Imran Khan vs Allan Donald

[StephenZA]

This is pretty twisted logic though. It basically means we can never claim a bowler or bat actually impacted a game or series by just looking at a scorecard, doesn't matter if they take 12 wickets a game or score a double ton upon double ton. Instead, we are supposed to look at raw averages and assume impact without ever citing an instance when impact actually happened unless we actually watch it

Its not twisted logic... it is awareness of inherent problems in making simplified statements as an absolute truth. You can not know for sure the impact a player has on a match by just looking at wickets taken or runs scored. Except in extreme cases. It is obviously a good metric. But not an absolute and only metric. Ignoring that cricket is a team game as much as it is a game of individuals does not do justice to the teams or the individuals involved.

 

[kyear2]

Unfortunately there is no solid measurement on how much a bowler impacted a series win. But without digging much stuff Imran probably impacted on test/series win more than Donald.

Just looking at average and comparing them side by side is cherry picking with what suits your argument.

While I understand what you're trying to say, I think it's somewhat flawed.

I don't want to make this about these two per say, because as far as I'm concerned they're pretty close, to say that Imran "probably impacted" isn't definitive and based and built on perception. Similarly if we're going to base these on player ratings that is much more prone to cherry picking and bias than stats.

If someone has better average, s/r, similar wpm, and equally hight if not higher rate of 5'fers, that's objective.

If we want to go through records and see who impacted match wins more, then I'm all for it. But the last time I brought up the notion of matches won and asked why winning wasn't factored in more in cricket I was reminded that it was a team game and one person couldn't impact games as much as say basketball etc.

So yeah, there has been a moving of goal posts to some extent once Donald was brought up. Though Donald does have more 5'fers in victories, but that would track since he won more matches despite playing less overall. Make of that what you will.

 

[kyear2]

I remember Donald more than Wasim, I remember Donald and SA because it felt we couldn't beat them, and Donald seemed to be the main reason why. He was quick, like scary quick. I didn't wake up one day here and say oh wow, Donald had tidy figures. Been asking for years why he was being under rated.

 

[subshakerz]

Its not twisted logic... it is awareness of inherent problems in making simplified statements as an absolute truth. You can not know for sure the impact a player has on a match by just looking at wickets taken or runs scored. Except in extreme cases. It is obviously a good metric. But not an absolute and only metric. Ignoring that cricket is a team game as much as it is a game of individuals does not do justice to the teams or the individuals involved.

This amounts to ignoring scorecards altogether. Instead of contextualizing, you want to de-contextualise on steroids to determine who is better.

 

[subshakerz]

I remember Donald more than Wasim, I remember Donald and SA because it felt we couldn't beat them, and Donald seemed to be the main reason why. He was quick, like scary quick. I didn't wake up one day here and say oh wow, Donald had tidy figures. Been asking for years why he was being under rated.

And if you just admit this subjective impression is really why you rate Donald so high rather than all the other lofty reasoning, it wouldnt be an issue.

It's odd you admit this though after just a post before decrying going on player ratings.

 

[shortpitched713]

Is it a coincidence that guys like Kallis and Donald are getting rated higher now by posters? Because fewer ppl saw or remember how they were rated when they actually played. Therefore surface reading of stats wins the day.

Underrating SA and SL players is part of an agenda to prop up the highest profile players from the biggest countries. Unlike with Pak, WI, or NZ players though, there were very, very few defenders of these players to push back those narratives.

 

[shortpitched713]

On this board?

Donald. Kallis. Jadeja. Ashwin. Philander. Sehwag. Garner. There may be a few others.

Wow, you and I are like polar opposites.

Only opinion I think we might share is that peak Imran is underrated.

 

[subshakerz]

Underrating SA and SL players is part of an agenda to prop up the highest profile players from the biggest countries. Unlike with Pak, WI, or NZ players though, there were very, very few defenders of these players to push back those narratives.

Except ABD, Steyn and even G. Smith were rated very highly.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Wow, you and I are like polar opposites.

Only opinion I think we might share is that peak Imran is underrated.

You rate Ashwin as a better bowler than Imran and Akram right?

