Best side for each decade.

JGK wrote:Differences in averages in the 90s are immaterial and my comments on Donald being soft still stand.

Of course.... of course. Too much dynamism in your casepoint... I don't quite know how to reply... You may say I'm bamboozled.

Brass Monkey wrote:

JGK wrote:Differences in averages in the 90s are immaterial and my comments on Donald being soft still stand.

Of course.... of course. Too much dynamism in your casepoint... I don't quite know how to reply... You may say I'm bamboozled.

It's easy Dan.

Donald had the better averages but McGrath is the better bowler cos JGK knows Donald is soft.

It's probably something to do with 'failing' against Aus, at the end of his career.

Yep, I know Bradman has the best average but SRT is a better bat cos he has a nicer smile.

taipan wrote:Yep, I know Bradman has the best average but SRT is a better bat cos he has a nicer smile.

He has. It's dreamy. Bradman was morose.

In the history of the game there has been but 1 or 2 pace bowlers better than Pidge, Donald is not one of them . . . over his career . . . I think JGK hasn't quite understood the "decadent" nature of the teams . . .no need for snarkiness (taips) or your typical dribble (danny) . . . .

tac wrote:In the history of the game there has been but 1 or 2 pace bowlers better than Pidge, Donald is not one of them . . . over his career . . . I think JGK hasn't quite understood the "decadent" nature of the teams . . .no need for snarkiness (taips) or your typical dribble (danny) . . . .

I've emphasised that over his career, McGrath was the superior bowler - I've outlined exactly why I've said Donald etc. He hasn't elaborated to any degree his contention that AD was soft. You should have a word with yourself about what you're posting, because it's been piss and wind for months.

Brass Monkey wrote:

tac wrote:In the history of the game there has been but 1 or 2 pace bowlers better than Pidge, Donald is not one of them . . . over his career . . . I think JGK hasn't quite understood the "decadent" nature of the teams . . .no need for snarkiness (taips) or your typical dribble (danny) . . . .

I've emphasised that over his career, McGrath was the superior bowler - I've outlined exactly why I've said Donald etc. He hasn't elaborated to any degree his contention that AD was soft. You should have a word with yourself about what you're posting, because it's been piss and wind for months.

Oh, you've scared me off now . . . I need to go hide under the covers . . .

Brass Monkey wrote: He hasn't elaborated to any degree his contention that AD was soft.

Yep, even Karti had more logic.

tac wrote:
Oh, you've scared me off now . . . I need to go hide under the covers . . .

If only that were true Jack, alas I think I'm going to have to be putting up with your weak hubris, arrogance and general twattiness for years to come.

I can't answer . . . I'm under the covers quivering at the thought of big tough Danny . . .

McGrath 90's < Donald

McGrath 2000 onwards one of the best ever!

Simple.

tac wrote:I can't answer . . . I'm under the covers quivering at the thought of big tough Danny . . .

Quality, you're using my own wind-ups on me - because it's plain to see who the big hardman is - it's you Jack, it's you. Furthermore, I'm sure you're dick is massive and you're f*cking good looking. I just know it. It's your aura.

p.s. You need to post a in your next post to maintain this facade you have.

holcs wrote:McGrath 90's < Donald

McGrath 2000 onwards one of the best ever!

Simple.

Unless you are an Aussie.

taipan wrote:

holcs wrote:McGrath 90's < Donald

McGrath 2000 onwards one of the best ever!

Simple.

Unless you are an Aussie.

Goes without saying!!!

taipan wrote:

holcs wrote:McGrath 90's < Donald

McGrath 2000 onwards one of the best ever!

Simple.

Unless you are an Aussie.

McGrath was great from 1995 onwards. He didn't suddenly get better in 2000. It would be convenient for the selectors of a 90's team if we could say "Well, McGrath wasn't as good in the 90's" but that's just not the case.

It's no coincidence that Australia became the best team in the world at the same time McGrath became Australia's best bowler.

