Flem274*
123/5
I propose a swap: Goughy for Dayle Hadlee
Though TBF during Hadlees reign Bond became less injury prone. He actualy completed a full season without major injury!
Then got injured and quit and the start of this season..
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ishant Sharma v. Dale Steyn
- Thread starter andruid
- Start date
Though TBF during Hadlees reign Bond became less injury prone. He actualy completed a full season without major injury!
Then got injured and quit and the start of this season..
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
He oversaw the period in which Bond became more of a 140kph bowler as opposed to the 150kph one he is now. However, I am not sure whether this was part of a new action which he helped build or due to Bond simply having less strength in (or less willingness to bend) his back.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It deserves nothing; Donald was patently not the bowler he had once been in 2001\02, and the events of that summer are completely and totally meaningless to anyone with a brain who wants to form an opinion of him IMO. Simple as. Donald in the part of his career that matters averaged 27 against Australia. He should never have played that last series (two series if you count the home\away as seperate), and the fact that the most memorable aspect of it was him breaking down tells you this amply, IMO.
It's come from Australia, and nowhere else, IMO. As such, I don't tend to take it terribly seriously. Not one person from another country has ever made such a suggestion that I've read.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Indeed. TBH, Corey and Kev would very probably make better bowling-coaches than half those employed by international teams.
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Nothing away from those two, but we really don't know (well, ironically, Kev might) what bowling coaches tell bowlers to do as it may differ substantially from what the bowlers actually do. You can show a horse to water, but not make it drink and all that. That being said, Kev seems to know as much as I have seen mentioned in books from Ian Pont, Dennis Lillee and Bob Willis.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Oh, certainly, I've said time and again that a good bowling-coach \ good captain \ good mentor \ etc. etc. cannot turn a bad player into a good one. I've said often, as an example of this matter, that the influence of Troy Cooley is really rather overstated - Cooley is an excellent bowling-coach, but there's no way he'd have had a significant impact on what's happened to England's bowlers from 2006 onwards had he stayed, the bowlers simply aren't good enough.
But you read things about people like Graham Dilley, appointed to the England team in 2001 and serving until Cooley joined in 2003, and there's blatantly a lack of basic knowledge there, which is rather alarming. And you'd expect a good bowling-coach to mention in public the fact that "I've talked to Andrew Flintoff about his foot position and how many problems it's probably going to cause, and we're seeing what we can do about it". If he doesn't, for mine he leaves himself open to doubt over his own knowledge, if his bowlers are not good \ intelligent enough to take his advice.
But you read things about people like Graham Dilley, appointed to the England team in 2001 and serving until Cooley joined in 2003, and there's blatantly a lack of basic knowledge there, which is rather alarming. And you'd expect a good bowling-coach to mention in public the fact that "I've talked to Andrew Flintoff about his foot position and how many problems it's probably going to cause, and we're seeing what we can do about it". If he doesn't, for mine he leaves himself open to doubt over his own knowledge, if his bowlers are not good \ intelligent enough to take his advice.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Really though, Australia was the only team that gave SA a bit of what-for over an extended period when SA had Cronje, Donald, De Villiers etc etc. There aren't too many other teams who would be qualified to challenge Donald's ability under pressure.
It may not have been Donald himself that was poor in pressure situations, but being part of a SA team that obviously was might have seen him branded as such.
Last edited:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid. He declared himself fit, essentially putting himself above other fitter and younger options and so his results are and should be part of the overall tapestry. Realistically, Waqar Younis was never the same bowler after about 1995 yet would anyone advocate discounting the rest of his career because of it? Instead, his reputation does take a hit or two. Warnie was a far lesser bowler after 1998 (couldn't even bowl the flipper because of injury, his leggie had far less bite) and basically relied on brains and 876234 variations on deliveries which do nothing at all to take his wickets. He found a way to continue to be successful and that Donald couldn't should be counted against him, even if it doesn't really matter that much relative to an obviously prolific career.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I've always said that the Warne and Waqar should have their careers considered in parts - 3 for Warne, 4 for Waqar. And that none of these periods should impact on the judgement of the other.
