's case.

An interesting argument would be between Imran and Donald, who was better in Aus(disregarding the WSC)?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

We are all aware that inspite of his "impactful" series away, Imran averages more, has a lower sr and wpm than Donald. Imran did better away to the best team of his time WI than Donald did his. But that's not the be all and end of these analysis.

Consistency across teams/countries imo, is for me more important. Donald was great in Asia, WI, and England. His sample sizes vs the NZ not enough.

In Australia lest we are confused, Donald did just fine. Donald was averaging 23 and striking at 51 after 5 tests over two series in Australia. Then he played that series there in 2001 literaterally on his last legs vs a batting lineup that was the best test cricket has seen since the Invincibles. And he ended up with the figures he has now. But make no mistake, Donald was more than just average in Australia.

I agree with you on the Aus thing. Average of 23 and a great WPM before his last tour. But for the Asia thing, I personally don't club his 9 tests. Tho its an interesting argument if we can club them, since all were in the SC, or go country by country?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Regardless, Donald is kinda underrated here. Great at home, in Eng, pretty good in Aus, good in WI. Top 7 for me.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

There was no context to his last tour, we've discussed this. He averaged 27 before and 28 after, it didn't make the difference you state that it does. But beyond that, do we deduct all other bowlers last tours from their resumes?

He wasn't ok in India, he wasn't ok in Australia. He's being compared to what Marshall and Hadlee (from his era) did vs them. You can't say that was decent.

Similarly Donald wasn't good vs Australia. He too below par.

And WSC, you've mentioned it a few times. Are we also using it for Barry, and Viv? Lillee?

I have no issue with your ratings at all, mostly agree with them (Trueman over Wasim apart), but it's the excuses.

Again, might just be semantics, but from my perspective, can't be making that many excuses at this level. But again, your ATG, might be my very good, but

Generally while comparing any two players, I rate them country by country as relative to the era overall. That’s why I specifically mention if someone was great or even better: ATG in a country(like Steyn at home or in Ind, Imran in WI, Ambrose in Aus etc). But your method makes sense to me as well, and should bring us to a similar conclusion. By ATG standards: Donald was great at home(not as good as Imran at home cause he didn’t do that good vs Aus at home), great in Eng, below par in Aus, and par in WI. By ATG standards: Imran was ATG at home and in WI, below par in Aus and Ind, par in Eng.

 

[subshakerz]

An interesting argument would be between Imran and Donald, who was better in Aus(disregarding the WSC)?

Imran easily. For all these diversions they are trying to push, Imran actually won his side a game with a 12 fer in Australia against an Aussie side that was best in the world at the time, more than Donald has accomplished there.

 

[shortpitched713]

Imran for peak. Donald more consistent throughout his career, and also an excellent strike bowler. Very close, and will vote for Donald as he currently has less votes.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

An interesting argument would be between Imran and Donald, who was better in Aus(disregarding the WSC)?

And between Steyn and Donald and Imran in Aus?(Id go Steyn cause he outperformed everyone from the era, in context, in Aus average wise, and had a brilliant WPM and SR, and some of the most important performances in SA history, and his stats become even better if you exclude his last series, where he barely played one match there).

 

[Coronis]

And between Steyn and Donald and Imran in Aus?(Id go Steyn cause he outperformed everyone from the era, in context, in Aus average wise, and had a brilliant WPM and SR, and some of the most important performances in SA history, and his stats become even better if you exclude his last series, where he barely played one match there).

Ok

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Ok

What about you?

 

[Coronis]

What about you?

I don’t think Steyn’s relevant in this conversation.

 

[subshakerz]

We are all aware that inspite of his "impactful" series away, Imran averages more, has a lower sr and wpm than Donald. Imran did better away to the best team of his time WI than Donald did his. But that's not the be all and end of these analysis.

Consistency across teams/countries imo, is for me more important. Donald was great in Asia, WI, and England. His sample sizes vs the NZ not enough.