Hass wrote:
McGrath was great from 1995 onwards. He didn't suddenly get better in 2000. It would be convenient for the selectors of a 90's team if we could say "Well, McGrath wasn't as good in the 90's" but that's just not the case.

It's no coincidence that Australia became the best team in the world at the same time McGrath became Australia's best bowler.

And in what way was he better than Donald in the 90's, who was pretty 'gun' from '93?

It'd be good if you could highlight how he was better, because watching both - if you'd stopped me in '99 and asked which will be the greater, I'd have said Donald.

Hass wrote:

taipan wrote:

holcs wrote:McGrath 90's < Donald

McGrath 2000 onwards one of the best ever!

Simple.

Unless you are an Aussie.

McGrath was great from 1995 onwards. He didn't suddenly get better in 2000. It would be convenient for the selectors of a 90's team if we could say "Well, McGrath wasn't as good in the 90's" but that's just not the case.

It's no coincidence that Australia became the best team in the world at the same time McGrath became Australia's best bowler.

Um some might say Shane Warne had something to do with it.

Mcgrath up to 99:

58 tests - 266 wickets - 4.5 wkts per match


Donald up to 99:
59 tests - 284 wickets - 4.8 wkts per match

Just some very crude stats!!! Interesting really.

holcs wrote:Mcgrath up to 99:

58 tests - 266 wickets - 4.5 wkts per match


Donald up to 99:
59 tests - 284 wickets - 4.8 wkts per match

Just some very crude stats!!! Interesting really.

What were the averages? I imagine Pidge would have been higher as he was knocked about a bit in his first season . . . still, a lot closer than many would have us think (on both sides) . . .

holcs wrote:Mcgrath up to 99:

58 tests - 266 wickets - 4.5 wkts per match


Donald up to 99:
59 tests - 284 wickets - 4.8 wkts per match

Just some very crude stats!!! Interesting really.

Not much in it according to that.

Makes more sense than merely stating McGrath was better and not producing any reason.

tac wrote:

holcs wrote:Mcgrath up to 99:

58 tests - 266 wickets - 4.5 wkts per match


Donald up to 99:
59 tests - 284 wickets - 4.8 wkts per match

Just some very crude stats!!! Interesting really.

What were the averages? I imagine Pidge would have been higher as he was knocked about a bit in his first season . . . still, a lot closer than many would have us think (on both sides) . . .

Mcgrath 22.87

Donald 21.83

holcs wrote:

tac wrote:

holcs wrote:Mcgrath up to 99:

58 tests - 266 wickets - 4.5 wkts per match


Donald up to 99:
59 tests - 284 wickets - 4.8 wkts per match

Just some very crude stats!!! Interesting really.

What were the averages? I imagine Pidge would have been higher as he was knocked about a bit in his first season . . . still, a lot closer than many would have us think (on both sides) . . .

Mcgrath 22.87

Donald 21.83

As expected . . .

Funny that Danny would have said that Donald "will be greater" if stopped in '99 . . . considering Donald was already 33 and had only a couple of years left. Maybe he's just talking through his arse again . . .

It's been done:

Code:



Player      Mat Wkt Ave  Econ SR  5 10
CEL Ambrose  71  309 20.14 2.31 52.2 21 3
Wasim Akram  62  289 21.45 2.63 48.9 17 3
AA Donald    59  284 21.83 2.86 45.7 19 3
Waqar Younis 56  273 21.71 3.18 40.9 21 5
GD McGrath  58  266 22.87 2.61 52.4 15 1



The top 5 of the 90's. TBH, you could choose any three and they'd do the job.

tac wrote:
As expected . . .

Funny that Danny would have said that Donald "will be greater" if stopped in '99 . . . considering Donald was already 33 and had only a couple of years left. Maybe he's just talking through his arse again . . .

What? Bitter grudge?

He was more prolific, as the table says - it's not some stats fixing, if you weren't such a snivelling bitch, I've said previously in the thread that the differences between them all is negligable - hence me posting this table in the first place.

Still, nice to see you're such a little sheptock that I'm possibly your new subject. Don't worry, I won't leave the board like the others.