NZ's 2nd greatest test bowler.

[a massive zebra]

Its amazing that except Cowie everyone has been post 2000 (Vettori debuted a bit earlier but I see him as a noughties player).

New Zealand did have a few good bowlers other than Hadlee and Cowie in the 20th century. For instance, Dick Motz, Bruce Taylor, Hedley Howarth, Richard Collinge and Chris Cairns. They just aren't options in this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

New Zealand did have a few good bowlers other than Hadlee and Cowie in the 20th century. For instance, Dick Motz, Bruce Taylor, Hedley Howarth, Richard Collinge and Chris Cairns. They just aren't options in this thread.

yeah but I think it shows their rise in the world game this last decade and a steady improvement before that. That is all.

 

[SteveNZ]

I honestly don't think there's an answer. All of the guys in that list have a caveat. Cowie played 9 Tests, and we have to rely on reputation and legend to assess him. Bond played 18 and couldn't stay fit. Vettori averaged 34 and had a poor record v the 'big 5'. Southee wasted his talent for 10 years off and on, then finally became world class. Not sure what exactly for Boult and Wagner, but they don't quite feel like they're good enough to be a clear 2nd. I couldn't pick one.

 

[honestbharani]

Wagner is in the running for best ever 1st change bowler, so I will probably just go with him here.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

New Zealand did have a few good bowlers other than Hadlee and Cowie in the 20th century. For instance, Dick Motz, Bruce Taylor, Hedley Howarth, Richard Collinge and Chris Cairns. They just aren't options in this thread.

I thought about including all of them (plus Dion Nash), but didn't think they'd get many/any votes. I can add names if people wish.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I honestly don't think there's an answer. All of the guys in that list have a caveat. Cowie played 9 Tests, and we have to rely on reputation and legend to assess him. Bond played 18 and couldn't stay fit. Vettori averaged 34 and had a poor record v the 'big 5'. Southee wasted his talent for 10 years off and on, then finally became world class. Not sure what exactly for Boult and Wagner, but they don't quite feel like they're good enough to be a clear 2nd. I couldn't pick one.

Yeah I'm the same.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not a candidate for this, nor a great bowler, but Dale Hadlee was a decent bowler at the time when New Zealand didn't play a lot but were becoming truly competitive.

 

[kevinw]

I'd probably place Cairns above any of the current guys. Carried that pace attack mostly single-handedly (he and Chris Martin only overlap in the last couple of years).

 

[Chrish]

Longevity matters most. Bond winning the poll is comical..

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Bond would be if he wasn't made of uncooked spaghetti. Have to give it someone who has performed over a longer period and can play more than 2 games a year. Southee just edges Boult for me.

 

[Immenso]

I'd probably place Cairns above any of the current guys. Carried that pace attack mostly single-handedly (he and Chris Martin only overlap in the last couple of years).

He most certainly didn't.

He was an indulged passenger until late 90s, by when - he'd either grew up a bit / or a good trio (with Doull and Nash) was there for him to be part of. Not sure which ws correlation or causation.

 

[Flem274*]

Longevity matters most. Bond winning the poll is comical..

Nah. In real life, no one picks Peter Siddle over Ryan Harris.

 

[SteveNZ]

Longevity matters most. Bond winning the poll is comical..

Not the most. And even then it needs defining what 'greatest' is

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I have no problem with Bond as the "Best". The term "Greatest" does sort of suggest more criteria could be involved. Not sure why though....

 

[Flem274*]

I've never dived into Cowie's numbers that hard.

He has 202 wickets @ 22.41 for teams branded some variation of "New Zealand" and 154 @ 21.93 for Auckland.

Looking at his record against each opponent, he has a good test record against England and Australia obv but also kept it up against sides branded some variation of England and Australia and also dominated FC sides who were NZ's equal or let's be honest, probably a lot better.

Overall Wisden's assessment of him seems to hold up.

 

[Immenso]

Also, he meets the oh-so important longevity criteria. He never missed a single test in his 12 year career .....

 

[Chrish]

Nah. In real life, no one picks Peter Siddle over Ryan Harris.

Can’t take someone seriously if they think taking 87 wickets is enough to be considered as 2nd best bowler of any test playing nation.

 

[Chrish]

Not the most. And even then it needs defining what 'greatest' is

Certain numbers are necessary. If you are talking about test bowlers, then 200+ wickets are minimum IMO; preferably over 300. This would mean a bowler was that good for that many numbers of years, or number of tests, or series; however you want to word it.

Higher this number, the better.

 

[Flem274*]

Can’t take someone seriously if they think taking 87 wickets is enough to be considered as 2nd best bowler of any test playing nation.

Ok

 

[morgieb]

Surprised so many people are voting for Bond given the Test caveat. If he could stay fit, then yeah he probably would've been second best. But he didn't. Take out Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and his average is 26. And even then, his record is quite reliant on bashing the West Indies (who while having a decent batting lineup was clearly the worst of the Top 8 nations throughout Bond's career) and that India series which was played on a pitch which was indistinguisable from the outfield.

I voted Cowie. Not much track record admittedly but all those Tests came against England or Australia - it was hardly like he was minmow bashing.

Southee 3rd. Arguably could be 2nd because of Cowie's lack of track record, but meh.