Dale Steyn vs Allan Donald vs Shaun Pollock

[akilana]

There is no right answer to this but I think you are under estimating Donald there.
His only real failure is against Australia in SA and in Pakistan where he played only 2 matches.

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by akilana

There is no right answer to this but I think you are under estimating Donald there.
His only real failure is against Australia in SA and in Pakistan where he played only 2 matches.

I may well be. I didn't get to witness nearly enough of White Lightning in his prime due to my youth. What I have seen though is bloody impressive. I'd still say Steyn has more X-factor - the same sort that puts guys like Marshall ahead of their competition. I'm obviously not saying that Steyn is as good as Marshall was, just using a transferable sliver of logic.

Donald is generally considered to be better than Pollock... that's also due to that X-factor I'm trying to explain, given that they have very comparable stats.

[Dazinho]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

Donald marginally the best bowler, would pick Pollock in my world XI because of his batting.

Also, Pollock is a sexy man, the other two definitely aren't.

Broadly agree with all of this, but have no opinion on the last line!!

Think Dale and AD are very similar types of bowlers who looked to make an explosive impact. Pollock was a more econonomical 'corridor' bowler in the Hadlee mould and there's no doubt he and AD benefited from having each other bowling in tandem.

Part of my answer would be dependant upon who else I already had in the team - if I already have strike bowlers and/or a weak tail then go for Pollock. Completely agree that in absolute terms, AD is the best as a pure bowler out of the three.

[Slifer]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

Well for me, Steyn is our best bowler ever. That said, I'd say Proctor could have been rated > Pollock if he'd had more chances. I'd definitely take Proctor as a cricketer over Pollock though.


Yeah, for me Steyn>Donald. There will always be the nonsense about Steyn playing against weaker batsmen than Donald, but bare in mind that for a large part of his career Steyn orchestrated his own wickets, whereas Donald had Fanie/Shaun to build pressure. Up until a year ago, Morkel really couldn't create enough much pressure to help Steyn. If anything, Morkel's stats were boosted by Steyn's pressure.*

The difference between the two goes beyond stats, imo. Why is Marshall rated the best ever by most? I mean, his stats are pretty similar to most of his competition, so what makes Malcolm stand out? There is something that goes beyond stats that gets someone like Marshall recognition over his statistical rivals, and to me that is the same something that makes Steyn more valuable than Donald as a bowler. Who would you want to take the new ball for you in a crucial match?

*I feel dirty for that little excerpt insulting Morkel. I don't know if I'll forgive myself.

Well for me what sets MM apart statistically is his sub 23 average vs all teams and his sub 25 average home/away vs all teams (except for 3 lousy tests in NZ the last 2 of which he was carryin a back injury). No other bowler of MM's time (or since) has had that level of consistency and excellence vs all teams (and also bear in mind he never played ne minnows).

MM's xfactor was his ability to just about bowl everything (off cutters, leg cutters, outswing, inswing etc ) ne where + his very very nasty bouncer. The greatest compliment I think came from the magician himself Wasim Akram...ask him who he thinks the best fast bowler of all time is and he never hesitates to talk of the late great MM.

[kyear2]

Well said Slifer.

[watson]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

I may well be. I didn't get to witness nearly enough of White Lightning in his prime due to my youth. What I have seen though is bloody impressive. I'd still say Steyn has more X-factor - the same sort that puts guys like Marshall ahead of their competition. I'm obviously not saying that Steyn is as good as Marshall was, just using a transferable sliver of logic.

Donald is generally considered to be better than Pollock... that's also due to that X-factor I'm trying to explain, given that they have very comparable stats.

Pollock's stat's take a dip in the absence of Donald. So Pollock needed Donald to bowl really well, but Donald never relied on Pollock. His stat's are the same whether supported by Pollock or not. Therefore, Donald is better than Pollock.

As far as Donald V Steyn - swings n' round-a-bouts really. But I have a personal preference for a younger Donald bowling short of length at a pace that can hurt. And with a lot of off-cut which he was really good at.