Ravichandran Ashwin vs Allan Donald

[shortpitched713]

Donald >>> Ashwin certainly is a very 90s > everything take. But yeah, haven't followed closely enough to see if Lyon > Ashwin is a big crux of this argument. If so, he's completely lost me here.

 

[Bolo.]

Mate, I am not denying he was a great bowler. To me, he was short of ATG levels. And I explained why. I dont expect you to weigh the same factors the same way. If I am in a draft, I would select Ashwin before Donald. Same with those seamers I named. I rate those guys ATG level and Donald a level below. So I voted Ashwin. I dont see why its such a big deal or an unreasonable position to hold. My recollection of Donald was that of a great bowler but not quite AT levels when he played and when I look back at the numbers and try to go through it relative to others' of that era, it still is the same.

And on the last point, I think Zim were always a decent to good side at least at home in that period once Streak came on the scene which may be 1994 or so and not quite straight after 1992.

Ashwin polarises opinions, and is hard to rate against quicks. Leaving Ash out of it for this reason, the comparison to the quicks seems a bit dodgy. How can you rate Pollock, for example, ahead of Donald? He has all of the disadvantages you listed but amplified. And none of the substantial advantages Donald had.

The era thing doesn't work. Eras can give an idea of how easy a ride a player had, but their quality should be defined around how they performed relative to the challenges of their era, not just how old they happen to be.

Is Pollock a better bowler just cos he's a bit younger than Donald? He failed miserably in the batting era. He had a harder ride than Donald from eras, but that doesn't make him better.

Is Waqar a better bowler cos he played 20% of his career before Donald had the opportunity of a debut? It's not a meaningful amount, and according to you this was a weaker era.

Why don't you mark Steyn down? He played almost his whole career in a single era.

It's not only about Zim. RSA only got really strong around 98 when they started to get some competent batting. They may have been above average for the whole time after debut, but Zim were below average.

 

[subshakerz]

You think Lyon > Ashwin is some 90s > everything else? Guy just cant stand India's cricketing success.. Pathetically sad. And sadly pathetic.

You forgot salty.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I think he’ll probably be remembered similarly to lower tier ATGs like Botham and Kapil although those two were a bit better away from home

Those two weren’t the main catalyst for a team going undefeated in a series at home for 10 years

Edit: not just going undefeated, that’s one thing. Absolutely obliterated every single opponent.

 

[sayon basak]

there are probably like 30 ATG pacers and 2 ATG spinners, maybe 3 counting Bill.

Name those 30 pacers.

 

[Xix2565]

He's just going to select the CW voted list smh. This idea of 30 ATG pacers vs 2-3 ATG spinners deserves bans for life tbh for anyone who believes in it. Anti-cricket to the core.

 

[honestbharani]

Ashwin polarises opinions, and is hard to rate against quicks. Leaving Ash out of it for this reason, the comparison to the quicks seems a bit dodgy. How can you rate Pollock, for example, ahead of Donald? He has all of the disadvantages you listed but amplified. And none of the substantial advantages Donald had.

The era thing doesn't work. Eras can give an idea of how easy a ride a player had, but their quality should be defined around how they performed relative to the challenges of their era, not just how old they happen to be.

Is Pollock a better bowler just cos he's a bit younger than Donald? He failed miserably in the batting era. He had a harder ride than Donald from eras, but that doesn't make him better.

Is Waqar a better bowler cos he played 20% of his career before Donald had the opportunity of a debut? It's not a meaningful amount, and according to you this was a weaker era.

Why don't you mark Steyn down? He played almost his whole career in a single era.

It's not only about Zim. RSA only got really strong around 98 when they started to get some competent batting. They may have been above average for the whole time after debut, but Zim were below average.

I already listed. I have seen Pollock do well in Australia and against Australia more than Donald. And Pollock played far more test cricket than Donald ever did. And he played across eras.

FWIW, I think Pollock is an ATG test cricketer but not quite as a bowler. When I said, I will consider Pollock an ATG I meant in that sense.

And Steyn showed up far more than Donald did, IMO. And played key roles in key wins.

 

[honestbharani]

Kinda funny salty thinks his name should be mentioned in every post

 

[Bolo.]

I already listed. I have seen Pollock do well in Australia and against Australia more than Donald. And Pollock played far more test cricket than Donald ever did. And he played across eras.

FWIW, I think Pollock is an ATG test cricketer but not quite as a bowler. When I said, I will consider Pollock an ATG I meant in that sense.

And Steyn showed up fa more than Donald did, IMO. And played key roles in key wins.

Donald was significantly better than Pollock against AUS as a bowler. On par with McGrath. In the RSA AUS games. And Donald had the excuse of two of his series against AUS coming immediately after his career ending injury.

That take on Pollock is very reasonable in the context of this discussion.

Steyn is just a better bowler than Donald IMO. But most of this opinion is just based on him playing in a batting era. Steyn did have a habit of firing at the right times, but a hige proportion of RSAs success in the early/mid 90s came from Donald.

 

[honestbharani]

Donald was significantly better than Pollock against AUS as a bowler. On par with McGrath. In the RSA AUS games. And Donald had the excuse of two of his series against AUS coming immediately after his career ending injury.

That take on Pollock is very reasonable in the context of this discussion.

Steyn is just a better bowler than Donald IMO. But most of this opinion is just based on him playing in a batting era. Steyn did have a habit of firing at the right times, but a hige proportion of RSAs success in the early/mid 90s came from Donald.

Fair enough. But what I remember of Donald is while he had great spells and blew through mediocre opposition in helpful conditions, he was kinda wanting in the toughest challenges to a greater extent than Steyn or Pollock seemed to be. And he played far less cricket anyways. Soz... Just gonna have to agree to differ on this one.

 

[Bolo.]

Fair enough. But what I remember of Donald is while he had great spells and blew through mediocre opposition in helpful conditions, he was kinda wanting in the toughest challenges to a greater extent than Steyn or Pollock seemed to be. And he played far less cricket anyways. Soz... Just gonna have to agree to differ on this one.

You are talking about a guy that averaged 20 at over 5 WPM in Asia. If you want to LOL sample size this, fair enough. But it's absolutely not evidence of him failing in tough comditions.

 

[honestbharani]

You are talking about a guy that averaged 20 at over 5 WPM in Asia. If you want to LOL sample size this, fair enough. But it's absolutely not evidence of him failing in tough comditions.

You are using numbers to argue something where I am simply going by what I felt watching them play live. Lets leave it at that.

 

[Coronis]

I mean both Pollock and Donald had a single series where they were quite good vs Australia. (same series coincidentally). Donald with 9/133, SA ended up 7/273 chasing 381 with Pollock and Kluesner at bat. Pollock with a 9/148 in the match Donald didn’t play where Australia ended up 7/227 chasing 361, Waugh with a ton and Warne at bat. At the SCG though they were destroyed by Warne and lost by an innings.

Pollock had the misfortune to play them more than Donald in their heyday.