In Australia lest we are confused, Donald did just fine. Donald was averaging 23 and striking at 51 after 5 tests over two series in Australia. Then he played that series there in 2001 literaterally on his last legs vs a batting lineup that was the best test cricket has seen since the Invincibles. And he ended up with the figures he has now. But make no mistake, Donald was more than just average in Australia.

Donald wasn't great in Asia and WI. He was good without really winning any games. England yes was great though Imran wasn't that far behind.

Posters insist Donald's last series in Australia be discarded while insisting that Imran's 1990 series be included. It seems extenuating circumstances only applies one way. Either if include or remove their last series, Imran is more impressive in Australia in terms of real impact.

And Imran at home is more impressive too.

You still don't fundamentally get the problem with Donald away tho. He wasn't one for the big moments that affect series.

Why this addiction to neat stats over actual impact?

 

[Slifer]

Donald wasn't great in Asia and WI. He was good without really winning any games. England yes was great though Imran wasn't that far behind.

Posters insist Donald's last series in Australia be discarded while insisting that Imran's 1990 series be included. It seems extenuating circumstances only applies one way. Either if include or remove their last series, Imran is more impressive in Australia in terms of real impact.

And Imran at home is more impressive too.

You still don't fundamentally get the problem with Donald away tho. He wasn't one for the big moments that affect series.

Why this addiction to neat stats over actual impact?

Addiction to neat stats? You keep harping on that as if you don't use stats yourself, otherwise I don't want to see you post about Donald's record vs Australia. That's you actually using stats.

And you're free to review any of my posts, I've never even mentioned Imran's 1990 series vs Australia.

 

[subshakerz]

Addiction to neat stats? You keep harping on that as if you don't use stats yourself, otherwise I don't want to see you post about Donald's record vs Australia. That's you actually using stats.

We have different expectations of ATGs. I expect them to win matches and series, and I am willing to overlook a bit higher than normal averages for guys like Imran and Steyn if they do so. Guys like Ambrose and Donald can mislead people by getting low averages without leading to results, I don't think those are objectively better performances.

And you're free to review any of my posts, I've never even mentioned Imran's 1990 series vs Australia.

Ok I just want one standard. I don't think 1990 Imran was reflective of him as an overall bowler but if we include that I would argue to include Donald 2001 though he was past his best too.

 

[Slifer]

We have different expectations of ATGs. I expect them to win matches and series, and I am willing to overlook a bit higher than normal averages for guys like Imran and Steyn if they do so. Guys like Ambrose and Donald can mislead people by getting low averages without leading to results, I don't think those are objectively better performances.


Ok I just want one standard. I don't think 1990 Imran was reflective of him as an overall bowler but if we include that I would argue to include Donald 2001 though he was past his best too.

Donald doesn't just have a low average though, he has an outstanding sr and wpm. I know you value both because you made a point about Ambrose's 36 wickets in 12 tests outdoor of eng/oz.

You also made a point about it in regards to Ambrose's record at home. Now, you're shifting goal posts and talking up Ambrose vs Australia where at no time you gave him kudos before.

 

[subshakerz]

Donald doesn't just have a low average though, he has an outstanding sr and wpm. I know you value both because you made a point about Ambrose's 36 wickets in 12 tests outdoor of eng/oz.

You also made a point about it in regards to Ambrose's record at home. Now, you're shifting goal posts and talking up Ambrose vs Australia where at no time you gave him kudos before.

Ambrose in Australia is probably the best bowler to tour there, no doubt.

 

[Slifer]

You also wrote this about Curtly:

"Yet Ambrose takes less than 4 wickets a tests at home at an SR of nearly 56."

The above shows you do value average and sr ie stats, no matter how you try to pretend you don't. And don't come with the context stuff either because we all already told you Ambrose was a shell of himself post surgery but you dismissed it and harped on his lack of "penetration" which for me means SR/wpm/average.