IMO Bond is the finest ODI bowler ever.

[Agent Nationaux]

How long before McGrath and Marshall fan boys start trolling on this thread (yeah you know who you are).

 

[Flem274*]

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).

So...you think Mills is a better bowler than Bond?

I respectfully disagree. I love Mills, but Bond is better.

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.

And that's what I'm saying. I'm saying Bond has a case for being the best bowler because when he plays he is fantastic. I would never argue he is the most valuable all time great.

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.

No, it makes him less valuable. It doesn't mean than Bond is a worse bowler than player x when both are actually bowling.

To clarify something, just because I might think player x is a better player than y, it doesn't mean I don't think x is more valuable to my side.

Shane Bond is a much better bowler in tests than Chris Martin, but Chris Martin is far more valuable because he can bowl very long spells, is extremely fit, never gets injured and provides experience and test standard bowling.

 

[Flem274*]

How long before McGrath and Marshall fan boys start trolling on this thread (yeah you know who you are).

I might argue Bond is a better bowler than Marshall to take the piss if that happens, but it's all right because Marshall is far more valuable than Bond.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Dernbach better IMO.

Nah Prosper Utseya is clearly the best ODI bowler.

 

[Top_Cat]

Lee is a player who I reckon gets underrated in ODIs because of his average test record and because he can be hilariously expensive in Chappell-Hadlee run chases.

Very specific grouping factor there.

Agree with UC that being able to remain uninjured is important and injuries aren't just random occurrences. If batters don't get much of a look at you due to injury, you're basically always a shock bowler who can send down absolutely everything full-throttle knowing it's a matter of time before you're in rehab again. Can bowl with relative freedom even if being injured will suck the life out of you eventually. If you're having to gird your body to day-in, day-out to the rigors of all forms, your approach to bowling mentally has to change.

Decent example is Shaun Tait. I know just about everyone knows him as a T20 shock bowler but if you have a look at his record for SA at Adelaide Oval before he gave up FC cricket, he bowled similar numbers of overs to Jason Gillespie at similar bowling average when both were expected to bowl big overs (because SA's attack, as a rule, is ****). Given he was always known as a bloke who bowled a few more wicket-taking balls than others but in those days, he still had to be patient for his wickets and bowl boring. Now he's only playing T20's, he can rock up and send them down with absolutely everything on each ball knowing he won't have to do it for long and just generally look like an insane wicket-taking badass every ball.

That Bond was unable or unwilling to thottle back to improve his longevity means there's massive question marks over how he'd have gone had opposition players played against him more regularly and he be forced to bowl with patience more often. It's a reason why people should be cautious with rating Rhino Harris too highly too; if he remains injury-free for a while, the next step will be how he reacts to batters knowing exactly what's coming. It's why blokes like McG and Marshall are rated so highly too; none of what they did was a surprise to anyone yet they just kept getting pricks out. Regularly.

Don't get me wrong, shock bowlers have their place. But if you're talking in terms of them being more 'talented' because they're going for the knockout ball more often, I'd venture there are other factors at play here.

 

[SteveNZ]

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

Rubbish. I'd have Bond in my team over Akhtar every day of the week, if both were fit and at the peak of their powers.

Akhtar had raw pace and not a hell of a lot else. Bond had a booming in-swinger, a great change of pace, ability to take it away as well every now and then, and had almost similar pace to couple with it. And mentally, he sh*ts all upon Shoaib from a great height. Bond did his best work against the best side in the world.

Bond, to me, isn't the finest ODI bowler ever. But at his pinnacle, he's right up there with the greats. Being the finest ODI bowler of all time I would say also has to do with staying fit, winning tournaments, etc.

You could say he's one of the most talented of all-time, definitely.

 

[SteveNZ]

Haha and I love the Mills>Bond.

Millsy is under-rated as one of NZ's greats. Was rated No.1 in the ODI world for a time, has won us plenty of games yet probably doesn't get the respect he deserves as he never hit 140km/ph plus...which to me makes his achievements even more noble.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Akhtar had raw pace and not a hell of a lot else.

Your overall assessment about Bond is spot-on but this particular statement isn't true.

What tends to be easily overlooked - given the man's pace, surrounding hype and B.O. value - is that he was a very shrewd customer. Knew when to crank it up and had a very effective slower delivery that he used quite judiciously. Let alone ODIs, he even won a test series (against England in 2005) with his clever variations and bowling skill rather than just out-and-out speed.

Additionally, Akhtar could reverse swing it prodigiously on most days and on some occasions, got genuine movement with the new ball too. For all his indiscretions (some true, some imagined), lack of bowling acumen is not something that Akhtar was culpable of.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

If any bowler is terribly underrated in ODIs, I feel it's Nathan Bracken.