These cases, though, bear absolutely no resemblence to Donald. We're talking about 3 Tests after 69 previous ones. These last 3 to my mind are utterly irrelevant. And I'll tell you that about any player who has a tiny poor period following a massive career of brilliance.
These cases, though, bear absolutely no resemblence to Donald. We're talking about 3 Tests after 69 previous ones. These last 3 to my mind are utterly irrelevant. And I'll tell you that about any player who has a tiny poor period following a massive career of brilliance.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I think there would be. At the very least India in India, and West Indies in the 1 game they faced-off when WI were still much crack. And in the 1990s there was rarely a terribly weak team at all, even if Australia were - by small margins - the best team of the decade.
Indeed, and I like to challenge such stereotypical misjudgements.
Personally, I think Warne's Test (not ODI) career would be better split into five parts, not three. Let's see, there's his nervous, feckless debutant stage (4 Tests, Jan-Sep 1992, avg: 96.50), his 'first coming' (60 Tests, Dec 1992 - Feb 1998, avg: 22.84), his 'form slump' (34 Tests, Mar 1998 - Jan 2002, avg: 33.67), his 'second (disjointed) coming' (32 Tests incl. the World XI one, Feb 2002 - Nov 2005, avg: 21.08) and his 'fade into retirement' (15 Tests incl. Bangladesh, Nov 2005 - Jan 2007, avg: 29.72).
Note that I'm being entirely objective. For instance, he may have bowled well for little reward during his 'form slump' (ala Ryan Sidebottom until...oh...this month) and he may not have been as good as his stats indicate during his 'first coming' (though, by all accounts, he certainly was), which I was too young to really bear witness to.
Waqar's career is (to me) a little less straightforward, since I never got to witness him live. However, there's his nervous, feckless debutant stage (5 Tests, Nov 1989-Feb 1990, avg: 46.10), his 'superstar' stage (28 Tests, Oct 1990-Oct 1994, avg: 17.66), his 'fading star' stage (18 Tests, Sep 1995-Mar 1998, avg: 29.32) and his 'has-been minnow basher' stage (35 Tests, Mar 1998-Jan 2003, avg: 28.09 including minnows). So, I guess that I agree with you, there.
Irrelevant in the context of his entire career, yes. Irrelevant to his record against Australia? Hmm...
Last edited:
I second that!! Lol. Not as fast, but will be around for a long long time, thanks to New Zealand's lack of bowling stocks.Whats the point in this debate? Its obvious Tim Southee will be better than both
Way too early to judge at this stage, they both look promising though
TBH a good deal of their success will be on who can partner these guys. Two is always better than one lone ranger.
On a sidenote, the NZ team in SA that Steyn destroyed is almost completely different to the current one, not to mention far weaker, so perhaps Steyns achievements weren't quite what they looked. Still a bloody awesome bowler though.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
TBH, with Warne the stages I'd go for are: early big struggle (possibly premature elevation too); golden period (still the best of his career for my money); bad form slump; recovery. I'd not originally thought to have another split right at the end because he seemed to me to be bowling almost as well as ever but it's true there was a short fade to a little less effectiveness.
Regarding Waqar, I'd say there'd be the poor introduction (first 5 Tests in 1989\90); the sensational period (1990\91 to the First Test in 1994\95, 27 Tests) where he was more dangerous than possibly any bowler ever; the plateau off, where he still had the odd good game but plenty of bad ones too; the short regaining of most of the old glories, though this time he often, though not always, failed against some better batting sides; and the awful ending, with just 3 no-more-than-fairly-good games out of 16.
I simply never include substandard teams (Bangladesh, World XIs and, from 2003 onwards, Zimbabwe). So in both cases, they're excluded entirely from my reckonings.
Yes, I think so. He was clearly enormously lesser in that series than he had been at any other stage in his career, and as the fact he broke-down twice demonstrates, far from fit either. Donald's record against Australia remains a little disappointing even if you do only include the 2 matchups (or 4 series whichever you prefer) that matter, and I don't think it's at all fair to bring things which shouldn't really have happened into it.
I agree with this. Your splits are almost identical to mine. Mine were more average-influenced than yours, though.
You've contradicted your earlier post, although I find little fault with your arguement, otherwise. Your splits are not quite in-line with my reasoning, but your logic works here, too.
