McGrath & Lillee vs Donald & Steyn vs Imran & Akram

[kyear2]

Hopefully it was because of his talent and not any other reason

I'm not allowed to touch those subjects.

 

[subshakerz]

When we start stating that most of a cricketer's matches were in certain areas, it almost comes across like they were protected or hiding. This isn't like Lillee where he didn't visit at all, or Trueman or some spinners that weren't / aren't selected to travel. One can only play who was in front of him and he did well.

You don't get my point. Donald barely played outside Aus and Eng and didn't really do some oustanding job in the series he had that one can claim he conquered the country. I think it's a fair argument that the other pacers of his era in McGrath, Ambrose and Wasim were better tested away.

I recall you agreeing that 5 tests is a minimum to judge someone in a country. Well then we exclude SL, Pak, Ind and NZ from his record and have a solo series in WI and Aus and Eng to judge him on.

Re the peer rating, equally I can say that Imran played with other ATGs, notable Hadlee, who had a similar career arc and Hadlee is universally rated higher. You would still argue they're not far apart or in the same tier.

Hadlee IS a better bowler even by my reckoning though so there is no issue with his peer rating being higher.

And along that same line, Steyn is almost universally rated higher than Imran as well, and again, better with the new ball.

When we got to cross era, ratings matters less to me. I care more about peer ratings of their era. Imran anyways is rated as per the AR category.

 

[Bolo.]

Akram debuting as a teen meant a larger formative stage and that impacted his numbers whereas Donald debuted basically in his bowling prime.


Donald has prettier away numbers but I would take Akram just about anywhere over Donald except England where Donald was dominant.

Akram just made more impact as a bowler away from home. Can you remember a single standout Donald away spell where he seriously stamped his name on the game?

The exception would be England where Donald was terrific in 98 (but then he also notoriously failed to bowl out England twice which cost them the series)


Pollock until 2003 was averaging 20 @over 4 wickets test. Until that point, I would dare to say he was a better bowler than Donald overseas especially the SC. So it's not ridiculous at all though overall Donald takes it.

Donald debutting late meant a larger proportion of his career was played post peak. He played fewer years in what is typically a quick's peak, and spent some of those years learning the ropes at test level.

Akram's numbers weren't impacted by playing as a teen (which is absolutely not a criticism). They were impacted by his numbers in his early 20s and 30s (which is).

Donald's consistently excellent performances were a huge part of why RSA had such a good win rate, home and away, despite huge holes in their lineup for most of his career. Akram may have put in some great performances in a number of matches, but he did very little in many, many more. Pakistan should have had a similar win rate to RSA when their careers overlapped. But they didn't. They lost too many games from stars doing nothing. Two 4 wicket match hauls that help you win you two games are >>> an 8 wicket haul that wins you one and a 0 that losses you one.

Donald was a better bowler than peak Pollock no matter what the averages say. He took a bunch more wickets, faster. And Pollock after his peak was very meh.

 

[subshakerz]

Donald debutting late meant a larger proportion of his career was played post peak. He played fewer years in what is typically a quick's peak, and spent some of those years learning the ropes at test level.

No. He debuted at 26 as pretty much a readymade strikembowler which was just about a fast bowlers peak age and spent most of his career in it.

Akram's numbers weren't impacted by playing as a teen (which is absolutely not a criticism). They were impacted by his numbers in his early 20s and 30s (which is).

The point is that debuting much younger than Donald meant a longer formative phase to eventually hit worldclass level.

Donald's consistently excellent performances were a huge part of why RSA had such a good win rate, home and away, despite huge holes in their lineup for most of his career. Akram may have put in some great performances in a number of matches, but he did very little in many, many more. Pakistan should have had a similar win rate to RSA when their careers overlapped. But they didn't. They lost too many games from stars doing nothing. Two 4 wicket match hauls that help you win you two games are >>> an 8 wicket haul that wins you one and a 0 that losses you one.

SA simply had a better, more disciplined team and fielding unit than Pakistan at the time and there are a myriad of reasons why Paks win rate wasn't as good.

I have no qualms with Donald at home but your argument is that Donald achieved more as largely as a support bowler away (aside from England) than Akram as a strike bowler which I don't accept. You might as well consider his away record better than Steyn by that count.

