McGrath & Lillee vs Donald & Steyn vs Imran & Akram

[subshakerz]

He wasn't fully formed. Look at his record. Express bowlers don't start peaking around 30. He learned a few tricks playing internationals. Closer to fully formed, sure. But that also meant very little time playing fully formed before starting to age out.

That's just false. Fast bowlers peak around 26-28 years old, some earlier. 30 onwards their pace declines.

RSA won more because Pak blew hot and cold more. You are trying to argue that Donald would have been better if he has blown hot and cold more.

Baloney. Pakistan collectively were inconsistent and just not as good as SA, you can't pin it on one player. Wasim himself was actually quite a consistent quality performer. He rarely had an outright bad game.

He wasn't a support bowler. He was always RSAs main wicket taker. Akram wasn't. No bowler consistently takes the most wickets. But Donald was closer to it.

Your argument seems to be that he should have taken them more in clumps, despite the fact that Akram taking them in clumps seems to have negatively impacted results? Akram took 4 away 10fers. Which is pretty amazing. But 3 of them were in losses. And the flipside of Akram having these big hauls and a lower WPM means a lot more abject failures. He has 9 hauls of 2 or fewer in losses. Donald has 1.

In terms of key victories, outside of England, Donalds role was a support bowler, often to Pollock.

I can talk about Donald's performances in losses too. The England tour of 98 is like that. There are plenty of occasions when he failed away in key games. You are just assuming that in between Donalds bit performances prevented losses.

The argument isn't clumps vs spread out. It's whether Donald achieved standout away performances that are the hallmark of every other ATG, from Steyn, to Wasim to McGrath to Marshall. He didn't. You want to pretend it isn't a big deal which is fine, I think it's a mark of skill and frankly it's a big reason he is underrated.

FTR, I'm not arguing that Donald was necessarily a better bowler for a more even wicket distribution, even if it was probably better for results. There is too much randomness involved in terms of how the rest of the team performs. But I do think 'better because his wickets were distributed in a way that negatively impacted results' is a terrible argument.

It's more about whether he was able to achieve high impact performances away from home or whether his pretty figures actually didn't really come with match impact.

Your hidden assumption is a row of tidy performances is the same as a top bowler really making a big smash.

 

[Bolo.]

That's just false. Fast bowlers peak around 26-28 years old, some earlier. 30 onwards their pace declines.


Baloney. Pakistan collectively were inconsistent and just not as good as SA, you can't pin it on one player. Wasim himself was actually quite a consistent quality performer. He rarely had an outright bad game.


In terms of key victories, outside of England, Donalds role was a support bowler, often to Pollock.

I can talk about Donald's performances in losses too. The England tour of 98 is like that. There are plenty of occasions when he failed away in key games. You are just assuming that in between Donalds bit performances prevented losses.

The argument isn't clumps vs spread out. It's whether Donald achieved standout away performances that are the hallmark of every other ATG, from Steyn, to Wasim to McGrath to Marshall. He didn't. You want to pretend it isn't a big deal which is fine, I think it's a mark of skill and frankly it's a big reason he is underrated.


It's more about whether he was able to achieve high impact performances away from home or whether his pretty figures actually didn't really come with match impact.

Your hidden assumption is a row of tidy performances is the same as a top bowler really making a big smash.

You are saying that Donald played the majority of his career in declining pace years. That's problematic for an express bowler.

Pak were inconsistent, which was problematic. I'm not ascribing this to Wasim uniquely, just pointing out that you are praising him for his inconsistentcy, even while you recognize the problem inconsistency created for the team.

Your definition of performing at a great level is basically boiling down to taking a bunch of wickets/the most wickets in a game. If not, you would be saying Donalds performances were great in a bunch of places.

But Donald takes more WPM than Akram. Donald was the premier wicket taker in his side. Akram was behind Imran, and then Waqar, and then Saqlain in WPM. This is both career WPM, and career phases, other than a year or two here or there.

And he seems to be better in terms of results impact- RSA won a lot of games that Donald's moderate hauls contributed to. Pak lost a lot of games on both Akrams huge and tiny hauls. Typically better, and better for impact in more games is just better. If you don't believe this, you should start singing the praises of guys like Broad and Mitch Johnson at the expense of better bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

It is between Wasim and Imran vs Donald and Steyn. Lilliee is not of the same quality as other five so that combination is out.

