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?

 

[Bolo.]

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


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.


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.

Checking win records is a circular argument. We know RSA won a big chunk more. The question is whether this was because they had a significantly stronger team, or because they overperformed relatively. I'm sure you would agree (to whatever extent) that the latter is a factor.

It's entirely possible that bad batting was were more responsible for underperformances than bowling. But both can clearly impact results. And you are pointing to mecurial batting as match losing, while saying mecurial bowling positively impacts results. This doesn't make sense.

It's also entirely possible the bowling was more responsible for results. Pakistan's winrate essentially got cut in half from the first half of Donald's career to the second. Their batting averages hardly changed. Their bowling averages got obliterated.

I've never claimed to know whose wicket distribution was better, because it's really hard to work out, even if you have scorecards and games fresh in your mind. My position is that Donald has a better overall record, and that the evidence we have suggests his wicket distribution was better for results. But I have no problem simply defering to overall record. Your position has been that you know Akram's distribution was better, despite the evidence suggesting the opposite. And that this outweighs Donald's superior overall record.

If want to defer to Akram's superior longevity, that's fine. It's just not what we have been discussing for the last bunch of posts.

 

[subshakerz]

Checking win records is a circular argument. We know RSA won a big chunk more. The question is whether this was because they had a significantly stronger team, or because they overperformed relatively. I'm sure you would agree (to whatever extent) that the latter is a factor.

It is a circular argument because even if they are regularly overperforming that makes them a better team by default.

It's entirely possible that bad batting was were more responsible for underperformances than bowling. But both can clearly impact results. And you are pointing to mecurial batting as match losing, while saying mecurial bowling positively impacts results. This doesn't make sense.

No saying that mercurial batting affected the results more than mercurial bowling not that the latter had no impact.

It's also entirely possible the bowling was more responsible for results. Pakistan's winrate essentially got cut in half from the first half of Donald's career to the second. Their batting averages hardly changed. Their bowling averages got obliterated.

I will concede that Wasim and Waqar aging in the late 90s, early 2000s did impact results. But we are talking about an entire 18 year career of Akram and which is the bigger losing factor, bowling or batting.

I've never claimed to know whose wicket distribution was better, because it's really hard to work out, even if you have scorecards and games fresh in your mind.

You did imply it.

My position is that Donald has a better overall record, and that the evidence we have suggests his wicket distribution was better for results. But I have no problem simply defering to overall record. Your position has been that you know Akram's distribution was better, despite the evidence suggesting the opposite. And that this outweighs Donald's superior overall record.

If want to defer to Akram's superior longevity, that's fine. It's just not what we have been discussing for the last bunch of posts.

I already clarified with you that Donald's overall stat superiority is mitigated by Wasim being just more tested away in longevity. I showed you I made this argument earlier in this very thread. Don't know why we need to belabor the point.

 

[Bolo.]

It is a circular argument because even if they are regularly overperforming that makes them a better team by default.


No saying that mercurial batting affected the results more than mercurial bowling not that the latter had no impact.


I will concede that Wasim and Waqar aging in the late 90s, early 2000s did impact results. But we are talking about an entire 18 year career of Akram and which is the bigger losing factor, bowling or batting.


You did imply it.


I already clarified with you that Donald's overall stat superiority is mitigated by Wasim being just more tested away in longevity. I showed you I made this argument earlier in this very thread. Don't know why we need to belabor the point.

Your wicket distribution argument is an absolute mess of self contradictory points and evidence that suggests the opposite.

If you want to just say Wasim was better on account of longevity, that's fine. It's not something I particularly agree with, but it is a very defensible position.

 

[subshakerz]

Your wicket distribution argument is an absolute mess of self contradictory points and evidence that suggests the opposite.

Your framed it as wicket distribution not me.

If you want to just say Wasim was better on account of longevity, that's fine. It's not something I particularly agree with, but it is a very defensible position.

You aren't listening to me.

I am saying that longevity brings parity to the overall stat difference between Donald and Wasim away from home.

The reasons for Wasim being better are peer rating, Aus record and more impact games away.

 

[Bolo.]

Your framed it as wicket distribution not me.


You aren't listening to me.

I am saying that longevity brings parity to the overall stat difference between Donald and Wasim away from home.

The reasons for Wasim being better are peer rating, Aus record and more impact games away.

Sigh.

How many posts in a row is that talking about impact away only to have you completely ignore them and default to your starting position?

 

[subshakerz]

Sigh.

How many posts in a row is that talking about impact away only to have you completely ignore them and default to your starting position?

I didn't ignore. I addressed wicket distribution and we fundamentally disagree based on two factors: perceived team strength influencing results and the relative value of bunched up wickets in games vs a wider spread of more wickets.

It's ok, we are grownups, we can disagree. I respect your position even if you don't respect mine.

 

[Bolo.]

I didn't ignore. I addressed wicket distribution and we fundamentally disagree based on two factors: perceived team strength influencing results and the relative value of bunched up wickets in games vs a wider spread of more wickets.