Donald was a better bowler than peak Pollock no matter what the averages say. He took a bunch more wickets, faster. And Pollock after his peak was very meh.

Pollock after peak is why Donald is easily better. But it's an argument before peak.

 

[kyear2]

You don't get my point. Donald barely played outside Aus and Eng and didn't really do some oustanding job in the series he had that one can claim he conquered the country. I think it's a fair argument that the other pacers of his era in McGrath, Ambrose and Wasim were better tested away.

I recall you agreeing that 5 tests is a minimum to judge someone in a country. Well then we exclude SL, Pak, Ind and NZ from his record and have a solo series in WI and Aus and Eng to judge him on.


Hadlee IS a better bowler even by my reckoning though so there is no issue with his peer rating being higher.


When we got to cross era, ratings matters less to me. I care more about peer ratings of their era. Imran anyways is rated as per the AR category.

Yes he is. That for me is the best argument for his inclusion for an all time XI. By your metric of greatness, Imran is one of the greatest and if I selected teams purely that way, then yeah, he and Hobbs are in.

I just prefer to choose a team that I would choose to take the field and compliments each other and covers all bases. So I go better over greater if that makes sense.

 

[kyear2]

Donald debutting late meant a larger proportion of his career was played post peak. He played fewer years in what is typically a quick's peak, and spent some of those years learning the ropes at test level.

Akram's numbers weren't impacted by playing as a teen (which is absolutely not a criticism). They were impacted by his numbers in his early 20s and 30s (which is).

Donald's consistently excellent performances were a huge part of why RSA had such a good win rate, home and away, despite huge holes in their lineup for most of his career. Akram may have put in some great performances in a number of matches, but he did very little in many, many more. Pakistan should have had a similar win rate to RSA when their careers overlapped. But they didn't. They lost too many games from stars doing nothing. Two 4 wicket match hauls that help you win you two games are >>> an 8 wicket haul that wins you one and a 0 that losses you one.

Donald was a better bowler than peak Pollock no matter what the averages say. He took a bunch more wickets, faster. And Pollock after his peak was very meh.

Saw from the beginning of both their careers and I don't even see where we start to say Polly was better.

 

[subshakerz]

I just prefer to choose a team that I would choose to take the field and compliments each other and covers all bases. So I go better over greater if that makes sense.

Ok but I don't see Donald and Steyn complementing each other more than Wasim and Imran but to each their own.

 

[subshakerz]

Saw from the beginning of both their careers and I don't even see where we start to say Polly was better.

To be clear, Donald was always better, just saying it not like a crazy opinion to think peak Pollock was better, he was very underrated.

 

[kyear2]

Ok but I don't see Donald and Steyn complementing each other more than Wasim and Imran but to each their own.

How don't they?

There's no relaxing and one is pitching it up and the other more short of a length. They are also more threatening from ball one.

 

[kyear2]

To be clear, Donald was always better, just saying it not like a crazy opinion to think peak Pollock was better, he was very underrated.

They both were, and Wasim was possibly a bit over rated tbh. Still ATG, but definitely over rated.

 

[subshakerz]

How don't they?

There's no relaxing and one is pitching it up and the other more short of a length. They are also more threatening from ball one.

Both are a bit willing to take stick which is why both sort of operated with a tight seamer at the other end.

 

[kyear2]

Both are a bit willing to take stick which is why both sort of operated with a tight seamer at the other end.

I don't recall Donald being hit around that much though.

 

[Coronis]

Just for fun, Wasim, Donald and Pollock’s stats at the ages when all 3 were playing (25-34), in reality Donald was 22-35, Wasim 18-35 and Pollock 22-34.

Donald
69 matches 325 @ 21.64 SR 46.2 20’fers 3 10’fers
Wasim
65 matches 272 @ 23.15 SR 52.8 16 5’fers 3 10’fers
Pollock
85 matches 341 @ 22.92 SR 57.8 12 5’fers 1 10’fer

Donald easily comes out looking the best here - his final 3 matches saw his average increase by 0.61 (5 @ 62, all vs Australia)