IMO Bond is the finest ODI bowler ever.

[Uppercut]

Sorry Phlegm, but it's just ******** not to incorporate the ability to stay fit in the definition of cricketing quality. It's far, far too important.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Yeah but how good someone is isn't just defined by how well they bowl when they play.

More valuable to the side =/= better.

DWTA entirely. Being as valuable as possible is the job of every player, and given it's what they're all striving for, it's the only fair measure upon which to judge them. I'm not saying that one's quality should be defined by one's value to a specific side otherwise the composition and quality of said team would be an over-riding factor, but one's intrinsic value to a cross-section of all possible teams is by which we should be measuring IMO.

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.

Well batting is irrelevant to how valuable he is to England as a bowler but fitness is not. If Chris Tremlett was told he could average 1 run more per wicket but never miss another game again he'd jump at the opportunity because it'd make him a much more valuable bowler to whichever team he happens to play for; that's what he's striving for.

 

[Flem274*]

Sorry Phlegm, but it's just ******** not to incorporate the ability to stay fit in the definition of cricketing quality.

It depends how you are defining quality.

Is Wasim Akram (to pick a random bowler) more valuable to a side than Shane Bond? Yes, because he doesn't get injured as often.

Is Wasim Akram a better bowler than Shane Bond? It could go either way.

Being injury prone, especially when you have a decent sample size anyway (82 ODIs), has no bearing on what you can do on the park unless you decline because of it.

By the injury logic, it can be argued Kyle Mills is a better ODI bowler (and he is a classy bowler), or Chris Martin is a better test bowler, simply because they played more.

Also, this thread was going to be boring if everyone said he wasn't better than x because he got injured.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah but how good someone is isn't just defined by how well they bowl when they play.



DWTA entirely. Being as valuable as possible is the job of every player, and given it's what they're all striving for, it's the only fair measure upon which to judge them. I'm not saying that one's quality should be defined by one's value to a specific side otherwise the composition and quality of said team would be an over-riding factor, but one's intrinsic value to a cross-section of all possible teams is by which we should be measuring IMO.



Well batting is irrelevant to how valuable he is to England as a bowler but fitness is not. If Chris Tremlett was told he could average 1 run more per wicket but never miss another game again he'd jump at the opportunity because it'd make him a much more valuable bowler to whichever team he happens to play for; that's what he's striving for.

Being valuable is important, but being good at what you do is just as important. Most of the time they go hand in hand, but when it comes to comparisons being more valuable doesn't necessarily make you better. For example, Shane Bond is a better bowler than Kyle Mills, but Kyle Mills is more valuable to the ODI side because he plays more and performs to an excellent standard. New Zealand get more value from Mills, but Bond is the better bowler.

 

[Daemon]

Basically you're trying to say Bond was superior skillwise? Not what the OP and most rankings ask for though.

 

[Flem274*]

Basically you're trying to say Bond was superior skillwise? Not what the OP and most rankings ask for though.

The OP believes he is the finest bowler ever. That pretty much translates to being superior skillwise.

Most rankings, when asking who is the best, are often meaning either a) who was the bestest/most skilled/awesumest bowler or b) who achieved the most.

Bond has a case in scenario A. Bond has no case in scenario B because, despite his achievements, there's bowlers out there with a couple of hundred ODIs to their name who are on a very similar skill level and don't get injured. Similarly, Garner and other bowlers of his era struggle in scenario B because of the much smaller sample sizes (which is one of many reasons why comparing across eras is a mess).

 

[smash84]

The OP believes he is the finest bowler ever. That pretty much translates to being superior skillwise.

Skill wise Wasim is arguably the greatest fast bowler. Bond is way behind in terms of skill with the ball. He could move the ball in the air and off the wicket. Both the new and the old ball. So it also depends what exactly do you mean by skill?

