I've seen countless posts in the NZ vs India thread, and somewhere else also, that many Kiwi and non-Kiwi supporters moaning about the absence of Bond, and that his presence would have turned the tables for the NZ team's fortunes in the current season test matches.
Frankly, I disagree.
I think, with all due respect to that one heck of a thoroughbred pace-horse that is Bond, he could not have made a big change to NZ's performances. Why? Because :
1. He is 32, and well past the age, when pacers are at their peak.
2. He has not played cricket on a regular basis for so long, and a comeback directly into the whites could be for worse.
3. His long history of injuries, which means that even when in the best of conditions, ie, youth, he couldn't bear the burden of International cricket on a sustained basis, he cannot be realistically expected to last without injuries even for a season. Not at the way he has to bowl.
What do you think?
Frankly, I disagree.
I think, with all due respect to that one heck of a thoroughbred pace-horse that is Bond, he could not have made a big change to NZ's performances. Why? Because :
1. He is 32, and well past the age, when pacers are at their peak.
2. He has not played cricket on a regular basis for so long, and a comeback directly into the whites could be for worse.
3. His long history of injuries, which means that even when in the best of conditions, ie, youth, he couldn't bear the burden of International cricket on a sustained basis, he cannot be realistically expected to last without injuries even for a season. Not at the way he has to bowl.
What do you think?