Lillee/Trueman/Akram/Donald - how would you rank them?

[shortpitched713]

Mods, is it too late to add a poll to this thread?

 

[subshakerz]

In West Indies 1954, Trueman and Lock were accused to shouting at, harrassing and shoving around the wife of a MCC member and both almost lost their careers to it, since then many stories have come out and implied that the ones responsible were not the Juniors in Trueman and Lock, but the seniors in Denis Compton and Godfrey Evans and they were the one to be all harrassive and shoving around the lady. Trueman and Lock were most likely thrown under the bus to protect the more respected Compton and Evans, and Trueman would miss almost every game for a few years. He also went against the MCC as the MCC had asked the English team to not fraternise with the Windies team which Trueman directly went against, due to his rebellious nature, and befriended Sir Frank Worrell. All in all, a really controversial tour which ended with Trueman forever being soured against Hutton and the establishment and them soured toward him, as he apparently was not racist enough.

I don't see any of this as good reasons for him to ignore his record that series.

he only really got digs at elite batting on flat wickets in the 60s, never really got a dig at weak South African battings on spicy Saffer wickets, or the weak Pakistani batting lineups on mattings and so forth. While I get it, He doesn't have away ATG tours so should be below Imran or Steyn or yada yada, I don't think many bowlers are doing much better than 41 @ 26 against the top two batting lineups on flat away wickets. I don't think he was a HTB or whatever, just someone who the establishment of the time despised and tried hardest to get rid of, and someone who was dealt a pretty rough hand away from home generally.

Problem is not those series specifically but he doesn't have more to show outside those flat series which will be best described as good. But we have debated it.

 

[sayon basak]

Akram
Lillee
Trueman
Donald

All 4 are very close.

 

[Johan]

I don't see any of this as good reasons for him to ignore his record that series.

Not being paid fully is probably a very good reason to not put in all your effort.

Problem is not those series specifically but he doesn't have more to show outside those flat series which will be best described as good. But we have debated it.

Duh, look I'm not interested in debating Trueman for another five pages in this thread too, like I said, I don't think Trueman is a HTB or any worse than the greats against Great batting on away flat wickets, I take it as him not having ATG away tours due to genuine lack of opportunity and it's why I have him below who I have him below, same concept with Lillee.

 

[subshakerz]

Eww, bad argument is bad. Lot of variation here from "peer consensus" and CW, but I guess some people will take it more into consideration, meh.

There isn't any other way to look at it. McGrath, Ambrose and Akram are just better rated than Donald. I've almost never seen him described as some peers best bowler.

On the other argument, I will grant some of it, but out of the players with smaller than a full career Test sample size, his might actually be a case where it hurts him more than it helps him. By the time SA was admitted, and he could play his first Test Donald was already 25, going on 26 later that year. If anything he got some of his peak years cut, while at the same time getting all of his decline, already hurting his average. I won't extrapolate like many players like to do with SA players, but at the very least I can't hold a somewhat shorter career (still played 72 Tests, more than Trueman at least anyway) against him, given his circumstances being a bit unique.

Donald only hit his peak in 96 so if he debuted a couple years earlier he may have soft records more added to his record. His peak was also slightly shorter than the others.

 

[subshakerz]

Not being paid fully is probably a very good reason to not put in all your effort.

That's an assumption and deliberate underperformance shouldn't be considered acceptable.

A lot of cricketers face offfield pressures but they are still expected to deliver the goods on the field.

The only exception I can think of entertaining is Cummins who had a death in the family situation.

 

[Johan]

That's an assumption and deliberate underperformance shouldn't be considered acceptable.

You can just have a different standard than me, but I think the mental aspect of it is very important and when he got barely picked to play that series (missed two games) because of something beyond his control, I don't think it's a big deal, and two games (one played on a wicket that puts Lillee's pak ones to shame) are definitely not enough for the coining of HTB.

 

[shortpitched713]

There isn't any other way to look at it. McGrath, Ambrose and Akram are just better rated than Donald. I've almost never seen him described as some peers best bowler.

Let's be real, the big one here is Akram vs Donald, as I and most here rate McGrath and Ambrose over Akram anyway. The shortened career of Donald and a certain special mystique and promotion of Akram could be a big part of this. But regardless Wasim is "overrated" at least a little bit by peer rating, at least as much as Imran, for instance, might be underrated. His is a special case so the head to head in peer rating just seems off here.

 

[Johan]

Let's be real, the big one here is Akram vs Donald, as I and most here rate McGrath and Ambrose over Akram anyway. The shortened career of Donald and a certain special mystique and promotion of Akram could be a big part of this. But regardless Wasim is "overrated" at least a little bit by peer rating, at least as much as Imran, for instance, might be underrated. His is a special case so the head to head in peer rating just seems off here.

He has Lillee over both though.

 

[sayon basak]

He has Lillee over both though.

There is no "big one" here, all four are very close. Suggesting otherwise is just false.

 

[shortpitched713]

Donald only hit his peak in 96 so if he debuted a couple years earlier he may have soft records more added to his record. His peak was also slightly shorter than the others.

Could go either way. But I'm not going to assume it's a case where it would definitely hurt his record, as the more usual case where a career is cut short after an injury or other malady in a player's peak, often will be.

