Glenn McGrath vs Allan Donald

[aussie]

Damn yo, i dont know who wrote that "urban dictionary" ha, but that is crap. But anyway keep it on the cricket...

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Goughy

I dont even think it is close. Not even in the same bracket.

Donald was an athlete, I would pay to watch him and I wanted to be like him. But McGrath was a different class.

McGrath in the small handful included in the discussion for best ever. Donald a group or two behind.

FWIW, I agree with this.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by aussie

Word. People may able to say McGrath is better because of his statistical success in most conditions. But damn at their respective peaks i've always felt you really can't separate McGrath/Wasim/Amrbose/Donald/Waqar.

bang on, mate

[G.I.Joe]

If a single spell qualifies as a peak, would be hard pressed to look beyond Curtley.

[MrIncredible]

I personally would say that all bowlers being at their peak, I would give Waqar the edge tbh.

Waqar>Ambrose>Wasim>Donald>Mcgrath (at their respective peaks).

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by MrIncredible

I personally would say that all bowlers being at their peak, I would give Waqar the edge tbh.

Waqar>Ambrose>Wasim>Donald>Mcgrath (at their respective peaks).

Yeah I would agree with that. Since 1992, I have not seen a more devastating bowler than Waqar Younis was during the early 90s.

However, I agree with Goughy with McGrath. Personally, just I think he is hands down the best bowler I have seen play since watching cricket. Its not just the fact that he took wickets on some in the flattest conditions, the way in which he was able to plan and execute his bowling plans in working out batsmen just puts him a notch above everyone else.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Ikki

What makes you say that though? Until Donald's retirement I think most people would say they were even, if not even nudging towards Donald. Why is it not close?

The difference being Donald was one of the best of his time and McGrath was one of the best of all time.

McGrath is one of the top four I have ever seen bowl (Ambrose, Hadlee, Marshall class). Donald is in the notch below with Wasim, Pollock etc)

The only person I struggle to classify is Waqar.

Donald was a crowds dream but McGrath was a captains dream. A complete two-fer. Bowled wickettaking balls and controlled the pace of the game. It is not disresepect to Donald. Just that I regard McGrath so highly.

[MrIncredible]

Cant say i disagree with ne thing u just wrote although i would like to add Trueman, Lillee and Imran to the top rung of great fast bowlers.

[BoyBrumby]

Think what also impresses me with McGrath, aside from his many other qualities, is his longevity. Sorry to say that for Donald the end came brutally quickly because (ironically) he was no longer brutally quick himself. McGrath, on the other hand, signed off from international cricket as the leading wicket taker in the world cup and, one suspects, would probably still not disgace himself if he turned out for Oz tomorrow in Cardiff.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Think what also impresses me with McGrath, aside from his many other qualities, is his longevity. Sorry to say that for Donald the end came brutally quickly because (ironically) he was no longer brutally quick himself. McGrath, on the other hand, signed off from international cricket as the leading wicket taker in the world cup and, one suspects, would probably still not disgace himself if he turned out for Oz tomorrow in Cardiff.

You'd back to him to fire up at the first dropped catch too. Classy, classy bowler. Completely agree with Goughy on McGrath.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Goughy

The difference being Donald was one of the best of his time and McGrath was one of the best of all time.

McGrath is one of the top four I have ever seen bowl (Ambrose, Hadlee, Marshall class). Donald is in the notch below with Wasim, Pollock etc)

The only person I struggle to classify is Waqar.

Donald was a crowds dream but McGrath was a captains dream. A complete two-fer. Bowled wickettaking balls and controlled the pace of the game. It is not disresepect to Donald. Just that I regard McGrath so highly.

While I can understand your take, I struggle to agree with it. If it came to aesthetics and watching the game, Donald was more formidable for me. In terms of their record, I think I showed here, that McGrath has some false perceptions of him and even Donald IMO has a more complete record than him. Donald not only struck freakishly fast, but he gave away little as well.

I could agree with the fact that McGrath did continue and prove himself in the 00s, hence that puts him over, but saying Donald is a rung below Ambrose, for instance? Why? There's nothing to split them really.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by bagapath

most unfair comparison i have heard in a long long time.

mcgrath has done everything possible in test cricket to be ranked among the greatest fast bowlers of all time. his SR, Avg, WPM, longevity and ER are on par with the very best the game has offered. except in avg and ER he is better than ambrose in the rest of the criteria.

ambrose had a horrendous record against india whereas mcgrath did well in india. and ambrose's relatively weaker SR (a little more than 9 overs per wicket) puts him a rung below other stalwarts. donald's record against australia is also not something he would be proud of. and his average is below mcgrath's.

in my book mcgrath>ambrose=donald

but for sheer excitement of watching a fast bowler in full flight ambrose>donald>mcgrath

Yeah mate, but McGrath's Australian.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Ikki

I could agree with the fact that McGrath did continue and prove himself in the 00s, hence that puts him over, but saying Donald is a rung below Ambrose, for instance? Why? There's nothing to split them really.

I think Ambrose is extremely overrated on this forum. No denying his greatness, but seriously have to question how hes on the same plane as Mcgrath. Ambrose didnt have the sort of variety (he was more of a one trick pony really) or the intellect that McGrath possessed and quite frankly, he gets away with a lot of slack because he was damn near impossible to tear apart. Doesnt change the fact that in test match cricket he was ineffective in terms of wicket taking far more times than the likes of McGrath and that is represented by the fact that Ambrose has a worse SR than almost all of his peers, even Murali has a marginally better SR than Ambrose.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

I think Ambrose is extremely overrated on this forum. No denying his greatness, but seriously have to question how hes on the same plane as Mcgrath. Ambrose didnt have the sort of variety (he was more of a one trick pony really) or the intellect that McGrath possessed and quite frankly, he gets away with a lot of slack because he was damn near impossible to tear apart. Doesnt change the fact that in test match cricket he was ineffective in terms of wicket taking far more times than the likes of McGrath and that is represented by the fact that Ambrose has a worse SR than almost all of his peers, even Murali has a marginally better SR than Ambrose.

I have said a few of those things myself but never been disrespectful of the great man. being "damn near impossible to tear apart" itself is a sure sign of greatness (like being near impossible to dismiss is a sure sign of greatness in a batsman: example - dravid, kallis etc). ambrose was never ever boring to watch and he delivered on big matches against the toughest opponents. i am actually glad he never fired in all cylinders against india. yes, i rate mcgrath higher but dont want to treat ambrose like just another good fast bowler. he was way way better than that.

note: Am assuming your thoughts are not too different from mine. Just that the "overrated" line makes it look like Amby doesnt deserve the adulation he gets here and everywhere.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

I think Ambrose is extremely overrated on this forum. No denying his greatness, but seriously have to question how hes on the same plane as Mcgrath. Ambrose didnt have the sort of variety (he was more of a one trick pony really) or the intellect that McGrath possessed and quite frankly, he gets away with a lot of slack because he was damn near impossible to tear apart. Doesnt change the fact that in test match cricket he was ineffective in terms of wicket taking far more times than the likes of McGrath and that is represented by the fact that Ambrose has a worse SR than almost all of his peers, even Murali has a marginally better SR than Ambrose.

Eh? Just about every thread we've seen of 'best bowlers' or somesuch ends with people saying "Where's Ambrose?" If anything, Ambi, on this forum, is under-rated.