It's ok, we are grownups, we can disagree. I respect your position even if you don't respect mine.

Seeing as there is neither of us on would have a clear view of the two on these from watching them, you aren't so much as disagreeing with me as you are ignoring the the evidence we do have.

 

[subshakerz]

Seeing as there is neither of us on would have a clear view of the two on these from watching them, you aren't so much as disagreeing with me as you are ignoring the the evidence we do have.

Yeah except by your own admission, the wicket spread argument is your own supposition and you didn't give evidence per se but put the onus on me to debunk it.

And I don't know why you argue about SA not being a better team when they clearly were the no.2 team of the 90s as anyone who watched that era can attest, or at the very least from mid-90s onwards.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah except by your own admission, the wicket spread argument is your own supposition and you didn't give evidence per se but put the onus on me to debunk it.

And I don't know why you argue about SA not being a better team when they clearly were the no.2 team of the 90s as anyone who watched that era can attest, or at the very least from mid-90s onwards.

I rate Donald higher because he performs better on all just about all the standard measures I use to rate bowlers. I'm not saying Donald is better because of his wicket spread. This is your claim for Akram. I'm saying that all the evidence we have points to Donald's spread being better. I'm not confident that this is actually a (major?) point in Donald's favour. But to claim it as a point in Akram's is farcical.

I have never claimed RSA were a weaker team. What I am claiming is that given the talent both teams had, RSA should not have been producing a win rate so heavily above Pak.

 

[subshakerz]

I rate Donald higher because he performs better on all just about all the standard measures I use to rate bowlers. I'm not saying Donald is better because of his wicket spread. This is your claim for Akram.

Dude I already told you why I rate Akram higher. It's not just 'wicket spread'.

The reasons for Wasim being better are peer rating, Aus record and more impact games away.

The biggest problem with your wicket spread argument is this.

Let's say a bowler take 12 wickets a series. Donald could take 4,4,4 in three tests whereas Akram could take 0,2, and 9. I much prefer Akram in that case because Donald to do a bit better in the first two games isn't by itself sufficient to turn those matches, while Akram taking a ninefer can have a more direct impact on the game.

You assert Akram taking less wickets in those games harms the results of those tests, I argue it doesn't matter as much because Donald himself is not changing the result of the first two test through support hauls.

If you suggest SA would lose more if Donald took fewer support hauls, you haven't really given evidence of that in matches you can point to.

To me this is common sense in the abstract, but when you start using cumulative match results to prove this then all sorts of team factors such as support bowling and batting come into play.

I have never claimed RSA were a weaker team. What I am claiming is that given the talent both teams had, RSA should not have been producing a win rate so heavily above Pak.

Yeah because Pakistan was ill-disciplined and had half a dozen captains. Which is why they were inconsistent while SA were not as you have acknowledged, just another way of saying SA were a better team.

RSA won more because Pak blew hot and cold more.

 

[Bolo.]

.

Dude I already told you why I rate Akram higher. It's not just 'wicket spread'.



The biggest problem with your wicket spread argument is this.

Let's say a bowler take 12 wickets a series. Donald could take 4,4,4 in three tests whereas Akram could take 0,2, and 9. I much prefer Akram in that case because Donald to do a bit better in the first two games isn't by itself sufficient to turn those matches, while Akram taking a ninefer can have a more direct impact on the game.

You assert Akram taking less wickets in those games harms the results of those tests, I argue it doesn't matter as much because Donald himself is not changing the result of the first two test through support hauls.

If you suggest SA would lose more if Donald took fewer support hauls, you haven't really given evidence of that in matches you can point to.

To me this is common sense in the abstract, but when you start using cumulative match results to prove this then all sorts of team factors such as support bowling and batting come into play.



Yeah because Pakistan was ill-disciplined and had half a dozen captains. Which is why they were inconsistent while SA were not as you have acknowledged, just another way of saying SA were a better team.

I didn't it was your only reason. Just that you were giving it as a reason.

A quality quick going 4 4 4 is likely winning you around 2/3 result games in an above average team. In a glorious example of meaningless sample sizes, this exactly matches Donald's 3 4 wicket hauls in result games. A loss in England, and wins in SL and India. And it also almost exactly matches his career win rate.

I'm not sure how many wins quality quick going 0 2 9 for an above average team would be expected to generate. Somewhere from 1-2. In the world of meaningless sample sizes, Pak won the only 2 result games Akram took 9 in and the only 1 he took zero, while losing most of the 2s. But on more realistic picture, they won 3/6 for 9+ wickets (3/4 losses in 10+), and lost a heavy majority of his 2 or fewer wicket hauls. Donald's distribution worked out better both in absolute terms and in relation to his team's overall win rate in result games. Supidly low samples, and possibly meaningless, but not favouring Akram as you claim.

Pak lost relatively more because they underperformed. Maybe because they were undisciplined. But this is also something that applies to bowling.