• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Alan Donald vs Joel Garner

D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Garner.

He had a lethal bouncer, a lethal yorker and facing him would have been like facing an ordinary pacer bowling from a balcony. FMD he would have been horrible to play as a batsman.

The awkward bounce makes him more difficult than Donald, IMO - as good as Donald was.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
blahblahblah said:
Reason?
Click to expand...
He was quick enough, especially when he was younger. He was unerringly accurate, bowled from a ridiculous height and gave nothing away. People often think Garner wasn't fast because he kind of loped in and looked like he was in slow motion. But plenty of blokes said he was as fast as his team mates.

Donald was a fine bowler, make no mistake. I just think Garner was bit better.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
rvd619323 said:
Garner.

He had a lethal bouncer, a lethal yorker and facing him would have been like facing an ordinary pacer bowling from a balcony. FMD he would have been horrible to play as a batsman.

The awkward bounce makes him more difficult than Donald, IMO - as good as Donald was.
Click to expand...
Garner's height is massively overrated. There were many bowlers of similar heights, notably Ambrose (6' 8") and McGrath (6' 6"). Tremlett, Harmison, Broad, Rankin, Finn are current ones I could think of who are around that height ctgory. If some one argues that he difference of 3 inches in height (5-6 on bowling height) makes such a difference they need to geth their heads checked.
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Migara said:
Garner's height is massively overrated. There were many bowlers of similar heights, notably Ambrose (6' 8") and McGrath (6' 6"). Tremlett, Harmison, Broad, Rankin, Finn are current ones I could think of who are around that height ctgory. If some one argues that he difference of 3 inches in height (5-6 on bowling height) makes such a difference they need to geth their heads checked.
Click to expand...
Discounting the possibility that Garner's arms were longer? The height at the head isn't the relevant bit if, like Michael Phelps, he has a few inches longer on his arms than his height and the others have, like normal people, a roughly similar arm-span to their heights. Garner really did look like he some seriously long arms.

Obviously I don't know the story but going on their head-height seems, well, a bit limited. Especially since Garner probably got his arm as vertical as possible when compared to the others.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
It's very close but I think Donald is very underrated. Was as good as anyone in the 90s. So, I'd pick Donald, just.
 
Last edited:
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ikki said:
Why not? We've had this discussion a billion times. Warne and Murali's stats are basically level when you take into account the fact that Murali played the minnow teams far more often and Warne is a great slip fielder and could hold a bat. At the pinnacle of ODIs (WCs) he was incredible also. What's to laugh about?

As to the discussion; it's very close but I think Donald is very underrated. Was as good as anyone in the 90s. So, I'd pick Donald, just.
Click to expand...
Nah you get out of it too ****. How is this a Murali vs Warne thread?
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!


Unrelated but has anyone seen this film? Feels like I've seen it a million times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top