The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Chrish]

It’s pretty ******** to argue how player didn’t face his own team.

And difference of 4 runs in average is pretty significant.

 

[jimmy101]

I meant McGrath was lucky to have played for and not against the greatest team ever. Many modern day greats including Donald, Akram, Waqar, Pollock etc didn’t have a great record against the Aussies.

All good bro I was only mucking about, if anything I was poking fun at some of the other posts on here rather than yours.

But what you said there is most certainly a factor. Having awesome bowlers with you as part of an attack will most certainly help out. Pressure coming from both ends will almost always wreak havoc for the batsmen. On the flipside, having a stellar batting lineup on your team will help out by creating scoreboard pressure etc.

 

[h_hurricane]

PS what was the quality of Indian team during Benaud/ Davidson days? Did they bowl against any decent batsmen?

They bowled against the best Indian batsmen of the early era excluding Hazare and Merchant. Borde,Roy,Contractor,Umrigar,Manjrekar. Decent line up.

 

[jimmy101]

Not sure if Benaud/Davo went up against Merchant.

 

[ankitj]

I agree McGrath is one of the ATGs.

My question is simple. Why is someone like Donald who was just as good thought as inferior to McGrath? They are almost equals IMO.

I clearly remember Donald was spoken of as the best fast bowler in the world in 96-99 period. That when he had some elite fast bowling contemporaries. Certainly Donald's reputation is not as high as it should be. His SR was best among his contemporaries, save Waqar.

 

[h_hurricane]

Not sure if Benaud/Davo went up against Merchant.

Merchant retired a few years before they debuted.

 

[ataraxia]

And Mankad.

 

[ataraxia]

Merchant retired a few years before they debuted.

Hazare also retired at the very start of Benaud/Davo's career without playing against them.

 

[Logan]

I clearly remember Donald was spoken of as the best fast bowler in the world in 96-99 period. That when he had some elite fast bowling contemporaries. Certainly Donald's reputation is not as high as it should be. His SR was best among his contemporaries, save Waqar.

The four best fast bowlers back then were McGrath, Ambrose, Donald and Akram.

Donald ended up with the best ODI average, best ODI strike rate and best Test Strike Rate among those four.

Also, the least remembered among all of them.

 

[Flametree]

Waqar never seems to get a mention in these chats, but didn't he have the best strike rate of all?

 

[Burgey]

Fell away pretty dramatically once he started getting injuries. Got the point he was doing so bad he moved to Bella Vista.

 

[stephen]

McGrath's average and strike rate against South Africa is just statistical noise. He never lost a series against them and actually did relatively worse on South African pitches mostly because the lesser Aussie bowlers and Warne ran riot on them with the extra movement on offer. McGrath virtually never bowled to the tail either for much the same reasons.

McGrath's reputation is based mostly on how his career coincided with the easiest time for batsmen in fifty years and how he still managed to maintain all time great figures. He also successfully targeted the best batsmen of the opposition (which is why India were the only side to really push Australia during that time - McGrath was injured for most of the India series').

Donald doesn't get enough praise for his skills though. Was genuinely the best quick in the late 90s for a couple of years, with the possible exception of Pollock. But career-wise, McGrath comes out looking better. Not too much between them though and certainly Donald is a top 30, probably top 15 of all time quick.

 

[h_hurricane]

McGrath's average and strike rate against South Africa is just statistical noise. He never lost a series against them and actually did relatively worse on South African pitches mostly because the lesser Aussie bowlers and Warne ran riot on them with the extra movement on offer. McGrath virtually never bowled to the tail either for much the same reasons.

McGrath's reputation is based mostly on how his career coincided with the easiest time for batsmen in fifty years and how he still managed to maintain all time great figures. He also successfully targeted the best batsmen of the opposition (which is why India were the only side to really push Australia during that time - McGrath was injured for most of the India series').

Donald doesn't get enough praise for his skills though. Was genuinely the best quick in the late 90s for a couple of years, with the possible exception of Pollock. But career-wise, McGrath comes out looking better. Not too much between them though and certainly Donald is a top 30, probably top 15 of all time quick.

Donald only top 30 and at best Top 15 ? There should be a maximum of 5 spots between Mcgrath and him objectively.

 

[ataraxia]

McGrath's average and strike rate against South Africa is just statistical noise. He never lost a series against them and actually did relatively worse on South African pitches mostly because the lesser Aussie bowlers and Warne ran riot on them with the extra movement on offer. McGrath virtually never bowled to the tail either for much the same reasons.

McGrath's reputation is based mostly on how his career coincided with the easiest time for batsmen in fifty years and how he still managed to maintain all time great figures. He also successfully targeted the best batsmen of the opposition (which is why India were the only side to really push Australia during that time - McGrath was injured for most of the India series').

