Imran Khan vs Allan Donald

[DrWolverine]

Donald gets penalised for his record against/in Australia

vs Aus : 14 Tests. 53 wkts. Avg of 31. SR of 61. 2 5-Fer
in Aus : 7 Tests. 29 wkts. Avg of 28. SR of 58. 1 5-Fer

Ambrose doesn’t get penalised for his record against India.
vs Ind : 9 Tests. 15 wkts. Avg of 38. SR of 99. No 5-Fer
He did not play a single Test in India.


Curtly Ambrose’s record against Pakistan isn’t that great as well.
14 Tests. 42 wickets. Avg of 28. SR of 69. 1 5-Fer

 

[DrWolverine]

Why is underperforming against a weaker team better than underperforming against a stronger team?

It’s actually even worse imo

 

[subshakerz]

Why is underperforming against a weaker team better than underperforming against a stronger team?

It's more forgivable if you consistently perform against stronger opposition for a lack of performance against a weaker one, it can be written off a blip.

Where's failing against stronger opposition can be seen as a skill issue and if nothing else you simply failed at the harder stuff.

 

[shortpitched713]

He really isn't in my view.

Would you have Donald over Ambrose too?

 

[subshakerz]

Would you have Donald over Ambrose too?

No. But I have Imran and Lillee over Ambrose now.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

No. But I have Lillee over Ambrose now.

Might as well have Akram and Trueman over Ambrose too now

 

[shortpitched713]

It's more forgivable if you consistently perform against stronger opposition for a lack of performance against a weaker one, it can be written off a blip.

Where's failing against stronger opposition can be seen as a skill issue and if nothing else you simply failed at the harder stuff.

Thirty Six
H
I
R
T
Y

S
I
X


is way worse than 31. It's not like Donald averaged

Thirty Six
H
I
R
T
Y

S
I
X

 

[subshakerz]

Thirty Six
H
I
R
T
Y

S
I
X


is way worse than 31. It's not like Donald averaged

Thirty Six
H
I
R
T
Y

S
I
X

Donald played five series against Australia and was only worldclass level in one. It's one reason no Aussie great of that gen rates him highly.

 

[subshakerz]

Might as well have Akram and Trueman over Ambrose too now

No. Ambrose is definitely better than them.

 

[Coronis]

It's more forgivable if you consistently perform against stronger opposition for a lack of performance against a weaker one, it can be written off a blip.

Where's failing against stronger opposition can be seen as a skill issue and if nothing else you simply failed at the harder stuff.

If you talk about similar sample sizes (very rare obviously) if a bowler or batsman can’t perform against a weaker opposition, its much worse than not being able to perform against a stronger opposition. Like Sobers against NZ.

 

[subshakerz]

If you talk about similar sample sizes (very rare obviously) if a bowler or batsman can’t perform against a weaker opposition, its much worse than not being able to perform against a stronger opposition. Like Sobers against NZ.

Please don't pretend we would be rating Sobers better if he failed against Australia but got loads against NZ.

We wouldn't and it's obvious why.

 

[Coronis]

Please don't pretend we would be rating Sobers better if he failed against Australia but got loads against NZ.

We wouldn't and it's obvious why.

Why is he allowed to fail against a weak team but not against a strong team? It makes no sense.

 

[subshakerz]

1

Why is he allowed to fail against a weak team but not against a strong team? It makes no sense.

Please address the point. If he succeeded against NZ but failed against Aus, would you rate him higher?

Lol his entire reputation is built on his achievements against credible strong opposition.

 

[Bolo.]

It's more forgivable if you consistently perform against stronger opposition for a lack of performance against a weaker one, it can be written off a blip.

Where's failing against stronger opposition can be seen as a skill issue and if nothing else you simply failed at the harder stuff.

Maybe if you are comparing to minnows, or something. A decent team is going to be outperforming a strong one a lot of the time. Performances vs number one in relation to vs number 2 aren't giving you meaningful info on whether you are looking at a blip.

If you want to follow this logic, and avoid blips, compare performances vs all strong teams to performances vs all weak ones.

 

[DrWolverine]

Sobers’ record against NZ is baffling - 27. 25. 27. 1. 1. 11. 0. 20. 39. 0. 13*. 19. 9. 35. 142. 5. 28. 2.

I don’t think any Top tier batsmen has such a poor record for a large sample size like him and what’s more surprising they were quite a weak team then

 

[subshakerz]

Sobers’ record against NZ is baffling - 27. 25. 27. 1. 1. 11. 0. 20. 39. 0. 13*. 19. 9. 35. 142. 5. 28. 2.

I don’t think any Top tier batsmen has such a poor record for a large sample size like him and what’s more surprising they were quite a weak team then

Ok we can agree it's a blemish in his record

If he had the same record against Australia, would you consider that more serious?

 

[Coronis]

1
Please address the point. If he succeeded against NZ but failed against Aus, would you rate him higher?

Lol his entire reputation is built on his achievements against credible strong opposition.

No. But that’s literally not what we’re arguing here. You’re saying failing against a worse team is better than failing against a better team.

Its more impressive and unexpected when someone does well against a great team. Like the inverse its more unimpressive and unexpected when someone does poorly against a worse team.

Good performances against good teams obviously swing a player’s rating much more than good performances against bad teams. But bad performances against poor teams should definitely be held against them just as much if not more than bad performances against good teams. In Sobers case particularly, there is no excuse. He has 12 matches against NZ. Both home and away he was awful. He had 1 century (not even the highest score that innings), 17 scores below 40 including 15 below 30. And you don’t think that should count against him because they were a weak team?

 

[subshakerz]

No. But that’s literally not what we’re arguing here. You’re saying failing against a worse team is better than failing against a better team.

You literally said: 'its much worse than not being able to perform against a stronger opposition'. So logically you would find Sobers doing poorly against NZ worse than doing poorly against Aus. You just don't want to follow your own logic in this because it leads to embarassing conclusions because we all wouldn't rate Sobers the same if he failed against Aus.

Its more impressive and unexpected when someone does well against a great team. Like the inverse its more unimpressive and unexpected when someone does poorly against a worse team.

Good performances against good teams obviously swing a player’s rating much more than good performances against bad teams. But bad performances against poor teams should definitely be held against them just as much if not more than bad performances against good teams.

Lol this is so silly. The reason it's surprising to fail against a poor team is because a player already has a record of scoring well against similar if not better opposition. So whereas it's a blemish, it's not a fundamental question of his ability as a cricketer since he is already proven. Nobody thinks Sobers doesn't deserve to be an ATG due to how he played because of NZ.

Whereas failing against higher opposition does put your skills and ability as a player into question since it suggests you have a cap and limitation. Sobers failing against Aus would call into question whether he even deserves to be considered an ATG.

 

[DrWolverine]

Ok we can agree it's a blemish in his record

If he had the same record against Australia, would you consider that more serious?

Yes. I don’t deny it. Regarding Ambrose vs Donald : Yes Donald has an obvious flaw which is his record against/in Australia.

I am asking surprised some posters just giving a free pass to Curtly Ambrose when he has similar if not more flaws in his record. Yes he has a great record against Australia but is that alone enough and why shouldn’t we highlight the obvious holes in his record.

 

[subshakerz]

I am asking surprised some posters just giving a free pass to Curtly Ambrose when he has similar if not more flaws in his record. Yes he has a great record against Australia but is that alone enough and why shouldn’t we highlight the obvious holes in his record.

Mostly due to laziness in reading surface stats of averages.