Best side for each decade.

tac wrote:

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 . . .

Slight difference in mine and Dans stats but they come out the same.

Looking at Dan's table below, if it was a choice between Donald and Pidge, you'd go for Donald on the basis he has more 5 and 10 fers in that period!!!

Brass Monkey wrote:

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.

But where does the "will be greater" come into it? Come on, you made the big call . . .

holcs wrote:

tac wrote:

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 . . .

Slight difference in mine and Dans stats but they come out the same.

Looking at Dan's table below, if it was a choice between Donald and Pidge, you'd go for Donald on the basis he has more 5 and 10 fers in that period!!!

5 fers and 10 fers are a function of relative strength of the bowling attack . . . look at Murali . . . my query to Danny was the "will be greater", considering Donald was 33 and Pidge much younger and on the improve . . .

tac wrote:
But where does the "will be greater" come into it? Come on, you made the big call . . .

Well, that's it though tac, where have you ascertained how McGrath would be greater? Or is another ridiculously weak 'Michael Clarke' defence? Yeah, probably - because you've got nothing but shit to say.

Taking the raw stats and taking into account that Donald played the best batting line-up of the decade, then his superior average, strike rate and more fruitful bowling innings would point to AD being the greater of the two.

holcs wrote:

tac wrote:

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 . . .

Slight difference in mine and Dans stats but they come out the same.

Looking at Dan's table below, if it was a choice between Donald and Pidge, you'd go for Donald on the basis he has more 5 and 10 fers in that period!!!

Nah, Donald was soft.

tac wrote:

holcs wrote:

tac wrote:

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 . . .

Slight difference in mine and Dans stats but they come out the same.

Looking at Dan's table below, if it was a choice between Donald and Pidge, you'd go for Donald on the basis he has more 5 and 10 fers in that period!!!

5 fers and 10 fers are a function of relative strength of the bowling attack . . . look at Murali . . . my query to Danny was the "will be greater", considering Donald was 33 and Pidge much younger and on the improve . . .

I would agree normally. But Donald had some decent test bowlers at the other end to him also.

Just think in the 90's that Donald was more likely to blow a side away, and actually chage a test match!

Brass Monkey wrote:

tac wrote:
But where does the "will be greater" come into it? Come on, you made the big call . . .

Well, that's it though tac, where have you ascertained how McGrath would be greater? Or is another ridiculously weak 'Michael Clarke' defence? Yeah, probably - because you've got nothing but shit to say.

Taking the raw stats and taking into account that Donald played the best batting line-up of the decade, then his superior average, strike rate and more fruitful bowling innings would point to AD being the greater of the two.

So 2 bowlers with almost identical stas, one 33 and on the way out, one 28 with years ahead, but the older "will be greater" . . . ? I have nothing to ascertain . . . you made the call, I'm asking on what possible basis could you make it . . . except big noting yourself again at someone expense . . .

holcs wrote:

tac wrote:

holcs wrote:

tac wrote:

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 . . .

Slight difference in mine and Dans stats but they come out the same.

Looking at Dan's table below, if it was a choice between Donald and Pidge, you'd go for Donald on the basis he has more 5 and 10 fers in that period!!!

5 fers and 10 fers are a function of relative strength of the bowling attack . . . look at Murali . . . my query to Danny was the "will be greater", considering Donald was 33 and Pidge much younger and on the improve . . .

I would agree normally. But Donald had some decent test bowlers at the other end to him also.

Just think in the 90's that Donald was more likely to blow a side away, and actually chage a test match!

Mate, i'm not arguing . . . . as I said, it's much closer than most thought, and you would probably take Ambie, and the 2 WWs on the stats Danny posted . . .

taipan wrote:

holcs wrote:

tac wrote:

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 . . .

Slight difference in mine and Dans stats but they come out the same.

Looking at Dan's table below, if it was a choice between Donald and Pidge, you'd go for Donald on the basis he has more 5 and 10 fers in that period!!!

Nah, Donald was soft.

Indeed. Given that there is very little in the raw stats, I would rather go for the guy who could lead an attack and who you know would perform when you needed him to.

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:

holcs wrote:

tac wrote:

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 . . .

Slight difference in mine and Dans stats but they come out the same.

Looking at Dan's table below, if it was a choice between Donald and Pidge, you'd go for Donald on the basis he has more 5 and 10 fers in that period!!!

Nah, Donald was soft.

Indeed. Given that there is very little in the raw stats, I would rather go for the guy who could lead an attack and who you know would perform when you needed him to.

So going for Donald then?

tac wrote:So 2 bowlers with almost identical stas, one 33 and on the way out, one 28 with years ahead, but the older "will be greater" . . . ? I have nothing to ascertain . . . you made the call, I'm asking on what possible basis could you make it . . . except big noting yourself again at someone expense . . .

