Cricketweb's 5 most unfairly treated players

[Zinzan]

I find it strange how arguably the best all-round cricketer in the world is talked about almost exclusively in negative terms on here.. Not talking about Blackwell by the way..

Massively exaggerated IMHO. Reckon most fair-minded CW posters rate him anywhere from being very very good through to being one of the greats.

At best, he's marginally underrated overall, but not one of the unfairly treated for mine

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think there's a distinction to be drawn with players being unpopular and not being rated. Kallis is a player who, for whatever reason, doesn't engender sympathy amongst a lot of cricket followers, but I doubt many of them don't respect his undoubted prowess.

 

[Richard]

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

I haven't said it before but I'll say it now: abuse of other posters is banned on CW so I'd suggest you stop making deliberately abusive posts and I'd suggest some moderator do their job properly and reprimand you for it.

 

[Richard]

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous this is.

Injury restricted Bond to 9 Test "series", most of which comprised just 2 matches.

Of those, Bond "made a big difference" to NZ in 7:

- He made a big difference in the WI in 2002, as you admit.

- He made a big difference v WI in 2006, as everyone but you seems to agree.

- He was instrumental in beating the hapless Bangladesh in 2001.

- Against India in 2002 he took 12 wickets in the 2 matches, both of which NZ won. He was the outstanding bowler in NZ's victory at Wellington and also took 4 first innings wickets as NZ won at Hamilton.

- He outclassed the hapless Zimbabwe in 2005

- He was man-of-the-match in the opening match v Sri Lanka in 2006 at Christchurch

- He only played one game v South Africa in 2007, in which he took 4 first-innings wickets.

The only series where he didn't make a big difference were his debut series v Australia in 2001 and the 2 matches v Sri Lanka in 2003 (a total of 2-and-a-bit Sri Lankan innings, in which Bond seems to have acquitted himself pretty well).

New Zealand would have hammered the substandard sides whether he played or not; they would almost certainly have beaten India in 2002/03 having had the common-sense to play to their strengths (which was not Bond specifically but seam in general - they also had Tuffey and Oram that series, both of whom are very fine bowlers on seaming decks).

Whether you take the view that Bond was instrumental to their success against West Indies in 2005/06 or not - and I don't and couldn't really care less how many people want to shout out that they do - he has not contributed massively to many (be that one or two) Test series' victories.

That is not to say that Bond did not do pretty well on the limited occasions he got the chance to do so. Merely that, well, as I said before this whole idiotic exchange got going, he has given unequivocal demonstration of the fact that he is a superb ODI bowler. Whether people like it or not, he has not done such a thing in Tests, because he has not had the chance.

 

[bagapath]

Kallis is a player who, for whatever reason, doesn't engender sympathy amongst a lot of cricket followers, but I doubt many of them don't respect his undoubted prowess.

I cant stand that guy at all. i find him boring and mechanical. a friend of mine loves his so called "style". we have major arguments about it all the time and we may have to settle it in a boxing ring eventually. but i am in awe of all that kallis has achieved as an all round cricketer. his stats in international cricket are absolutely unbeatable. (including his horrendous batting SR in tests)

 

[zaremba]

Richard, think about it: the fact that others might have contributed instead of Bond had he not played is not relevant to the question of whether he made a significant contribution.

 

[andyc]

Whether you take the view that Bond was instrumental to their success against West Indies in 2005/06 or not - and I don't and couldn't really care less how many people want to shout out that they do - he has not contributed massively to many (be that one or two) Test series' victories.

Then why did you say this?

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.

You backed up your argument with the idea that other people would support your opinion, and now when no one has, you're saying that you don't care whether they do or not.

 

[andyc]

I haven't said it before but I'll say it now: abuse of other posters is banned on CW so I'd suggest you stop making deliberately abusive posts and I'd suggest some moderator do their job properly and reprimand you for it.

