Glenn McGrath vs Allan Donald

[Top_Cat]

You do touch on an important point though. No one, even those who can, will swing the ball every chance or do it recklessly. At least, they wont be as successful. And I think it's understated that Donald also had a brain. The fact that he was a physical beast who could make the ball turn in the air whilst McGrath primarily moved it off the pitch shouldn't garner any extra praise for me. At least, it should be just acknowledged that they were different. Not better than the other because of it. The only measure should be their actual records.

Absolutely disagree with that. Numbers may be the most objective measures available for rating players but they're fairly insensitive as measures go. There are other indicators to decide how to rate bowlers, especially when they're so close in terms of records.

Forget, for a moment, who moved the ball more. I can't speak for Goughy but for me, the amount of swing/cut/seam a bowler gets is just one consideration in rating McGrath above Donald. For me, it's also about how they used the conditions they had available, how they reacted to being hit around, who they got out and how they did it, how they targeted them, their tactics against players, at what point in a game they took their wickets, etc. Intangibles.

One example; McGrath and Donald were both brilliant front-runners but I think McGrath was better at pulling back when the batters were on top whereas my perception was that Donald was more likely to drop his bundle, even a little. I also felt that McGrath was better at targeting players' weaknesses and not letting up and had a better plan B if things weren't going well for the team. Now, no amount of poring over their records or scorecard reading is going to be instructive to that level but it's reasons like that why I rate McGrath a touch higher as an all-round quickie.

[Ikki]

Absolutely disagree with that. Numbers may be the most objective measures available for rating players but they're fairly insensitive as measures go. There are other indicators to decide how to rate bowlers, especially when they're so close in terms of records.

I actually think we're closer in our opinion than you think. I agree, when it is that close, then it gets to other considerations. My replies have been more in rebuttal to that Donald was "a group or two behind" or "Donald was one of the best of his time and McGrath was one of the best of all time." or "Not even in the same bracket." as Goughy has said.

For me, that argument doesn't make sense and whatever else Goughy is seeing in them as bowlers, they are still not that different and their actual figures speak loudly in proving that.

Forget, for a moment, who moved the ball more. I can't speak for Goughy but for me, the amount of swing/cut/seam a bowler gets is just one consideration in rating McGrath above Donald. For me, it's also about how they used the conditions they had available, how they reacted to being hit around, who they got out and how they did it, how they targeted them, their tactics against players, at what point in a game they took their wickets, etc. Intangibles.

But, as we've seen, in terms of overall record, their success on different pitches, against different countries, etc, is similar, if not in Donald's favour. So I still fail to see how you can split them even in terms of "how they used their conditions, etc". These are reflected in their numbers.

One example; McGrath and Donald were both brilliant front-runners but I think McGrath was better at pulling back when the batters were on top whereas my perception was that Donald was more likely to drop his bundle, even a little. I also felt that McGrath was better at targeting players' weaknesses and not letting up and had a better plan B if things weren't going well for the team. Now, no amount of poring over their records or scorecard reading is going to be instructive to that level but it's reasons like that why I rate McGrath a touch higher as an all-round quickie.

That's key though. Neither in average nor in ER does Donald really suffer for his approach, yet he is greatly benefited by going for the throat. Lillee is often mention like that; he simply never gave up and never gave an inch. In his time, that's something he was revered for. Maybe that's a subjective difference, or a preference. Yet I try to argue: that's fine if you see it that way, but objectively speaking, they were pretty much level. For me, Donald was no less dominant and no more dominated than McGrath was.

[bagapath]

even if mcgrath were to be rated (rightfully) higher than donald, let me acknowledge here that the white lightning achieved in his profession what mere mortals can only dream of in their respective jobs. in fact, his record is so phenomenal that even dreaming of that level of success is beyond most commoners. allan donald walks into the cricketing hall of fame quite easily.

[Ikki]

even if mcgrath were to be rated (rightfully) higher than donald, let me acknowledge here that the white lightning achieved in his profession what mere mortals can only dream of in their respective jobs. in fact, his record is so phenomenal that even dreaming of that level of success is beyond most commoners. allan donald walks into the cricketing hall of fame quite easily.