I obviously didn't explain myself correctly, I was pretty much saying stop me and stop them. McGrath's career wasn't totally unpredictable at all. No-one expects a man to be that great for that long, hence why everyone in the world waxes lyrical. Furthermore he could've been hit by a bus Jan 1st 2000, he could've had a Syd Lawrence style injury. I reckon only a pernickety little shit with a litter wankers agenda would be purposefully mistaking my meaning, but there we go. Discuss it with one of your mates and see what they reckon... oh wait...

As for the bit in bold, how incredibly risable that you of all people are aiming that accusation at me. You sad, lonely hypocrite.

Indeed. Given that there is very little in the raw stats, I would rather go for the guy who could lead an attack and who you know would perform when you needed him to.

So going for Donald then?

No. Read what I wrote again very carefully.

JGK wrote:

Indeed. Given that there is very little in the raw stats, I would rather go for the guy who could lead an attack and who you know would perform when you needed him to.

So going for Donald then?

No. Read what I wrote again very carefully.

I'm confused as to why you think Donald was soft? Be interesting to hear the reasons behind your opinion, as to just the continual assertion that he was soft??

JGK wrote:

Indeed. Given that there is very little in the raw stats, I would rather go for the guy who could lead an attack and who you know would perform when you needed him to.

So going for Donald then?

No. Read what I wrote again very carefully.

Rampant NSR.

Either provide reasons for the "soft" comment or leave it alone.

Put up or shut up in other words.

Brass Monkey wrote:

tac wrote:So 2 bowlers with almost identical stas, one 33 and on the way out, one 28 with years ahead, but the older "will be greater" . . . ? I have nothing to ascertain . . . you made the call, I'm asking on what possible basis could you make it . . . except big noting yourself again at someone expense . . .

I obviously didn't explain myself correctly, I was pretty much saying stop me and stop them. McGrath's career wasn't totally unpredictable at all. No-one expects a man to be that great for that long, hence why everyone in the world waxes lyrical. Furthermore he could've been hit by a bus Jan 1st 2000, he could've had a Syd Lawrence style injury. I reckon only a pernickety little shit with a litter wankers agenda would be purposefully mistaking my meaning, but there we go. Discuss it with one of your mates and see what they reckon... oh wait...

As for the bit in bold, how incredibly risable that you of all people are aiming that accusation at me. You sad, lonely hypocrite.

Funny that you, of all people, don't like when some plays the man and not the ball . . .

tac wrote:
Funny that you, of all people, don't like when some plays the man and not the ball . . .

Desperate sinking into analogies? Come off it, you softcock. It's a car crash now - I'm done.

Brass Monkey wrote:

tac wrote:
Funny that you, of all people, don't like when some plays the man and not the ball . . .

Desperate sinking into analogies? Come off it, you softcock. It's a car crash now - I'm done.

What? Soothed the ego already? Surely JGK or Makaveli or someone needs to be called a qunt to help you get over yourself?

Ahh, typical Danny . . . claims the moral victory and off he runs .. . .

Have you too feckers got your responses to each other in a word document, and just keep copy and pasting the appropriate post of the ten you have?

Its the same convo everytime guys!

holcs wrote:

JGK wrote:

Indeed. Given that there is very little in the raw stats, I would rather go for the guy who could lead an attack and who you know would perform when you needed him to.

So going for Donald then?

No. Read what I wrote again very carefully.

I'm confused as to why you think Donald was soft? Be interesting to hear the reasons behind your opinion, as to just the continual assertion that he was soft??

FFS, it's pretty simple. I saw Donald play a number of times in Test and JAMODI cricket and while it was clear he was a magnificent bowler who by rights should have consistently destroyed good batsmen on the opposing team, I never saw him dominate like he should have.

It is probably little coincidence that the team I saw him play most in the 90s was Aust and that nearly every time Aust did play Saf in that period, it was a virtual battle for No 1. And pretty much each time, Donald was little more than a contributor at best rather than a leader.

Saf meaningful wins over Aust since readmission were almost always due to another bowler or at least the Saf side hunting as a pack - that is, Donald was never more than a support bowler. Although I think he did once roll us in a dead rubber test.

And that's before I get to Donald's brain explosion in the 1999 WC SF.

Steve Waugh made some comment about Donald being a bit of a soft cock... Or words to that effect. Can't remember what his reasons were.

That's my thought provoking 2 cents worth.

Interestingly enough. Donalds ave against Aus is 30, whilst against all other nations its sub 21.

He averaged 27 against Aus in the 90's, hardly what you'd call abject.

Brass Monkey wrote: He averaged 27 against Aus in the 90's, hardly what you'd call abject.

It was 31 over his career.

But yeah, in the 90's if thats right, its perfectly acceptable IMO.

holcs wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote: He averaged 27 against Aus in the 90's, hardly what you'd call abject.

It was 31 over his career.

But yeah, in the 90's if thats right, its perfectly acceptable IMO.

He was a spent force who got flayed in his last Test matches.

Brass Monkey wrote: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
SM Pollock  38  161 20.45 2.33 52.6 10 0



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

pollock deserves a mention (added to list). id actually take them in that order