McGrath & Lillee vs Donald & Steyn vs Imran & Akram

[h_hurricane]

Aus is a relative weakness.

A record which worsened slightly after turning 35 isn't a relative weakness.

 

[subshakerz]

A record which worsened slightly after turning 35 isn't a relative weakness.

Except it wasn't great even before that. Forget averages, he only had one series of any quality against Aus in five he played against them, six if you include his last test. He definitely underperformed against them overall.

 

[Coronis]

Wasim did even worse against Australia during Donald’s career so is this really a major point in his favour lol.

 

[Bolo.]

Sure but your argument maybe applies to Kallis around the mid 2000s, at best one third of his career.

Na, Kallis' bowling was most valuable in the early 2000s. No way they would have gone for an extra bat then. And even for his last missed test in 2013 (by which stage he was way past it as a bowler) they went in with 5 bowlers when he was out injured.

The only time his bowling wasn't impacting the batting was the start of his career. Which is a small minority of games. At a time he was taking a very healthy amount of wickets considering the resources available. At a better average than a number of the guys who weren't mostly in for their batting, despite bowling donkey overs.

No SA batting wasn't trash especially compared to combustible Pakistan.

And I don't see how Wasim taking 3 or 4 wickets in losses would have made those into wins. You need to prove that, not me. Or how Donald taking wickets in non-wins prevented losses, which you have asserted again without evidence.

Correlation is not causation.

Mercurial batting is > trash batting. And you have argued that Pak's bowling was better than RSAs. If you think RSA had better players, it can't be by the degree to which results indicate.

Why is it that you recognize batting failures as losing games, but don't do the same for bowling failures?

We know that RSA won more in relation to their quality. And that an above average team (which both were) producing average performances will more typically produce better results over a large enough sample. And that Akram underperformed badly in a bunch of losses. And overperformed in a bunch of losses.

We don't really know whose wicket distribution was better for results. It's very hard to work out. It's why I'm using language like 'seems to'- because we have a bunch of things that indictate Donald's probably was. Your claim is that this makes up the difference in their stats. It seems more likely to widen the difference in their stats, and whether or not it does, the stats are still there.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hey guys, move all this Kallis discussion to separate thread

 

[subshakerz]

Na, Kallis' bowling was most valuable in the early 2000s. No way they would have gone for an extra bat then. And even for his last missed test in 2013 (by which stage he was way past it as a bowler) they went in with 5 bowlers when he was out injured.

The only time his bowling wasn't impacting the batting was the start of his career. Which is a small minority of games. At a time he was taking a very healthy amount of wickets considering the resources available. At a better average than a number of the guys who weren't mostly in for their batting, despite bowling donkey overs.

Let's fold this Kallis chat since I've been asked to not continue it here.

Mercurial batting is > trash batting. And you have argued that Pak's bowling was better than RSAs. If you think RSA had better players, it can't be by the degree to which results indicate.

Why is it that you recognize batting failures as losing games, but don't do the same for bowling failures?

Pak batting collapses led them to lose home series to SL (twice), Aus, SA, Zimbabwe and Eng in the 90s. SA, as brittle as they seemed, were more consistent than Pakistan.

Bowling failures do matter but in my viewing, fragile batting made more impact. Even in games when Pakistan list due to bowling, it was mostly collective bowling failure. Rarely did Wasim make the key difference by taking a couple less wickets.

We know that RSA won more in relation to their quality. And that an above average team (which both were) producing average performances will more typically produce better results over a large enough sample. And that Akram underperformed badly in a bunch of losses. And overperformed in a bunch of losses.

We don't really know whose wicket distribution was better for results. It's very hard to work out. It's why I'm using language like 'seems to'- because we have a bunch of things that indictate Donald's probably was. Your claim is that this makes up the difference in their stats. It seems more likely to widen the difference in their stats, and whether or not it does, the stats are still there.

You can check the results of the era and see whether Pak or SA were the better team. I believe SA were comfortably.

And that you aren't even sure if the wicket distribution actually mattered for Donald and Wasim when it comes to results.

And no, I claim the difference in their overall stats is mainly longevity, since Wasim had many more tours and was more tested in a much longer career.

 

[Johan]

Hey guys, move all this Kallis discussion to separate thread

did you become a moderator?