 

[subshakerz]

You can just have a different standard than me, but I think the mental aspect of it is very important and when he got barely picked to play that series (missed two games) because of something beyond his control, I don't think it's a big deal, and two games (one played on a wicket that puts Lillee's pak ones to shame) are definitely not enough for the coining of HTB.

You will open a Pandoras box with this mental aspect thing because I can assure you we will be discarding plenty of other tests too. Like maybe we shouldn't consider tests where Ganguly was battling his own coach Greg Chappell to stay in the team. Bottomline is if you take the field and are fit you are expected to perform as a professional.

It was early career anyways so we can be lenient but we can't ignore those tests in his record unless injured. They stay and can be used against him as further samples he didn't deliver in.

 

[shortpitched713]

There is no "big one" here, all four are very close. Suggesting otherwise is just false.

Misread his post. I was thinking he was only using the peer review to prop Akram. But it looks like he's using it for all 3.

I still stand by my idea. If we're going to just throw up our hands and go by what the players from the time said (especially from these eras where we can see the footage ourself to judge), then we might as well not have such discussions, and close every thread after polling the papers and video interview snippets.

 

[sayon basak]

Misread his post. I was thinking he was only using the peer review to prop Akram. But it looks like he's using it for all 3.

I still stand by my idea. If we're going to just throw up our hands and go by what the players from the time said (especially from these eras where we can see the footage ourself to judge), then we might as well not have such discussions, and close every thread after polling the papers and video interview snippets.

He never said that's the only criteria tho.

 

[subshakerz]

Let's be real, the big one here is Akram vs Donald, as I and most here rate McGrath and Ambrose over Akram anyway. The shortened career of Donald and a certain special mystique and promotion of Akram could be a big part of this. But regardless Wasim is "overrated" at least a little bit by peer rating, at least as much as Imran, for instance, might be underrated. His is a special case so the head to head in peer rating just seems off here.

No the issue is why doesn't Donald get better rating occasionally over his peers but is almost universally rated lower?

As for Wasim, Wasim had an 18 year career, debuting at a teen, far longer than Donald, twice as many tests in India, three WI tours to Donald's one, three SL tours to Donald's one, four England tours to Donald's two, three tours of NZ to Donald's one, etc while still playing more at home on tougher wickets and with horrible fielding support. He has a longer bowling peak than Donald too.

So that accounts IMO for their stats difference. Wasim may not have as great stats but was better tested over a longer career and I've never seen a cricketer who faced both claim Donald is better.

 

[subshakerz]

Misread his post. I was thinking he was only using the peer review to prop Akram. But it looks like he's using it for all 3.

I still stand by my idea. If we're going to just throw up our hands and go by what the players from the time said (especially from these eras where we can see the footage ourself to judge), then we might as well not have such discussions, and close every thread after polling the papers and video interview snippets.

Peer rating is just one measure.

 

[Johan]

You will open a Pandoras box with this mental aspect thing because I can assure you we will be discarding plenty of other tests too. Like maybe we shouldn't consider tests where Ganguly was battling his own coach Greg Chappell to stay in the team. Bottomline is if you take the field and are fit you are expected to perform as a professional.

It was early career anyways so we can be lenient but we can't ignore those tests in his record unless injured. They stay and can be used against him as further samples he didn't deliver in.

I do put an asterisk there on the Ganguly stuff and wouldn't necessarily degrade his normal batsmenship for it. If you want another example, I don't mind Cummins' away record because of the same factor in India, same with Gower's tour to Windies in 85 and yada yada yada, I'm consistent in that regard. Especially since that Series for Trueman is just the second test being played on the flattest wicket ever maybe, the scorelines read.

681/8 Dec
537
214/4 Dec
98/3
Draw

and in the final crucial test he got the crucial wickets to save the series anyway, makes about as much as sense as completely considering Lillee's Pakistan series honestly, only one real bad game.

 

[subshakerz]

I do put an asterisk there on the Ganguly stuff and wouldn't necessarily degrade his normal batsmenship for it. If you want another example, I don't mind Cummins' away record because of the same factor in India, same with Gower's tour to Windies in 85 and yada yada yada, I'm consistent in that regard. Especially since that Series for Trueman is just the second test being played on the flattest wicket ever maybe, the scorelines read.

681/8 Dec
537
214/4 Dec
98/3
Draw

and in the final crucial test he got the crucial wickets to save the series anyway, makes about as much as sense as completely considering Lillee's Pakistan series honestly, only one real bad game.

You asked me to not use the 54 series at all though.

Lillees 79 series is just too small a single sample but if he played more it would be considered as part of his overall Pak stats.

 

[Johan]

You asked me to not use the 54 series at all though.

Lillees 79 series is just too small a single sample but if he played more it would be considered as part of his overall Pak stats.

Yeah I don't think you should, way too controversial with a way bigger problem looming around than your test performances.

Yeah I don't think that makes much sense, for you the validity of that series hinges on if Lillee gets to play in Pakistan again?

 

[Johan]

There is no "big one" here, all four are very close. Suggesting otherwise is just false.

throw in Garner, Holding, Lindwall and Davidson and you got like 8 pacers exactly as good as each other.