Bangladesh/2003- Zimbabwe are understandable. But the World XI should, at least theoretically (in practice, they were a looooooooonnnnnnnnng way from being one), be a world-class team, obviously. So I see no real qualms with adding them into my statistics, should I choose to go by the 'Test-class teams' average. I haven't used a 'Test-class teams' average before this, but I think I will from this day forward, only mine, for the time being, will include World XI's.
Its not a perfect world. Things which shouldn't happen are gonna happen - look at Paris Hilton, or, to be broad, 9/11. I can see your point, although, in this case, his poor series against Australia in 2001/02 merely enhances the view that he lacked something against them, rather than creating an insanely distorted view of his performances against us, as you admit. Besides, once we start making allowances for Donald, we have to make some for other players. For instance, we may as well scratch Brett Lee's horrendous 2003/04 performances against India, because, like Donald, he was semi-fit.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, dunno why on Earth I said 4 in the first post, I clearly meant 5. And I've done this before too, so why on Earth I typed the wrong figure is beyond me.
My only guess might be that I forgot the first 5 Tests were bad-'uns.
The World XI case is less one of standard, though clearly that did end-up leaving plenty to be desired. I wouldn't really expect you to look back at my posts from 2-and-a-half years ago, but I was vehemently opposed to that game being given Test status the minute I heard the Super Series was to be staged. I hate the idea of "Rest Of" teams having status of any kind, never mind international. There are many high-calibre games of cricket involving "Rest Of" teams, and if standard alone was your criteria they all should have Test status. But I feel that there is an additional criteria required: one of being a regular team, and qualifications involved, not one thrown together on a whim. On that matter, I also hate the idea of players skipping from one Test team to another.
If you disagree with this, which some people would, then you would of course have no reason not to count it. But there are a great many cricket statisticians who refuse to recognise the Australia vs World XI game as a Test. I am 100% with them.
Indeed they are. But I think it's my place when trying to offer a fair assessment (of anything, though a cricket career more than most) to try and look past such things.
I always attempt to make such allowances for any player, provided there is a clear change in performance level from at least decent to very poor (see, for example, my recent posts - though I've been saying what I say in them for years - on the subject of Michael Atherton). If performance has been impeded by genuine, obvious injury, while there is a large body of far better performances when the player is fully fit, I tend to treat the when-injured games as something of a different nature to the when-fit ones.
I don't, incidentally, see that there was quite such a thing for Lee in the series in question (his performances for the previous 2-and-a-half years had been roundly poor), but if someone wanted to ignore those games when assessing him, I'd not quibble too much over it.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Neither are as good at bowling as Matthew Hayden is at batting.
I see your point, although I, in the past and as of now, have had no qualms, theoretically speaking, with those games being afforded ODI and Test status (we both know of games which shouldn't have been from the outset, but no-one truly expected the World XI to be that insipid).
I'm not gonna sway you, though. I understand your argument, I just don't comply with it...yet. I'm still fairly youthful though, so I may change my mind as the years tick by on my clock.
I don't do this as of now, but at least I'm consistent in that regard (not that I'm accusing you of this, but you first of all have to define a genuine, obvious injury and apply it objectively to a multitude of cases, which may each be different). If Donald was gonna be that poor, he should've called it quits before adding to his already relatively (by his standards) sub-par record against Australia.
Yes, he had been sucking since 2001, for the most part. That being said, nobody expected him to bowl as badly as he did in Sydney 2004...or even in Melbourne 2003, for that matter. Wide half-volleys, short balls, innocuous deliveries bowled from well behind the crease...sheer ineptitude, even by his then low standards.
Point is though, I don't ignore those games when assessing him (it helps that I've disliked him for many a year, too).
The bloke's my favourite player, so how can I contradict you?Neither are as good at bowling as Matthew Hayden is at batting.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
He should, and I'd be very surprised if he did not now regret not doing so, as, for example, Jeff Thomson now so regrets going on the Ashes tour of 1985.
It's easy, though, especially when you want one last crack at a familiar foe you have not yet quite conquered as you would have wished, to over-estimate your own capability. Even bowlers as phenomenal as Donald cannot go forever, and Donald was 35 by the series in question.