 

[Daemon]

a) who was the bestest/most skilled/awesumest bowler

Those three can't be put in the same category. Bestest could mean what tec and others suggested earlier, most skilled is what you have suggested, and lastly some people may even call Tuffey the most awesumest bowler ever

 

[Uppercut]

New Zealand get more value from Mills, but Bond is the better bowler.

Makes no sense. If Mills adds more to the team's chance of winning every game, that means he's better. The only exception is when it comes to team specifics (e.g. if New Zealand need a spinner more than they need a fast bowler).

 

[Athlai]

Makes no sense. If Mills adds more to the team's chance of winning every game, that means he's better. The only exception is when it comes to team specifics (e.g. if New Zealand need a spinner more than they need a fast bowler).

You know how I know your argument is wrong?

Mills > Bond

 

[weldone]

As a side topic, how much of Bond's destruction was due to injuries and how much due to ICL/BCCI politics?

It's completely fair to blame him for the first reason, but completely unfair to blame him for the second reason (because when he started playing ICL he didn't know that might end his International career).

 

[Ruckus]

Makes no sense. If Mills adds more to the team's chance of winning every game, that means he's better. The only exception is when it comes to team specifics (e.g. if New Zealand need a spinner more than they need a fast bowler).

Using a similar argument does that mean that Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis, Lara etc. etc. are all better than Bradman because they have played more games and therefore overall they have added more to the teams chances of winning?

 

[Uppercut]

... what?

 

[Uppercut]

You know how I know your argument is wrong?

Mills > Bond

Haha, the word "if" was key!

 

[Ruckus]

... what?

Sorry maybe I misunderstood what you were saying...could you expand on what you mean by "If Mills adds more to the team's chance of winning every game, that means he's better"?

 

[Uppercut]

Sure. It's just a truism of sport, but it's difficult to articulate without being misunderstood.

The aim of cricket is to win. The "best" players are just the players that increase the probability of a team winning (or not losing) by the most. That's only formalising something that almost everyone already implicitly follows.

If you're picking a player to maximise your team's chances in a match, you normally won't go for someone who has a 50% chance of being crocked. Well, you might, depending on how good he is and who the other options are. But you're definitely going to take the fact that half the time you're going to be doing without him into account, because it's important. Someone who can play every game will be able to improve your side's chances of winning each game a lot more.

 

[Prince EWS]

Being valuable is important, but being good at what you do is just as important. Most of the time they go hand in hand, but when it comes to comparisons being more valuable doesn't necessarily make you better. For example, Shane Bond is a better bowler than Kyle Mills, but Kyle Mills is more valuable to the ODI side because he plays more and performs to an excellent standard. New Zealand get more value from Mills, but Bond is the better bowler.

I disagree entirely.

Bond's job was not to achieve a mystically high level of skill or make a theoretical ATWXI for a one-off match in a fantasy land where everyone was always fit; his job was to contribute to his team as much and as often as possible. The fact that he was injured half the time makes him much less valuable than someone with a similar record who was always available, which makes him less good than that player.

 

[Migara]

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.

When akthar was on song he was ****ting all over Bond.

Sorry, 3 out of 4 matches NZ played, Bond was injured. That may be the on;ly black mark, but that is a MASSIVE black mark which undo all his good work. Simply, we cannot name him for a 5 match series with Martians in Mars. Because some where in the second match, this fella will break down.

 

[Migara]

Using a similar argument does that mean that Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis, Lara etc. etc. are all better than Bradman because they have played more games and therefore overall they have added more to the teams chances of winning?

Completely irrelevant.

1. We are discussing ODIs, and Bradman never played ODIs
2. Game that Bradman played was far different from now.

 

[Cabinet96]

They are from different times. Arguably times are harder for bowlers now, more experienced limited overs batsmen inventing new shots, flat decks, bigger bats, boundary ropes moved in. In this aspect Bond has done very well but you can't help feeling he wouldn't have done as well if he had continuously played throughout his career.