• 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.

Ravichandran Ashwin vs Allan Donald

Who is the greater test cricketer?


  • Total voters
    32

Bolo.

International Captain
I never saw Marshall or Hadlee bowl, probably the very fag end of their careers, same with Imran. Kapil played till 1994 and so I recall him playing far more. And the thing about longevity is, for me, to a certain point it also shows adaptability between different eras. Donald, to me, basically played in only one era.



I am ranking careers more than just on ability tbf. Also, I do think I saw some failures of Donald that play a role in me not rating him as high. I actually think I might rate Pollock an ATG as well, as he kinda reinvented himself to help his side across eras.
You never rate players you haven't seen?

I don't think any of the players you have listed other than McGrath* played in multiple eras. 80s and 90s was basically a prolonged period of fast bowling paradise, helped out by bad bats. Waqar and Ambrose in particular have an almost identical era to Donald.

*And Pollock, now that you bring him up. But while I think he should rise a little bit relative to some of these players for playing half of his career in a batting era, him failing in a batting era is absolutely not a reason to rate him over clearly better bowlers.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
You never rate players you haven't seen?

I don't think any of the players you have listed other than McGrath* played in multiple eras. 80s and 90s was basically a prolonged period of fast bowling paradise, helped out by bad bats. Waqar and Ambrose in particular have an almost identical era to Donald.

*And Pollock, now that you bring him up. But while I think he should rise a little bit relative to some of these players for playing half of his career in a batting era, him failing in a batting era is absolutely not a reason to rate him over clearly better bowlers.

That is where we differ. I agree Donald could be more destructive but better means other perspectives too.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Waqar and Ambrose in particular have an almost identical era to Donald.
I just think of the 1992 WC to 2003 WC period as the "90s era". The CEO pitches started soon after that WC and lasted till about 2015 for the most part. And the era between say the advent of white ball cricket to the 1992 WC as another era in cricket.

Something like pre 1992, 92-2003, 2003-2015, 2016-today is how classify the eras of modern cricket in my head. And I saw quite a bit of the cricket from around 89 to 1992, at least the games that were available in television in India. And the other eras I think watched/followed almost all international cricket played. Heck, I even remember a random county game in 1996 or 1997 when Pollock got 4 wickets in 4 balls in that 60 over OD tournament they had in England, for Warwickshire. Watched it live as I thought it was so exciting that I could see domestic cricket from another country in my TV.
 

Bolo.

International Captain
That is where we differ. I agree Donald could be more destructive but better means other perspectives too.
Destuctiveness absolutely does matter when it comes down to your top bowlers taking a pile of wickets instead of leaving the job for worse ones. It's cool if you can pull a McGrath and both attack and contain, but he is a special level of quality. And even him, I would rate higher if he took more wickets on pitches that didn't suit, or against bats that were capable of dealing with him. Leaving the wicket taking to less capable bowlers is not a good thing when things are tough.
I just think of the 1992 WC to 2003 WC period as the "90s era". The CEO pitches started soon after that WC and lasted till about 2015 for the most part. And the era between say the advent of white ball cricket to the 1992 WC as another era in cricket.

Something like pre 1992, 92-2003, 2003-2015, 2016-today is how classify the eras of modern cricket in my head. And I saw quite a bit of the cricket from around 89 to 1992, at least the games that were available in television in India. And the other eras I think watched/followed almost all international cricket played. Heck, I even remember a random county game in 1996 or 1997 when Pollock got 4 wickets in 4 balls in that 60 over OD tournament they had in England, for Warwickshire. Watched it live as I thought it was so exciting that I could see domestic cricket from another country in my TV.
Are you sure you are not classifying test eras by ODI WCs? Did anything fundamentally change after 92? And even if there's a difference, classifying Donald as a different era to Waqar/Ambrose seems a bit weird to me. It's an identical timeframe, plus a couple of years.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Destuctiveness absolutely does matter when it comes down to your top bowlers taking a pile of wickets instead of leaving the job for worse ones. It's cool if you can pull a McGrath and both attack and contain, but he is a special level of quality. And even him, I would rate higher if he took more wickets on pitches that didn't suit, or against bats that were capable of dealing with him. Leaving the wicket taking to less capable bowlers is not a good thing when things are tough.
I never said it does not matter. I just said there are other perspectives to being a better bowler.

Are you sure you are not classifying test eras by ODI WCs? Did anything fundamentally change after 92? And even if there's a difference, classifying Donald as a different era to Waqar/Ambrose seems a bit weird to me. It's an identical timeframe, plus a couple of years.
I think a number of greats retired around the 1992 WC or just before. I think there was a lot of passing of the guard for the test teams around then. Zim got good, RSA came back. Quite a few things changed around then, IMO.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
And hey, you can say what you want, but I seem to have thought this way for a while now. :)







 

Bolo.

International Captain
I never said it does not matter. I just said there are other perspectives to being a better bowler.



I think a number of greats retired around the 1992 WC or just before. I think there was a lot of passing of the guard for the test teams around then. Zim got good, RSA came back. Quite a few things changed around then, IMO.
I perspective needs to have a rationale backing it. Mine does, and I've given it.

Greats are always retiring. I think you are refering to the fact that Imran, Marshall, and Hadlee retired around the same time. But Imran was well done as a bowler long before 92, and Marshall was mostly done before as well. The era didn't suddenly shift to a lack of good quicks from their absence. It just transitioned into different good quicks. 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95 are the debut years of the leading quicks from the era IIRC.

I don't think RSA and Zim joining tests did much to change style or quality. Just more teams.
 

PlayerComparisons

International Regular
Ashwin gets an easy ride for his away record, but he will be a very memorable cricketer. Probably the single biggest pillar behind India's unprecedented dominance over a continent.
I think he’ll probably be remembered similarly to lower tier ATGs like Botham and Kapil although those two were a bit better away from home
 

Top