 

[Jacknife]

If any bowler is terribly underrated in ODIs, I feel it's Nathan Bracken.

Funny you should mention Bracken because I was comparing his stats with Flintoff's the other day, for some reason and they have virtually the same stats both average 24, both have a s/r off 33 and both have a economy of 4.4. Bracken's got 174 wickets to Flintoff's 169. Both underrated ODi bowers imo as well.

 

[Flem274*]

Haha and I love the Mills>Bond.

Millsy is under-rated as one of NZ's greats. Was rated No.1 in the ODI world for a time, has won us plenty of games yet probably doesn't get the respect he deserves as he never hit 140km/ph plus...which to me makes his achievements even more noble.

I agree entirely. I still think Bond is better, but Millsy is so underrated purely because he bowls at 130kph.

If any bowler is terribly underrated in ODIs, I feel it's Nathan Bracken.

Defo. Bet his lack of pace has nothing to do with it.

 

[Athlai]

In the CW rankings Bracken was just one spot behind Bond and still in the top 15.

 

[Uppercut]

Very specific grouping factor there.

Agree with UC that being able to remain uninjured is important and injuries aren't just random occurrences. If batters don't get much of a look at you due to injury, you're basically always a shock bowler who can send down absolutely everything full-throttle knowing it's a matter of time before you're in rehab again. Can bowl with relative freedom even if being injured will suck the life out of you eventually. If you're having to gird your body to day-in, day-out to the rigors of all forms, your approach to bowling mentally has to change.

Decent example is Shaun Tait. I know just about everyone knows him as a T20 shock bowler but if you have a look at his record for SA at Adelaide Oval before he gave up FC cricket, he bowled similar numbers of overs to Jason Gillespie at similar bowling average when both were expected to bowl big overs (because SA's attack, as a rule, is ****). Given he was always known as a bloke who bowled a few more wicket-taking balls than others but in those days, he still had to be patient for his wickets and bowl boring. Now he's only playing T20's, he can rock up and send them down with absolutely everything on each ball knowing he won't have to do it for long and just generally look like an insane wicket-taking badass every ball.

That Bond was unable or unwilling to thottle back to improve his longevity means there's massive question marks over how he'd have gone had opposition players played against him more regularly and he be forced to bowl with patience more often. It's a reason why people should be cautious with rating Rhino Harris too highly too; if he remains injury-free for a while, the next step will be how he reacts to batters knowing exactly what's coming. It's why blokes like McG and Marshall are rated so highly too; none of what they did was a surprise to anyone yet they just kept getting pricks out. Regularly.

Don't get me wrong, shock bowlers have their place. But if you're talking in terms of them being more 'talented' because they're going for the knockout ball more often, I'd venture there are other factors at play here.

To call Bond the best ODI bowler ever "when fit" is to do a huge disservice to bowlers that, for the good of the team, managed to bowl on a comparable level without constantly breaking down.

 

[Top_Cat]

Injuries, with few exceptions, aren't totally random. A lot of the time they're a reflection of your training regime (lack of) or something else you're doing wrong but are unable/unwilling to fix. That Harris is having knee troubles isn't that much of a surprise when you realise how much heavier he is and how much more he's putting into his action compared to when he was bowling meds.

 

[Debris]

If any bowler is terribly underrated in ODIs, I feel it's Nathan Bracken.

It is hard to take a player with girly hair seriously.

 

[smash84]

haha......yeah and the girly hair band too....lol

 

[Howsie]

Shane Bond is a much better bowler in tests than Chris Martin, but Chris Martin is far more valuable because he can bowl very long spells, is extremely fit, never gets injured and provides experience and test standard bowling.

Hmmm, if New Zealand cricket could magically have either 25 year old Shane Bond or Chris Martin back who do you think they would go for?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Hmmm, if New Zealand cricket could magically have either 25 year old Shane Bond or Chris Martin back who do you think they would go for?

Heh yea that isn't even close. Chris Martin has held New Zealand back to sub-mediocrity for years because the fact is his bowling isn't good enough and he's an average fielder and an atrocious batsman. His overall contribution is poor. Bond on the other hand gave an otherwise mediocre team a cutting edge and helped NZ's performance no end.

 

[Athlai]

Bond wins Test matches, Martin just makes us not lose more as badly.

 

[Uppercut]

Bond wins Test matches, Martin just makes us not lose more as badly.

Haha this. Don't New Zealand have a ridiculous record with Bond in the side? Bond for 10% of matches is probably still better than Martin all the time.