• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

IMO Bond is the finest ODI bowler ever.

M

miscer

U19 Cricketer
I know people say it's joel garner and then say Bond didn't play enough. But Garner is rated the best based on 146 wickets. Bond has 147. His ODI stats are breathtaking.

wickets 147
Average 20.88
Strike Rate 29.2
economy 4.28
4w+ hauls 11
innings 80

Garner is excellent too
wickets 146
average 18.84
strike rate 36.5
economy 3.09
4w+ hauls 5
innings 98

And bond did this in the so-called "batting friendly" era of the 00s. I mean honestly if Garner is 1 Bond has to be tied or number 2, really which bowler has more impressive stats than these two?
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
Garner was 100% of time. Bond it was 25% of the time. Player who cannot play more than 50% of his team matches cannot be even an ATG.

Edit: And I rate McGrath as the best ever ODI bowler with Murali and Akram in 2nd and 3rd. Garner might come in at top 10 but not top 3.
 
Last edited:
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Bond is an all time great, and possibly the finest ODI bowler in his era.

I'm not sure how to quantify injuries though, because let's face it, if we wanted to field an all time eleven in real life we're going to need to do some serious bioengineering to get fifty year old men back to their peaks. If we can do that, we can give Bond an invincible back as well.

Bond did manage to play in two world cups, the pinnacle of the ODI format, and he was outstanding in both. It's also worth noting most of his injury concerns came about because of tests, and during that period in 2006/2007 where we solely played ODIs, his injury record was fine.

Being an all time great is about what you do, not what you don't do. Ricky Ponting never faced Malcolm Marshall, but no one except people who try to compare across eras (which is a complex exercise to say the least) cares because he has happily scored piles of runs against the best bowlers in his era. Likewise, Shane Bond has huge success against the best players in his generation, including dismantling all time great Australian sides and performing to a high standard in two world cups.
 
Last edited:
Cevno

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
He is one of the finest ODI bowlers for sure in his era, or any era. Infact i rate him higher as a test bowler than most and always loved to see him bowl a lot. But don't think he is the best ever ODI bowler.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
There is certainly an argument for him being the finest ever, but as many have pointed out already he simply didn't play enough to be properly considered the best.

He'd make most top 10-15 lists I reckon.
 
T

tooextracool

International Coach
Ultimately, longevity *matters* in cricket because when we are calling someone the finest player ever, we are not picking him for one game but for an entire career.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
tooextracool said:
Ultimately, longevity *matters* in cricket because when we are calling someone the finest player ever, we are not picking him for one game but for an entire career.
Click to expand...
awta.

To me, the greatest ODI bowler ever is Wasim Akram, followed closely by Mcgrath, Garner and Murali.

I think we had a ranking here on CW of the greatest ODI players in history. Viv and Sachin came out 1 and 2 and Wasim came in at number 3.
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
Flem274* said:
Bond is an all time great, and possibly the finest ODI bowler in his era.

I'm not sure how to quantify injuries though, because let's face it, if we wanted to field an all time eleven in real life we're going to need to do some serious bioengineering to get fifty year old men back to their peaks. If we can do that, we can give Bond an invincible back as well.

Bond did manage to play in two world cups, the pinnacle of the ODI format, and he was outstanding in both. It's also worth noting most of his injury concerns came about because of tests, and during that period in 2006/2007 where we solely played ODIs, his injury record was fine.

Being an all time great is about what you do, not what you don't do. Ricky Ponting never faced Malcolm Marshall, but no one except people who try to compare across eras (which is a complex exercise to say the least) cares because he has happily scored piles of runs against the best bowlers in his era. Likewise, Shane Bond has huge success against the best players in his generation, including dismantling all time great Australian sides and performing to a high standard in two world cups.
Click to expand...
Being unfit is not a hypothetical situation. Let's face it, he was unfit.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just no. Totally failed to master the crucial skill of bowling without ****ing himself up.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Migara said:
Being unfit is not a hypothetical situation. Let's face it, he was unfit.
Click to expand...
Comparing him to Joel Garner and arguing whether he would make a World XI to face the Martians is though. Joel Garner played in a time when ODIs were vastly different to today, and I can't see all time greats from the 90s being wheeled out to play a Martian XI in their current condition.

They're hypotheticals, and if we're allowing for players who are long retired to make this eleven, we can do some sweet medical shizz on Bond.

Bond being injured, when compared with his contemporaries, is a black mark against his name, I agree. However, it is the only mark against him. Bond was as good as any bowler to play the game, and despite being injury prone he did play a reasonable amount of ODIs. 50+ games (he has something like 79 I think?) is a large enough sample size to filter out one minute wonders from the goods.

Basically, to sum Bond up; if he is fit, consider picking him because he is possibly the best seamer to play ODIs in the 2000s. If he's not, it doesn't matter because he can't play.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Flem274* said:
Comparing him to Joel Garner and arguing whether he would make a World XI to face the Martians is though. Joel Garner played in a time when ODIs were vastly different to today, and I can't see all time greats from the 90s being wheeled out to play a Martian XI in their current condition.

They're hypotheticals, and if we're allowing for players who are long retired to make this eleven, we can do some sweet medical shizz on Bond.

Bond being injured, when compared with his contemporaries, is a black mark against his name, I agree. However, it is the only mark against him. Bond was as good as any bowler to play the game, and despite being injury prone he did play a reasonable amount of ODIs. 50+ games (he has something like 79 I think?) is a large enough sample size to filter out one minute wonders from the goods.

Basically, to sum Bond up; if he is fit, consider picking him because he is possibly the best seamer to play ODIs in the 2000s. If he's not, it doesn't matter because he can't play.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the OP didn't say anything about how likely it was for him to be included in an all-time eleven. You're the one who brought that into the debate; a bowler's overall quality should not be defined by that hypothetical IMO.

When you judge Bond's quality you must examine his entire career and he loses a lot of points for not being able to play very often. The likes of Garner and Wasim were far more intrinsically valuable across their careers as they were available to play a lot more oftne.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Prince EWS said:
Yeah but the OP didn't say anything about how likely it was for him to be included in an all-time eleven. You're the one who brought that into the debate; a bowler's overall quality should not be defined by that hypothetical IMO.

When you judge Bond's quality you must examine his entire career and he loses a lot of points for not being able to play very often. The likes of Garner and Wasim were far more intrinsically valuable across their careers as they were available to play a lot more oftne.
Click to expand...
Injury doesn't have anything to do with how good someone is when they bowl though, unless it ruins their body so they bowl worse. It has everything to do with how often they play, but provided the bowler doesn't decline because of injury it has no bearing on how well they play.

More valuable to the side =/= better. Tim Bresnan is more valuable to England than Chris Tremlett because he can stay fit and hold a bat, but Tremlett is the better bowler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top