I'd pick Donald and Steyn.

The disrespect though. How is he not on the same level?

 

[subshakerz]

You are saying that Donald played the majority of his career in declining pace years. That's problematic for an express bowler.

No Donald started his career at 26 just as he was about to hit his peak and his career focused on that more.

Pak were inconsistent, which was problematic. I'm not ascribing this to Wasim uniquely, just pointing out that you are praising him for his inconsistentcy, even while you recognize the problem inconsistency created for the team.

Your definition of performing at a great level is basically boiling down to taking a bunch of wickets/the most wickets in a game. If not, you would be saying Donalds performances were great in a bunch of places.

We just disagree here. I expect ATGs to produce box office performances in key tests away from home, not just consistent smash and grabs that end up in pretty figures. I apply the same standard for other ATG pacers too.

Not saying that Wasim doesn't have issues in his away records compared to top tier ATGs, but against Donald it's clear the latter is lacking in actual match impact.

But Donald takes more WPM than Akram. Donald was the premier wicket taker in his side. Akram was behind Imran, and then Waqar, and then Saqlain in WPM. This is both career WPM, and career phases, other than a year or two here or there.

So by that criteria is Lillee better than Donald because of WPM? If not the. Don't bring up a raw general figure.

And he seems to be better in terms of results impact- RSA won a lot of games that Donald's moderate hauls contributed to. Pak lost a lot of games on both Akrams huge and tiny hauls. Typically better, and better for impact in more games is just better. If you don't believe this, you should start singing the praises of guys like Broad and Mitch Johnson at the expense of better bowlers.

SA were just a better team as you have already admitted. But AWAY from home, Donald didn't have the match impact and you give more credit for his support act in wins than I do. I consider ATGs to have a starting role.

 

[Bolo.]

No Donald started his career at 26 just as he was about to hit his peak and his career focused on that more.


We just disagree here. I expect ATGs to produce box office performances in key tests away from home, not just consistent smash and grabs that end up in pretty figures. I apply the same standard for other ATG pacers too.

Not saying that Wasim doesn't have issues in his away records compared to top tier ATGs, but against Donald it's clear the latter is lacking in actual match impact.


So by that criteria is Lillee better than Donald because of WPM? If not the. Don't bring up a raw general figure.


SA were just a better team as you have already admitted. But AWAY from home, Donald didn't have the match impact and you give more credit for his support act in wins than I do. I consider ATGs to have a starting role.

At least for now, I don't feel like focussing on peripheral points.

Why do you not believe Donald was absolute top tier ATG in India for example? Average of 16 and 3/4 wins. I dont think any modern bowler hits these numbers over multiple series.

You dismiss his perfomances because other bowlers took more wickets in a match or innings. Which might be fine, if you weren't ignoring Wasim's WPM in relation to Donald or his own teammates. Which shows Donald to be superior in this regard on average. 3/4 losses for 10fers for Akram away. 9 losses when Akram took 2 or fewer wickets to Donald's 1. I know you favour the spectacular. But do you think the spectacular is worth it at the expense of both winning more, and peforming worse overall?

 

[subshakerz]

At least for now, I don't feel like focussing on peripheral points.

Why do you not believe Donald was absolute top tier ATG in India for example? Average of 16 and 3/4 wins. I dont think any modern bowler hits these numbers over multiple series.

I watched both series. He bowled well but nothing like his average would indicate. Like I said, he was a support bowler in those wins. And the real matchwinning spells I recall were from Klusener, Pollock and Boje that sealed those games.

You dismiss his perfomances because other bowlers took more wickets in a match or innings. Which might be fine, if you weren't ignoring Wasim's WPM in relation to Donald or his own teammates. Which shows Donald to be superior in this regard on average. 3/4 losses for 10fers for Akram away. 9 losses when Akram took 2 or fewer wickets to Donald's 1. I know you favour the spectacular. But do you think the spectacular is worth it at the expense of both winning more, and peforming worse overall?

To be clear, less WPM is a weakness for Wasim but I believe that is cushioned somewhat by his longer intro into cricket.

Using team losses is a bad indicator for Wasim given that he was in a weaker team. Donald had a better batting, fielding and arguably bowling lineup to back him up.

