Allan Donald vs Michael Holding

[trundler]

Yeah. 3rd best WIndies quick, best first change bowler ever and a great mate to Snuffleupagus.

Dibs on the eventual Cummins v Garner GOAT 3rd seamer thread

 

[honestbharani]

Dibs on the eventual Cummins v Garner GOAT 3rd seamer thread

Dibs on FP stepping in with Wagner reference within first 10 posts of said thread.

 

[Johan]

don't know why Donald won, Holding is just a strictly better Donald.

 

[subshakerz]

don't know why Donald won, Holding is just a strictly better Donald.

I have Donald ahead because of sample size.

 

[Johan]

I have Donald ahead because of sample size.

I have holding ahead on the account of superior record in the big 3

 

[subshakerz]

I have holding ahead on the account of superior record in the big 3

Yeah he was likely a better quality bowler but sadly too short a career and output to qualify as ATG

 

[The Sean]

Yeah he was likely a better quality bowler but sadly too short a career and output to qualify as ATG

Fewer matches, yes - and WSC addresses most of that gap - but Holding's Test career (1975-87) lasted longer than Donald's (1992-2002).

 

[Johan]

Yeah he was likely a better quality bowler but sadly too short a career and output to qualify as ATG

Holding played more years, and 284 wickets @ 23 when including WSC, not very far from Donald's tally of 330 @ 22.

 

[Bolo.]

Fewer matches, yes - and WSC addresses most of that gap - but Holding's Test career (1975-87) lasted longer than Donald's (1992-2002).

That's WSC and injuries for Holding.

Donald was also banned though, and for longer. His rebel series debut was in 87 iirc, which would have given him a long career for a quick.

 

[subshakerz]

Fewer matches, yes - and WSC addresses most of that gap - but Holding's Test career (1975-87) lasted longer than Donald's (1992-2002).

Yes in terms of years but not output.

 

[subshakerz]

Holding played more years, and 284 wickets @ 23 when including WSC, not very far from Donald's tally of 330 @ 22.

Fair enough but WSC is supplementary to tests. For me I need a minimum 300 wicket threshold to qualify for ATG as a modern bowler.

 

[Johan]

Fair enough but WSC is supplementary to tests. For me I need a minimum 300 wicket threshold to qualify for ATG as a modern bowler.

250 for me personally.

 

[The Sean]

That's WSC and injuries for Holding.

Donald was also banned though, and for longer. His rebel series debut was in 87 iirc, which would have given him a long career for a quick.

Yeah, we've discussed this before I think - Donald didn't debut in Test cricket until he was 25 and knew his craft well by then so didn't have perhaps the early career inconsistencies or blips some younger quicks might have. On the other hand, you wonder what kind of record he might have built up had he been able to play official Tests from age 20.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah he was likely a better quality bowler but sadly too short a career and output to qualify as ATG

Yes in terms of years but not output.

Fair enough but WSC is supplementary to tests. For me I need a minimum 300 wicket threshold to qualify for ATG as a modern bowler.

OK, so you were only talking output in your original post. Not length of career.

 

[subshakerz]

OK, so you were only talking output in your original post. Not length of career.

Yeah sorry about that brother, meant output.

 

[subshakerz]

250 for me personally.

I respect that. But I like to keep criteria a bit restrictive. Also I think Garner and Holding, for whatever reason, didn't gather the ATG rep that the others did.

 

[Coronis]

Fair enough but WSC is supplementary to tests. For me I need a minimum 300 wicket threshold to qualify for ATG as a modern bowler.

250 for me personally.

113 for me

 

[shortpitched713]

224 for mine.