 

[shortpitched713]

You rate Ashwin as a better bowler than Imran and Akram right?

I don't go with "better" in this case, as they are 1) very close in match-winning impact and 2) a comparison of players from different disciplines

I think all are in a similar tier, of top 7-13/15 ish post-war bowlers of all time, along with Warne, and all the fast bowlers in the current conversation.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I don't go with "better" in this case, as they are 1) very close in match-winning impact and 2) a comparison of players from different disciplines

I think all are in a similar tier, of top 7-13/15 ish post-war bowlers of all time, along with Warne, and all the fast bowlers in the current conversation.

Yea Ashwin v Imran would be a good poll

 

[subshakerz]

You rate Ashwin as a better bowler than Imran and Akram right?

Ugh.

 

[honestbharani]

Ugh.

 

[kyear2]

And if you just admit this subjective impression is really why you rate Donald so high rather than all the other lofty reasoning, it wouldnt be an issue.

It's odd you admit this though after just a post before decrying going on player ratings.

It is genuinely amazing what you deduce from posts.

That's not the reason I rate him, his record and performances more than speak for themselves. I'm saying that on top of all of that, and contrary to one of your many incorrect posts, his performances were memorable.

And my previous objections were to being overly reliant on peer ratings, which I previously and literally separated from personal recollection (ratings) / eye test.

You're just grasping at straws, and it's being borne out in front of the forum.

 

[subshakerz]

It is genuinely amazing what you deduce from posts.

That's not the reason I rate him, his record and performances more than speak for themselves. I'm saying that on top of all of that, and contrary to one of your many incorrect posts, his performances were memorable.

And my previous objections were to being overly reliant on peer ratings, which I previously and literally separated from personal recollection (ratings) / eye test.

You're just grasping at straws, and it's being borne out in front of the forum.

I think your 'eye tests' tends to color your stats opinions frankly, which isn't wrong if admitted.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

While I understand what you're trying to say, I think it's somewhat flawed.

I don't want to make this about these two per say, because as far as I'm concerned they're pretty close, to say that Imran "probably impacted" isn't definitive and based and built on perception. Similarly if we're going to base these on player ratings that is much more prone to cherry picking and bias than stats.

You have just repeated what I said and inserted assertions there. I’ve already admitted that there is no definitive method of measuring bowlers impact so I relied on my memories and few times that I dug up old scorecards to say that Imran “probably impacted” more. It’s obviously not foolproof neither it’s the only thing that I’d base my opinion on better bowler mind. I tried to point out that people tend to forget this aspect of sides when picking their better ones.

 

[subshakerz]

You have just repeated what I said and inserted assertions there. I’ve already admitted that there is no definitive method of measuring bowlers impact so I relied on my memories and few times that I dug up old scorecards to say that Imran “probably impacted” more. It’s obviously not foolproof neither it’s the only thing that I’d base my opinion on better bowler mind. I tried to point out that people tend to forget this aspect of sides when picking their better ones.

Unfortunately Kyear2 in his responses seems a bit intolerant of any approach that deviates from his absolute 'objectivity' of blind stats readings, whether it is perceived impact or peer rating.

 

[kyear2]

You have just repeated what I said and inserted assertions there. I’ve already admitted that there is no definitive method of measuring bowlers impact so I relied on my memories and few times that I dug up old scorecards to say that Imran “probably impacted” more. It’s obviously not foolproof neither it’s the only thing that I’d base my opinion on better bowler mind. I tried to point out that people tend to forget this aspect of sides when picking their better ones.

Understood.

 

[Kirkut]

If we prioritize memorable performances only, then Gooch > Lara and Tendulkar.

Both Lara and Tendulkar have played few great innings against great bowling attacks, but nothing in their careers can match Gooch's batting against West Indies and Pakistan in the early 90s.

 

[subshakerz]

If we prioritize memorable performances only, then Gooch > Lara and Tendulkar.

Both Lara and Tendulkar have played few great innings against great bowling attacks, but nothing in their careers can match Gooch's batting against West Indies and Pakistan in the early 90s.

Pretty sure Lara can.