Bottomline, we don't need to debate further, every single ATG pacer has signature performances away that stand out in their career. Those are the exhibition of their best skill and the ability to lead their attack. Except Donald.

Whatever pseudo justification you want to give for Donald rising less to the occasion, I am not going to consider more consistency in support hauls a substitute.

 

[Bolo.]

I watched both series. He bowled well but nothing like his average would indicate. Like I said, he was a support bowler in those wins. And the real matchwinning spells I recall were from Klusener, Pollock and Boje that sealed those games.


To be clear, less WPM is a weakness for Wasim but I believe that is cushioned somewhat by his longer intro into cricket.

Using team losses is a bad indicator for Wasim given that he was in a weaker team. Donald had a better batting, fielding and arguably bowling lineup to back him up.

Bottomline, we don't need to debate further, every single ATG pacer has signature performances away that stand out in their career. Those are the exhibition of their best skill and the ability to lead their attack. Except Donald.

Whatever pseudo justification you want to give for Donald rising less to the occasion, I am not going to consider more consistency in support hauls a substitute.

A support bowler?

Like Wasim in relation to Imran, Saqlain, and Waqar? The difference is that Donald was not actually a support bowler. He took way more wickets than any consistent player from his team. Wasim was pretty much always number 2. Why does that not bother you about him when it bothers you about Donald in single games?

What exactly is better about hot and cold rather than consistently very good, when the very good leads to more wins? Surely results matter? Or, if results don't matter, don't you just go for the better overall record... Donald.

 

[Migara]

The disrespect though. How is he not on the same level?

Because he was not tested on unhelpful conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

A support bowler?

Like Wasim in relation to Imran, Saqlain, and Waqar? The difference is that Donald was not actually a support bowler. He took way more wickets than any consistent player from his team. Wasim was pretty much always number 2. Why does that not bother you about him when it bothers you about Donald in single games?

What exactly is better about hot and cold rather than consistently very good, when the very good leads to more wins? Surely results matter? Or, if results don't matter, don't you just go for the better overall record... Donald.

I don't accept your premise at all.

Wasim in his peak from 90 to 97 was a consistent wicket taker even between his big games.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

I will agree that post peak or early years added makes it seem that he wasn't as consistent but then Donald has an unusually shorter career to compare him with. You are comparing Donald who played just a decade in his prime with Wasim who played 18 years. That's a super long career for any pace bowler. Even McGrath and Ambrose maxed out at 15 years.

Don't pretend that if Donald played that long he would have near as good as clean stats he ended up with. If you aren't willing to give Wasim some leverage for playing that long, you are just making this an unfair comparison.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't accept your premise at all.

Wasim in his peak from 90 to 97 was a consistent wicket taker even between his big games.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

I will agree that post peak or early years added makes it seem that he wasn't as consistent but then Donald has an unusually shorter career to compare him with. You are comparing Donald who played just a decade in his prime with Wasim who played 18 years. That's a super long career for any pace bowler. Even McGrath and Ambrose maxed out at 15 years.

Don't pretend that if Donald played that long he would have near as good as clean stats he ended up with. If you aren't willing to give Wasim some leverage for playing that long, you are just making this an unfair comparison.

'I reject your argument because it challenges the notions I have of a player for whom I have respect'

FFS, just admit that there are some legitimate counter arguments to a player you like less being better in particular ways. Especially when the facts that you are presenting disagree with your own argument, and you have no response to the ones I'm presenting.

OFC I Wasim credit for his longevity. I have said so many times. I've never had a problem with anyone ranking him better than Donald as a result. I consider him a clearly greater test bowler, and I think I have said so in this thread. It's not so hard to admit other bowlers have positives in relation to ones you like. Try it.

 

[subshakerz]

'I reject your argument because it challenges the notions I have of a player for whom I have respect'

FFS, just admit that there are some legitimate counter arguments to a player you like less being better in particular ways. Especially when the facts that you are presenting disagree with your own argument, and you have no response to the ones I'm presenting.

OFC I Wasim credit for his longevity. I have said so many times. I've never had a problem with anyone ranking him better than Donald as a result. I consider him a clearly greater test bowler, and I think I have said so in this thread. It's not so hard to admit other bowlers have positives in relation to ones you like. Try it.

You know it's possible to just disagree with your argument rather than you trying to browbeat me to accept it. I gave my counterpoints already.

