Cricketweb's 5 most unfairly treated players

[Richard]

Of course, Bond made no difference to NZ winning this test 1st Test: New Zealand v West Indies at Auckland, Mar 9-13, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com when West Indies needed 291 to win & were 148 without loss did he...

After winning the 1st test, NZ went on to win the series 2-0

FFS, Really wish you'd get your facts right before spouting your opinion as fact, so damn annoying

Given that it was Nathan Astle of all people who knocked-over the openers then Bond dismissed Lara and the already-injured Sarwan I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say he may well not have been crucial to the victory. His other 3 wickets were Bravo (not that much of a Test batsman at that stage) and Smith and Taylor (reasonable-quality tailenders and no more).

There's certainly no way his contribution was anywhere near so substantial as it was to the series-deciding victory in West Indies in 2002.

 

[Jono]

1. Reetinder Singh Sodhi
2. Sairaj Bahutule
3. VRV Singh
4. Manpreet Goni
5. Asnodkar

I don't get it.

 

[Manee]

I don't get it.

Me neither, fwiw.

 

[Zinzan]

Given that it was Nathan Astle of all people who knocked-over the openers then Bond dismissed Lara and the already-injured Sarwan I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say he may well not have been crucial to the victory. His other 3 wickets were Bravo (not that much of a Test batsman at that stage) and Smith and Taylor (reasonable-quality tailenders and no more).

There's certainly no way his contribution was anywhere near so substantial as it was to the series-deciding victory in West Indies in 2002.

You really are a joker aren't you. So funny how you'll happily defy logic rather than just conceding that you happened to over-look something

He took 5-69 in the 2nd innings, was man of the match, but because he only got Lara, Sarwan, Bravo & not the openers, that mean his contribution wasn't crucial to the victory?

Richard Logic at it's very best !!

 

[Uppercut]

Given that it was Nathan Astle of all people who knocked-over the openers then Bond dismissed Lara and the already-injured Sarwan I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say he may well not have been crucial to the victory. His other 3 wickets were Bravo (not that much of a Test batsman at that stage) and Smith and Taylor (reasonable-quality tailenders and no more).

There's certainly no way his contribution was anywhere near so substantial as it was to the series-deciding victory in West Indies in 2002.

Fail to see how five second-innings wickets in a 27-run win can not be seen as crucial to a victory.

 

[Richard]

You really are a joker aren't you. So funny how you'll happily defy logic rather than just conceding that you happened to over-look something

No, I do sometimes overlook things and will make note of that fact as and when I do. But I didn't there.

He took 5-69 in the 2nd innings, was man of the match, but because he only got Lara, Sarwan, Bravo & not the openers, that mean his contribution wasn't crucial to the victory?

Richard Logic at it's very best !!

His contribution was certainly not crucial to victory, and much as you might like to try to paint it as logic I alone would use, you'll find plenty of people who'll say a similar thing if you actually wished to.

Certainly Bond played a part in that victory, but there's no way I'd consider NZ would be likely to have lost(\drawn) had he not been playing. The reason I mentioned him not getting the openers was because you made reference to the large opening stand, thus apparently suggesting it'd got WI into a position from where NZ had to snatch victory and Bond did that. When such a thing, well... didn't happen.

 

[Athlai]

No, I do sometimes overlook things and will make note of that fact as and when I do. But I didn't there.

His contribution was certainly not crucial to victory, and much as you might like to try to paint it as logic I alone would use, you'll find plenty of people who'll say a similar thing if you actually wished to.

Certainly Bond played a part in that victory, but there's no way I'd consider NZ would be likely to have lost(\drawn) had he not been playing. The reason I mentioned him not getting the openers was because you made reference to the large opening stand, thus apparently suggesting it'd got WI into a position from where NZ had to snatch victory and Bond did that. When such a thing, well... didn't happen.

He took a 5fer in the second innings of a chase where they fell only 30 short.

 

[andyc]

No, I do sometimes overlook things and will make note of that fact as and when I do. But I didn't there.

His contribution was certainly not crucial to victory, and much as you might like to try to paint it as logic I alone would use, you'll find plenty of people who'll say a similar thing if you actually wished to.

