NZ's 2nd greatest test bowler.

[SteveNZ]

Is Southee really better than Boult by the extent the poll suggests?

Not by that extent, but to me he's better. Much more consistent for the last 3-4 years

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Not by that extent, but to me he's better. Much more consistent for the last 3-4 years

But is there a risk of judging Southee more favourably because his best period in Test cricket has that recency bias. Personally, I'd say over their careers, Boult has been the more consistent.

Anyway, good to have the irrelevant 2nd option in this poll. Vettori is not NZ's 2nd greatest bowler. Craig arguably won NZ more matches than Vettori did with the ball.

Of the others, hard to say. I'd be tempted to go Wagner as his work ethic and ability to dismiss set batsmen on batting wickets is a rare skill

 

[vandem]

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.

Based on Brittenden's 1969 tour book, Dayle Hadlee was world class pre-injury, pace and scary bounce. 8 tests, 27 wickets @19, key part in series win in Pakistan and series draw in India (which could have been a series win as India escaped 7 wickets down in 3rd test, after time lost to crowd riot then rain then ground drainage problems).

After the injury not so good, 18 tests 44 wickets @ 42, I read somewhere that his pace dropped, perhaps 135+ to 125-ish?

 

[morgieb]

He also owned a great Indian batting lineup.

On some of the greenest wickets your country has ever produced. His average was worse than the might of Daryl Tuffey and Jacob Oram, for example.

 

[Flem274*]

I think Bond is grossly over-rated. Take out his 'minnow-bashing' performances against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and his average is a 'not-so-hot' 26+
A lot is made of his performances v WI but the Windies weren't anything like their sides of previous decades.
His bowling v Australia (3 wickets @ 96.33) and no Tests v England are huge gaps in his resume.

This is disingenuous and you know it. Also why do England matter?

No it's actually like picking James Anderson over Ryan Harris. Which I would.

Because you're wrong.

Absolute quality is all that matters, which is why Bumrah was correctly in Indias atg side before he had more test wickets than bond, despite shame, zaheer and ishant existing.

 

[Flem274*]

On some of the greenest wickets your country has ever produced. His average was worse than the might of Daryl Tuffey and Jacob Oram, for example.

Gangulys crying and that Indias weak stomach for anything not to their liking has much to answer for.

 

[honestbharani]

bond, despite shame,

Why u ashamed of Bond?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Absolute quality is all that matters, which is why Bumrah was correctly in Indias atg side before he had more test wickets than bond, despite shame, zaheer and ishant existing.

Southee is better on absolute quality than Bond because of what he's done the last 3-4 years alone.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Gangulys crying and that Indias weak stomach for anything not to their liking has much to answer for.

Lmao what you cant have it both ways. What a great achievement by Bond to roll such a weak stomached lineup.

 

[Xix2565]

Again, Barry Richards syndrome is not really meaningful.

 

[271 & 16/166]

Since we have to exclude Grimmett on a technicality, it's Cowie

 

[Immenso]

Southee is better on absolute quality than Bond because of what he's done the last 3-4 years alone.

But everyone has been doing that last 3 to 4 years.

Bond played during a batting era.

 

[Immenso]

On some of the greenest wickets your country has ever produced. His average was worse than the might of Daryl Tuffey and Jacob Oram, for example.

I saw some of that series recently on YouTube (I didnt watch it back in the day, as living in non-cricketland). Not even green. Compared to these seamy-road days it was brown.

Not disputing that they were seam and pace friendly, though. As evidenced by the low scoring by both teams. But the "green" description will need a reset after the modern nz pitches have shifted the needle.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I saw some of that series recently on YouTube (I didnt watch it back in the day, as living in non-cricketland). Not even green. Compared to these seamy-road days it was brown.

Not disputing that they were seam and pace friendly, though. As evidenced by the low scoring by both teams. But the "green" description will need a reset after the modern nz pitches have shifted the needle.

How a pitch looks is not as important as how it behaves

 

[Gnske]

1. Wagner
2. N/A
3. Hadlee

 

[Flem274*]

Southee is better on absolute quality than Bond because of what he's done the last 3-4 years alone.

I strongly disagree.

Southee is a world class player, but he is no Bond. Few are. Watch them side by side. There is no comparison.

Southee could go full-McGrath and prove me wrong, but until then no real life selector would bench Shane Bond for the non-Cowie pace options in this poll (Vettori occupies his own weird no mans land and presents his own conundrum imo). Wagner comes closest because he is 2 bowlers for 1 followed by Southee.

 

[Teja.]

This is disingenuous and you know it. Also why do England matter?

Because you're wrong.

Absolute quality is all that matters, which is why Bumrah was correctly in Indias atg side before he had more test wickets than bond, despite shame, zaheer and ishant existing.

Harris was not good enough to play tests till about the age of of 30 and was floundering in FC cricket. He only really got gud late in life and strung together 20 tests of excellence in his early to mid 30s. It's harsh to punish Anderson for being good enough and disciplined enough to play tests at a very young age and also have a high quality extended peak after the age of 30. The only reason Harris has such a good record in comparison was because he was literally not good enough to be anywhere close to tests for the first half of his career.

If we extend this logic further, Lord Vogues has played about as many tests as Bond or Harris and has a pretty sick record with a 60+ batting average. Should he be ahead in Batting XIs compared to someone with 100 tests, 45 average and 20 hundreds because his absolute quality is so much better? come on.

 

[Flem274*]

Harris was not good enough to play tests till about the age of of 30 and was floundering in FC cricket. He only really got gud late in life and strung together 20 tests of excellence in his early to mid 30s. It's harsh to punish Anderson for being good enough and disciplined enough to play tests at a very young age and also have a high quality extended peak after the age of 30. The only reason Harris has such a good record in comparison was because he was literally not good enough to be anywhere close to tests for the first half of his career.

If we extend this logic further, Lord Vogues has played about as many tests as Bond or Harris and has a pretty sick record with a 60+ batting average. Should he be ahead in Batting XIs compared to someone with 100 tests, 45 average and 20 hundreds because his absolute quality is so much better? come on.

I don't hold Anderson's probably too early start against him at all. I'm far more critical of mid-career Anderson. Harris is the better bowler because he was noticeably the better bowler when they were contemporaries.

Likewise I don't rate Voges above various players because it is obvious his absolute quality was less than his statistics. It's a dubious comparison because I think we both know who wins very quickly if Bond bowls to Adam Voges.

I don't think Tim Southee himself would argue if Shane Bond were selected for a test match ahead of him. Southee is a fantastic bowler and his service has been so valuable, but Bond is the better bowler. When we're digging up the corpses for the ATG World Test Championship in year 2284, teams are going to pick the better bowlers for the test match that day, not pick based on who played the most games.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Awta

 

[_00_deathscar]

Bond didn't play 20 tests - come on.