Donald doesn't get enough praise for his skills though. Was genuinely the best quick in the late 90s for a couple of years, with the possible exception of Pollock. But career-wise, McGrath comes out looking better. Not too much between them though and certainly Donald is a top 30, probably top 15 of all time quick.

Great post.

 

[ataraxia]

Donald only top 30 and at best Top 15 ? There should be a maximum of 5 spots between Mcgrath and him objectively.

Not having Donald ahead of Barnes or Imran (or both). Definitely top 10 however.

 

[Logan]

McGrath's average and strike rate against South Africa is just statistical noise.

When McGrath has a mediocre record against SA, it is statiscial noise?

When Donald has a mediocre record against Aus, it isn’t?

He never lost a series against them and .

That’s because McGrath played for arguably the greatest team ever.

But career-wise, McGrath comes out looking better.

If you balance out Donald’s mediocre record against Aus and McGrath’s mediocre record against SA; Donald’s numbers are more complete and better.

McGrath averages 31 in Pakistan, 29 in SriLanka and has taken one 5WPI in 17 Tests in Asia.

McGrath's reputation is based mostly on how his career coincided with the easiest time for batsmen in fifty years and how he still managed to maintain all time great figures.

Sachin averaged 36 against Australia when McGrath played. Sachin averaged 32 against South Africa when Donald played.

Brian Lara has never scored a single century against Allan Donald in 10 Tests.



Objectively speaking, they are almost equals as fast bowlers. Yet McGrath is considered as Top 3 bowler while Donald doesn’t even crack the Top 10 bowler by many.

 

[jimmy101]

Woah! Hold the phone, McGrath is in no way Donald's equal.

 

[stephen]

It's funny, but last I heard McGrath and Donald played cricket. They didn't play bowling statistics ninja.

The reason Donald is rated below McGrath on his career is not just statistical, it comes from having watched both and taking into account other factors, like the types of pitches they played on and how their contemporaries performed.

The Sachin stats you mentioned are meaningless. McGrath played against Sachin in what, 6 tests IIRC. That's noise.

McGrath was almost as good as Donald in the late 90s. They were virtually inseparable (Donald was faster, McGrath got more bounce but both were super effective). But then in the 00s when the batsmen got the upper hand and pitches flattened out worldwide, McGrath got better. He was better. He just knew how to get batsmen out like nobody else.

I saw a decent chunk of Donald. He was great but suffers in the memory from having played in an era with Ambrose, McGrath, peak Pollock, Waqar and Wasim. He was not clearly better than any of these guys, except for short periods. Unlike Marshall, Donald didn't stand out from the other greats around him. McGrath was clearly the best fast bowler from around 2001/02 to 2007 and the gap between him and everyone else was light years.

And that's why slicing stats is completely meaningless when you're trying to understand why McGrath is rightly rated higher than Donald.

FWIW I rate Donald somewhere around 15th best of all time, but I haven't done a list in ages, which is why the broad range of top 30 or top 15. But fast bowlers who I rate higher than him from the top of my head are McGrath, Marshall, Ambrose, Hadlee, Steyn and Garner. I'd have to think about the others.

 

[vcs]

McGrath's average and strike rate against South Africa is just statistical noise. He never lost a series against them and actually did relatively worse on South African pitches mostly because the lesser Aussie bowlers and Warne ran riot on them with the extra movement on offer. McGrath virtually never bowled to the tail either for much the same reasons.

McGrath's reputation is based mostly on how his career coincided with the easiest time for batsmen in fifty years and how he still managed to maintain all time great figures. He also successfully targeted the best batsmen of the opposition (which is why India were the only side to really push Australia during that time - McGrath was injured for most of the India series').

Donald doesn't get enough praise for his skills though. Was genuinely the best quick in the late 90s for a couple of years, with the possible exception of Pollock. But career-wise, McGrath comes out looking better. Not too much between them though and certainly Donald is a top 30, probably top 15 of all time quick.

Things like this come down to matchups rather than you attributing it simply to "McGrath = win".

Donald actually did better against Indian batsmen than McGrath, and SA were generally more successful against India because their batsmen could negotiate spin better than the Aussies did in India.

Similarly, their lack of success against Australia in McGrath's time is actually because they were clueless against Warne and had a weaker batting lineup. Basically, they were a slightly inferior Australia with a similar style of play.

It's the same reason NZ always lose to Australia and South Africa, but can usually beat subcontinent teams at home.

 

[vcs]

India under Ganguly performed better against Australia in the early '00s because their players rose to the challenge and raised their game whereas the "better on-paper teams" like South Africa and Pakistan would talk a big game but crumble on the field.