Certainly Bond played a part in that victory, but there's no way I'd consider NZ would be likely to have lost(\drawn) had he not been playing. The reason I mentioned him not getting the openers was because you made reference to the large opening stand, thus apparently suggesting it'd got WI into a position from where NZ had to snatch victory and Bond did that. When such a thing, well... didn't happen.

Who?

 

[Meridio]

No, I do sometimes overlook things and will make note of that fact as and when I do. But I didn't there.

His contribution was certainly not crucial to victory, and much as you might like to try to paint it as logic I alone would use, you'll find plenty of people who'll say a similar thing if you actually wished to.

Certainly Bond played a part in that victory, but there's no way I'd consider NZ would be likely to have lost(\drawn) had he not been playing. The reason I mentioned him not getting the openers was because you made reference to the large opening stand, thus apparently suggesting it'd got WI into a position from where NZ had to snatch victory and Bond did that. When such a thing, well... didn't happen.

I'm afraid you're absolutely dreaming if you think Bond was not crucial to that victory. I'd say there's no way we would have won if he hadn't been playing. Yes, Astle took the first wicket to provide an opening, but without the slightest doubt it was Bond's bowling that won the game. WI had got into a position where NZ had to snatch victory, and Bond did do that.

I've just read through Cricinfo's commentary of that spell, and there's no way it does justice to how good it was. One of the best spells of bowling I have ever seen, and also, something you wouldn't be able to tell from looking at the scorecard - on a flat pitch.

 

[Richard]

Who?

Plenty of people. I can absolutely gurantee you that if you find a similar question posed (ie, "did <player who took 5-for-a-few in chase of 270> make a massive difference?") you'll find a non-unanimous verdict.

 

[NUFAN]

Reckon you'll be hard pressed to find many people agreeing with you on this one Rich.

The fact that he dismissed Lara for a total of 5 runs across 2 innings, was absolutely crucial.

Also you dismiss Bravo as a not so great batsman, but he had scored 59 in the first innings. In fact, Bond got out Sarwan, Bravo and Smith who were the 3 guys who scored the most runs in the first dig.

Bond's 62 run 9th wicket partnership with McCullum was helpful too. Sounds like a top game actually.

 

[Uppercut]

Five second innings wickets in a 27-run win weren't crucial?

If it were anyone else I'd think they were joking.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Plenty of people. I can absolutely gurantee you that if you find a similar question posed (ie, "did <player who took 5-for-a-few in chase of 270> make a massive difference?") you'll find a non-unanimous verdict.

If you Google that question you get directed to a Neighbour Watch Scheme in Bulgaria.

 

[GIMH]

This is what I got tbh

http://mylifeintechnicolor.com/

 

[andyc]

This is what I got tbh

http://mylifeintechnicolor.com/

Haha yeah, same here.

And Richard, I'd be willing to bet that if you made a poll asking that question here or on any other cricket website, 90+% of people would say that he was definitely crucial to the win.

 

[Zinzan]

Who?

Is the $64,000 question, I can't think of another person with such warped logic

 

[JimmyGS]

Plenty of people. I can absolutely gurantee you that if you find a similar question posed (ie, "did <player who took 5-for-a-few in chase of 270> make a massive difference?") you'll find a non-unanimous verdict.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You are absolutely insane.

 

[Goughy]

Plenty of people. I can absolutely gurantee you that if you find a similar question posed (ie, "did <player who took 5-for-a-few in chase of 270> make a massive difference?") you'll find a non-unanimous verdict.

It would not be unanimous because you would vote.

So if there are plenty of people that would think this way then where are they? Why are they not in this thread?

Add my name to the list that thinks you are wrong on this issue.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Pretty much classic Dickinson, this. Chose a non-mainstream opinion, present it as fact and doggedly stick to it in the face of arguments to the contrary, however compelling or sensible they may be.

Suffice to say I agree with everyone else; if any cricket writer or commentator suggested that Bond's contribution was incidental rather than crucial, one would assume they'd had one too many post-prandial ports.

 

[Zinzan]

Pretty much classic Dickinson, this. Chose a non-mainstream opinion, present it as fact and doggedly stick to it in the face of arguments to the contrary, however compelling or sensible they may be.

.

Haha, bang on the money there