Well said. The difference between Donald's record and, say Marshall's, are his performances at home to Australia. That's essentially it. If Malcolm has such a complete record that garners such praise here, then Donald should not be far behind for even McGrath doesn't have a record as complete - country to country, home and away.

[subshakerz]

I would give McGrath the slight edge. Its true that upon reflection of their records, there's not much difference between them. I do think, however, that Donald's record against Australia, and the fact that he was not feared by the Australians as much as Akram and Ambrose, makes him fall slightly in many people's estimation. Even in his prime, he generally only had on good game per series vs. the Aussies.

[tooextracool]

I honestly think people exaggerate the pitch conditions of 2001 onwards. I dont think they pitches were ne flatter after 2001 as they were b4. Batsmen exploded because so many good/great bowlers had retired around the same time (Waqar, Wasim, Donald, Ambrose). And give that Murali thing a rest i already showed that his record is heavily influenced by:

A. Very favorable home conditions and B minnows (who Ambrose never played against).

U might not speak of Ambrose and Mcgrath in the same breath but i can assure u that u r in a very small minority. As u should be. If u r goin to penalise Ambrose for not playing in the continent as much then u may as well punish the likes of Lillee et al. Walsh (Ambrose's bowling mate) has an excellent (and extensive) record in the Asia, surely u arent suggesting Walsh> Amrbose. Ne way Mcgrath played in the team with the best batting lineup of his time Ambrose played against that team and tore them to shreds. Again Mcgrath SR is 52 to Ambrose's 55, 3 balls diff big deal. Average 21 vs 22 (rounding up). Not much in it from where i sit.

Err saying that 3 balls is insiginifcant is equivalent to saying averaging 28 and 31 is the same. Harmison by the way averages 31 and if he were averaging 28 most would say he had a successful career. Most importantly though, Ambrose bowled less in subcontinental conditions, bowled on bowler friendly wickets than McGrath and still ended up with an SR that was higher than McGrath.

[tooextracool]

[QUOTE=subshakerz;1965829][QUOTE=tooextracool;1965772]Hes gone on record saying that McGrath was the best fast bowler hes ever faced.

No, I believe Lara has said that Wasim Akram was the best he faced, not McGrath.

Lara, McGrath talk each other up - Cricket - Fox Sports

Guess hes a bit confused because hes said that McGrath is the toughest bowler hes faced.

[subshakerz]

Lara, McGrath talk each other up - Cricket - Fox Sports

Guess hes a bit confused because hes said that McGrath is the toughest bowler hes faced.

Strange, because around the same time he reiterated that Wasim was tougher.

Lara rates Akram better than McGrath : thewest.com.au

[MrIncredible]

Err saying that 3 balls is insiginifcant is equivalent to saying averaging 28 and 31 is the same. Harmison by the way averages 31 and if he were averaging 28 most would say he had a successful career. Most importantly though, Ambrose bowled less in subcontinental conditions, bowled on bowler friendly wickets than McGrath and still ended up with an SR that was higher than McGrath.

3 balls are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, other wise y would we even debate who the greatest fast bowler of all time was since Marshall has a SR of 46 and an average of 20.94 thats 6 balls fewer than Mcgrath and about one run less in average.

I dont know how u can say that Ambrose bowled on more bowler friendly wickets. Ambrose and Mcgrath have similar records in England, and RSA. Mcgrath averages 18 in NZL and ambrose 23. Mcgrath averages 31 in Pakistan and Ambrose 25. Mcgrath is at 29 in SL but ambrose only played there once so ill leave that out. Mcgrath averages 21 in India (very impressive btw) but Ambrose never played in India.The way u tell it its as if Ambrose chose not to tour India (he was injured and left out the squad in 94) but he still has a impressive record in Asia in the limited tests he did play there (6 tests). Finally Mcgrath averages 21 in the WI and Ambrose 20 in Australia. But u should also remember that the OZ batting lineups that Ambrose had to bowl against are on a whole other level from the rag tag WI line up Mcgrath feasted on (Lara and a bunch of no name players).

People hold Mcgrath in high esteem and they should he was a great great bowler arguably the best of all time but Ambrose is also on that level and to suggest (as u did) that there is ne thing but a whisker between these 2 bowlers and to call Ambrose overated and a one trick pony is insulting to say the least!!