Ravichandran Ashwin vs Allan Donald

[honestbharani]

I perspective needs to have a rationale backing it. Mine does, and I've given it.

Greats are always retiring. I think you are refering to the fact that Imran, Marshall, and Hadlee retired around the same time. But Imran was well done as a bowler long before 92, and Marshall was mostly done before as well. The era didn't suddenly shift to a lack of good quicks from their absence. It just transitioned into different good quicks. 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95 are the debut years of the leading quicks from the era IIRC.

I don't think RSA and Zim joining tests did much to change style or quality. Just more teams.

I think Donald had Broad type spells and bashed a lot of poor sides but was found wanting quite a few times when RSA needed him to stand up. And when you average 30+ against the standout side of your generation and bash up Zimbabwe and poor travellers of the 90s like India and SL, it does play a role in how I would rate someone.

And RSA almost took away series and tests off Windies and Australia in their very first tours. I dont think anyone ever thought they were anything below top 3 immediately from the time they came through. That does play a part and Zimbabwe got really good in the 90s with the Flowers coming through and Streak and Brandes debuting. Genuinely recall India going to Zim with Zim being favorites, same with Pak.

 

[Bolo.]

I think Donald had Broad type spells and bashed a lot of poor sides but was found wanting quite a few times when RSA needed him to stand up. And when you average 30+ against the standout side of your generation and bash up Zimbabwe and poor travellers of the 90s like India and SL, it does play a role in how I would rate someone.

And RSA almost took away series and tests off Windies and Australia in their very first tours. I dont think anyone ever thought they were anything below top 3 immediately from the time they came through. That does play a part and Zimbabwe got really good in the 90s with the Flowers coming through and Streak and Brandes debuting. Genuinely recall India going to Zim with Zim being favorites, same with Pak.

I think Donald had Broad type spells and bashed a lot of poor sides but was found wanting quite a few times when RSA needed him to stand up. And when you average 30+ against the standout side of your generation and bash up Zimbabwe and poor travellers of the 90s like India and SL, it does play a role in how I would rate someone.

And RSA almost took away series and tests off Windies and Australia in their very first tours. I dont think anyone ever thought they were anything below top 3 immediately from the time they came through. That does play a part and Zimbabwe got really good in the 90s with the Flowers coming through and Streak and Brandes debuting. Genuinely recall India going to Zim with Zim being favorites, same with Pak.

You can poke holes in the records of anyone like this. Donald clearly less so than some others you are calling ATGs. Sure he wasn't great vs AUS. But neither were McGrath and Pollock, and you don't seem to give them that heat.

Beating up on weak lineups is only a bad thing if viewing it as at the expense of performances against stronger ones. Donald just took a lot of wickets. Anyway, Zim are 4% of his wickets, and he pounded on India and SL both home and away, so these specific criticisms don't seem at all meaningful to me.

RSA were above average and Zim below. Balance each other out pretty well. Maybe by the end of the 90s they were collectively bringing standards up, but at the start I reckon they were probably weakening it if anything.

 

[honestbharani]

You can poke holes in the records of anyone like this. Donald clearly less so than some others you are calling ATGs. Sure he wasn't great vs AUS. But neither were McGrath and Pollock, and you don't seem to give them that heat.

Beating up on weak lineups is only a bad thing if viewing it as at the expense of performances against stronger ones. Donald just took a lot of wickets. Anyway, Zim are 4% of his wickets, and he pounded on India and SL both home and away, so these specific criticisms don't seem at all meaningful to me.

RSA were above average and Zim below. Balance each other out pretty well. Maybe by the end of the 90s they were collectively bringing standards up, but at the start I reckon they were probably weakening it if anything.

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.

 

[Johan]

I think Donald had Broad type spells and bashed a lot of poor sides but was found wanting quite a few times when RSA needed him to stand up. And when you average 30+ against the standout side of your generation and bash up Zimbabwe and poor travellers of the 90s like India and SL, it does play a role in how I would rate someone.

his average against Aus fell in his last three matches where he was finished, besides that he averaged under 28 against them and was actually pretty good, and ofcourse, he obliterated everyone else.

 

[Coronis]

You can poke holes in the records of anyone like this. Donald clearly less so than some others you are calling ATGs. Sure he wasn't great vs AUS. But neither were McGrath and Pollock, and you don't seem to give them that heat.

Beating up on weak lineups is only a bad thing if viewing it as at the expense of performances against stronger ones. Donald just took a lot of wickets. Anyway, Zim are 4% of his wickets, and he pounded on India and SL both home and away, so these specific criticisms don't seem at all meaningful to me.