Richard, while I agree that Jimmy's post was overly abusive and unnecessary, if you've got a problem with a post, please report it so that the whole mod team gets a look at it. Telling the mods what to do isn't going to get anything done particularly quickly.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I wouldn't like to bandy around words like insane, but as Bond took 5 wickets in the innings in question - including Lara first ball - relatively cheaply in a run chase that fell only 27 runs short, an explanation as to why this wasn't a crucial contribution is surely required to prevent words like insane being used.

 

[andyc]

I wouldn't like to bandy around words like insane, but as Bond took 5 wickets in the innings in question - including Lara first ball - relatively cheaply in a run chase that fell only 27 runs short, an explanation as to why this wasn't a crucial contribution is surely required to prevent words like insane being used.

Just as long as its focused on the theory/argument rather than the person, no issue for mine. Certainly, if you're going to claim that Bond wasn't crucial to that victory, it's a bit of an odd theory and most people won't let it slide without something to back it up.

Still genuinely interested to see who these 'plenty of other people' are though, Richard.

 

[Richard]

Richard, think about it: the fact that others might have contributed instead of Bond had he not played is not relevant to the question of whether he made a significant contribution.

By "made a significant contribution" I essentially mean "the result would likely have been different had he not played". I don't think you can say that of any of Bond's series' against serious Test teams (and certainly not against substandard ones) fit this bill except the one in the Caribbean in 2002.

 

[Richard]

Then why did you say this?



You backed up your argument with the idea that other people would support your opinion, and now when no one has, you're saying that you don't care whether they do or not.

I said that only to point-out the ludicrousness of the comment which attempted to suggest that it's a view one person on Earth alone would support. I certainly wouldn't expect to be in a majority on the matter and no, I don't care whether I am or am not, but the comment you highlighted has no relation to the later one.

 

[Richard]

Still genuinely interested to see who these 'plenty of other people' are though, Richard.

If you look I didn't say "I expect plenty of people would back me up on this issue"; I don't and you know full well that I or anyone would be a fool to think such a thing would happen.

As I say, the comment you highlight is purely a referral to the fact that it is ludicrous to state what zinzan12 attempted to - that any comparable claim to mine would always be in a minority of one.

 

[Perm]

By "made a significant contribution" I essentially mean "the result would likely have been different had he not played".

And those two things are completely different.

Good luck next time Dicko.

 

[Richard]

And those two things are completely different.

Granted I could've phrased the thing a bit better - not for the first time I'm sure all will agree.

Perhaps if I had some of this nonsense would've been avoided.

 

[Perm]

Granted I could've phrased the thing a bit better - not for the first time I'm sure all will agree.

Perhaps if I had some of this nonsense would've been avoided.

It's only 'nonsense', as you call it, because you initially said something which was pretty much wrong. Other people piped up and argued against that point and now you changed your mind and said "Oh I meant to say this instead".

I think it is you who deserves the rolleyes Mr Dickinson.

 

[Zinzan]

If you look I didn't say "I expect plenty of people would back me up on this issue";

Um, just one person would be a start. Not your best moment this thread, is it

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

Cricketweb's most unfairly treated posters:
Richard

 

[Zinzan]

Cricketweb's most unfairly treated posters:
Richard

Nothing unfair about it in this instance.

Here's how it works.....Man posts comment in forum, comment is nonsensical, all & sundry disagree & rightfully call the man on it.

Sounds like a sports forum to me, pretty simple really, nothing personal, just people giving their opinion on subject matter. Obviously looks worse when EVERYONE disagrees with man's point.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

Nothing unfair about it in this instance.

Here's how it works.....Man posts comment in forum, comment is nonsensical, all & sundry disagree & rightfully call the man on it.

Sounds like a sports forum to me, pretty simple really, nothing personal, just people giving their opinion on subject matter. Obviously looks worse when EVERYONE disagrees with man's point.

Yeah I know, I was just playing on the thread title