And I already accept that Donald has better overall stats. I was trying to contextualise it.

 

[kyear2]

A support bowler?

Like Wasim in relation to Imran, Saqlain, and Waqar? The difference is that Donald was not actually a support bowler. He took way more wickets than any consistent player from his team. Wasim was pretty much always number 2. Why does that not bother you about him when it bothers you about Donald in single games?

What exactly is better about hot and cold rather than consistently very good, when the very good leads to more wins? Surely results matter? Or, if results don't matter, don't you just go for the better overall record... Donald.

So very much this.

 

[Bolo.]

You know it's possible to just disagree with your argument rather than you trying to browbeat me to accept it. I gave my counterpoints already.

And I already accept that Donald has better overall stats. I was trying to contextualise it.

I really think it may be necessary to browbeat you with arguments.

There have been many times that I have pointed out that you are wrong through stuff like stats or scorecards, and when you eventually capitulate without disagreement it feels easier to just let it lie. Then you come back with the exact same points a month or two later.

For the sake of non-argument, let's call Wasim clearly the greater test bowler, and at a bare minimum, possibly a better test bowler. Now what do you disagree with on away records that I have previously posted?

 

[kyear2]

Because he was not tested on unhelpful conditions.

Why is it believed that the only up helpful conditions are in the SC? I agree with PEWS take that for a bowler who only played in said conditions should have better numbers, but to say he never dated rough conditions isn't correct either.

 

[kyear2]

I don't accept your premise at all.

Wasim in his peak from 90 to 97 was a consistent wicket taker even between his big games.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

I will agree that post peak or early years added makes it seem that he wasn't as consistent but then Donald has an unusually shorter career to compare him with. You are comparing Donald who played just a decade in his prime with Wasim who played 18 years. That's a super long career for any pace bowler. Even McGrath and Ambrose maxed out at 15 years.

Don't pretend that if Donald played that long he would have near as good as clean stats he ended up with. If you aren't willing to give Wasim some leverage for playing that long, you are just making this an unfair comparison.

But who's not giving Wasim leverage, he's in the same tier as these guys. You're the one trying to downplay Donald.

 

[kyear2]

You know it's possible to just disagree with your argument rather than you trying to browbeat me to accept it. I gave my counterpoints already.

And I already accept that Donald has better overall stats. I was trying to contextualise it.

This is literally what you do.

 

[subshakerz]

But who's not giving Wasim leverage, he's in the same tier as these guys. You're the one trying to downplay Donald.

I'm not downplaying, I also put them in the same tier.

This is literally what you do.

Um in your case you are regularly evasive, dont actually address the point and many here can see that. It's not browbeating if I ask you to be on the record.

 

[subshakerz]

I really think it may be necessary to browbeat you with arguments.

There have been many times that I have pointed out that you are wrong through stuff like stats or scorecards, and when you eventually capitulate without disagreement it feels easier to just let it lie. Then you come back with the exact same points a month or two later.

When did that happen?

Now what do you disagree with on away records that I have previously posted?

The same, that not having big matches performances away from home doesn't matter for Donald. We just have different metrics for rating ATGs then.

 

[Bolo.]

When did that happen and what did I love about?


The same, that not having big matches performances away from home doesn't matter for Donald. We just have different metrics for rating ATGs then.

'Let it lie' is just a phrase that means basically the same as 'let it be'. It has nothing at all to do with telling lies/being a 'liar'.

Donald is statistically superior away to Akram. Yes?

Donald's more balanced away performances seems to have had a more positive impact on results than Akram's. I know you aren't arguing that better overall record + better impact is worse. What exactly are you arguing?

 

[subshakerz]

'Let it lie' is just a phrase that means basically the same as 'let it be'. It has nothing at all to do with telling lies/being a 'liar'.

Ok but when did I capitulate and then return to my previous position?

Donald is statistically superior away to Akram. Yes?

Superficially except he doesn't have big enough samples in most countries outside Eng and Aus for a real comparison. Two mini series in India, and single series in NZ, Pak, SL and WI.

Donald's more balanced away performances seems to have had a more positive impact on results than Akram's. I know you aren't arguing that better overall record + better impact is worse. What exactly are you arguing?

Arguing that you can't compare result with bowlers of two differing quality teams and Wasim had more standout performances AWAY from home impacting games, and that you haven't shown how Donald's