RSA were above average and Zim below. Balance each other out pretty well. Maybe by the end of the 90s they were collectively bringing standards up, but at the start I reckon they were probably weakening it if anything.

Yeah McGrath sucked against other Aussies.

90 @ 27.40 for NSW. (im sure some were against touring sides too)

 

[subshakerz]

I think Donald had Broad type spells and bashed a lot of poor sides but was found wanting quite a few times when RSA needed him to stand up. And when you average 30+ against the standout side of your generation and bash up Zimbabwe and poor travellers of the 90s like India and SL, it does play a role in how I would rate someone.

And RSA almost took away series and tests off Windies and Australia in their very first tours. I dont think anyone ever thought they were anything below top 3 immediately from the time they came through. That does play a part and Zimbabwe got really good in the 90s with the Flowers coming through and Streak and Brandes debuting. Genuinely recall India going to Zim with Zim being favorites, same with Pak.

Donald deserves to be compared with ATGs like Wasim, McGrath and Ambrose as bowlers. Then we can talk about his mildly worse Australia record.

Not with freaking Ashwin who isnt even remotely as well-rounded or accomplished.

 

[Johan]

Steyn averages 27 and 31 against Aus and Eng but Donald struggling against Aus eliminates him as an ATG pacer? kinda dumb.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah McGrath sucked against other Aussies.

90 @ 27.40 for NSW. (im sure some were against touring sides too)

I meant against RSA, but that works too.

 

[honestbharani]

Leaving aside salty's Indiaphobic idiocy again, Donald already had a very small sample size though. I mean his only 5 wicket haul in the SC was against a 1993 SL which was when everyone was beating them. He hardly ever stood up with good spells in Australia, missed quite a lot of cricket through injuries and bashed a lot of average line-ups in helpful conditions. He did have great spells and great series as well and that is why I said he is a great, he is just not an ATG fast bowler, for me.

 

[Johan]

"Indiaphobic idiocy"

you gotta stop saying **** like that if you wanna be taken seriously mate, Ambrose and McGrath have the same number of 5-fers as Donald in the SC.

 

[honestbharani]

"Indiaphobic idiocy"

you gotta stop saying **** like that if you wanna be taken seriously mate, Ambrose and McGrath have the same number of 5-fers as Donald in the SC.

I was talking about salt shakerz there and it describes his posts perfectly.

 

[Johan]

I was talking about salt shakerz there and it describes his posts perfectly.

then mention him in the sentence *shrug*

 

[ma1978]

You think it would annoy me but I am actually somewhat satisfied that outside a certain cliques, most of us agree he is overrated.

us meaning you and your imaginary friend

 

[subshakerz]

Leaving aside salty's Indiaphobic idiocy again, Donald already had a very small sample size though. I mean his only 5 wicket haul in the SC was against a 1993 SL which was when everyone was beating them. He hardly ever stood up with good spells in Australia, missed quite a lot of cricket through injuries and bashed a lot of average line-ups in helpful conditions. He did have great spells and great series as well and that is why I said he is a great, he is just not an ATG fast bowler, for me.

It's weird you would nitpick Donald's lack of fifers in SC yet throw a fit when we mention the same for Ashwin in SENA where he played more than twice as much as Donald.

 

[subshakerz]

Steyn averages 27 and 31 against Aus and Eng but Donald struggling against Aus eliminates him as an ATG pacer? kinda dumb.

Whether Donald is an ATG pacer or not isn't as relevant to that fact that he is leagues ahead of Ashwin as a bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

haha.. salty now salty coz he cant differentiate impactful performances and lol sample sizes.

And @Johan - sorry if the earlier post was not clear. I always call shakerz salty coz, well, just read his posts...

 

[shortpitched713]

I was talking about salt shakerz there and it describes his posts perfectly.

I tend to think subs has big blind spots and some rose tinted glasses for certain players/eras. But I don't see "Indiaphobic" as being the huge undercurrent of his worldview. More like 90s > everything else.

 

[subshakerz]

I tend to think subs has big blind spots and some rose tinted glasses for certain players/eras. But I don't see "Indiaphobic" as being the huge undercurrent of his worldview. More like 90s > everything else.

I just have my strong opinions and those steeped in their own nationalist biases tend to use projection.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Donald >>>> Ashwin

 

[honestbharani]

I tend to think subs has big blind spots and some rose tinted glasses for certain players/eras. But I don't see "Indiaphobic" as being the huge undercurrent of his worldview. More like 90s > everything else.

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