New Zealand fast bowlers who are 'definitely' better than Kapil Dev

[TheJediBrah]

Bond played 18 tests. Take out the outlier Zimb and India 02/03 series and he played 14 tests.

He was a match winner in 4 of these 14 games.
Windies in Bridgetown, 2-34 (Gayle, Sarwan to have WI 2-6) and 5-78 (4th innings, 3 top order, 2 tail) in a rare NZ away win.
Windies in Auckland, 2-57 (Sarwan, Lara) and 5-69 (4th innings) in a 27 run win, MoM.
Sri Lanka in Christchurch, 3-43 and 4-63 in a 5 wicket win, MoM.
Pakistan in Dunedin, 5-107 (4 of top 6) and 3-46 (4th innings, all top 6) in a 32 run win, MoM.

He had significant contributions in 3 of these 14 games.
Ban in Hamilton, 4-47 and 2-28 in an innings win.
Ban in Wellington, 1-21 and 4-54 in another innings win.
Windies in St Georges, 5-104 in a drawn match where Gayle's 204 had threatened a massive lead, but Bond's wickets (4 of top 6) kept lead to 100 and helped NZ escape with a draw.

Not SFA.

His stats in the 14 selected games took a hit from his debut series in Aussie (3 wickets @ 96). If you want to get picky about outlier exclusions, take away his debut series, Zim and Indie 02/03 and you have 59 wickets @ 22.32.

Not SFA.

This doesn't really paint Bond in that good s light. West Indies were very ordinary at that time, even if he did get Lara once. And SL & Pak in NZ? Almost minnows tbh.

Kind of looks like Bond wasn't really challenged that much in the few series he did play in. I'll admit I was wrong and I've been overrating him, definitely letting his ODI performances skew my judgement

 

[Burgey]

Wait, I take it back. H_hurricane has just liked one of my posts

 

[h_hurricane]

Here comes another like

 

[TheJediBrah]

Close this thread now. It's got Burgey and subcontinental posters to be on the same side. It's unnatural.

 

[Burgey]

Here comes another like

No, as you can see, this is more than that.

this is love

 

[Athlai]

Close this thread now. It's got Burgey and subcontinental posters to be on the same side. It's unnatural.

It's proof that they're wrong

 

[Burgey]

It's proof that they're wrong

Your face is wrong.

As are your posts.

 

[trundler]

I like how Burgey is a boomer first and an SC cricket hater second. Just can't handle the '80s hero being maligned.

 

[Burgey]

Nah he was just a really good cricketer doing a tough job for his team in often really tough conditions and taking over 400 wickets doing it. The other bloke played 18 tests ffs.

Be like Gilchrist ending his career in about 2001 averaging 60 odd and people saying he was a better bat than Tendulkar or Ponting. It’s not even a discussion worth having because the records and sample sizes are so disparate.

And i don’t hate SC cricketers. I hate most SC cricket fans.

 

[Flem274*]

The trouble with this rationale and filtering is that you go from picking players based on their career and accomplishments and what they showed to natural talent and potential and I'm not sure if that really is the best way to go about it

For example by applying this logic of applying current era professionalism and training to any player in Indian history a player like Vinod Kambli will always make this hypothetical squad of 15 and be a key player in the XI too. His career fell apart due to mental struggles, poor backing and mismanagement as iirc he belonged to one of the more backward communities in India and that may have played a subtle part in it too compared to today's world. He was outrageously talented and as good as Tendulkar

Even Kohli wouldn't make it in ahead of Rohit Sharma as the latter was always more talented and had more potential than the former but struggled to bring it internationally back then owing to his own consistency issues until he started opening in all formats. There is a reason why he was backed so much despite averaging only like 30 in nearly 100 international games once. Even in your Aussie example I would take Pattinson who was more talented than Cummins and had the misfortune of having a worse bowling action that wasn't corrected and the comparative lack of backing

At the end of the day I understand this is all a subjective process but with your rationale many ATG sides will probably be subject to massive changes just based on who was the biggest wunderkid back then rather than measuring them based on what they achieved and brought to the field

Kambli didn't fail from a lack of access, he failed from a lack of ****s given or whatever it was.

And again, you're using batsmen here, and batsmen have it tougher to make squads because their currency is results over time whereas a bowler you instantly know when they move up a gear. It's also not out of the bounds of possibility India would have one last go at Kambli even in an ATG squad. You just know someone is going to go back to the well, likely the English with Ramps after he outscores Root and Hammond in the trials.

I see you bring Pattinson up. That's actually a great example of a player who, if he wasn't Australian, could well find himself in a squad of 15 for an ATG series. I don't think he's more talented than Cummins (Cummins bowled heat at 18), but he's a cricketer Australia made every effort to get in the team ahead of loads of guys with fluffy records because they knew he was a class above. To use Indian examples, some of those early blokes will definitely be in the trials and the selectors may well punt Ishant, Zaheer or another long term bowler for them if they're obviously better. It's like we all know Bumrah is head and shoulders above every Indian quick ever.

I'm a statistics guy because I like my teams to win, but part of selecting to win is the eye test rather than reducing cricket to abstract quantities and mathematics, because that's how you erringly select Southee or Boult over Bond. CW and media ATG team selections have little correlation to how cricket teams are selected in real life, and that's a large reason why I'm beginning to find multi-page ATG debates pointless. In reality the ATG tournament would be decided by which few players go on an absolute tear and who holds their catches.*

*Or a boundary count and a mankad.

 

[Athlai]

Kambli didn't fail from a lack of access, he failed from a lack of ****s given or whatever it was.

And again, you're using batsmen here, and batsmen have it tougher to make squads because their currency is results over time whereas a bowler you instantly know when they move up a gear. It's also not out of the bounds of possibility India would have one last go at Kambli even in an ATG squad. You just know someone is going to go back to the well, likely the English with Ramps after he outscores Root and Hammond in the trials.

I see you bring Pattinson up. That's actually a great example of a player who, if he wasn't Australian, could well find himself in a squad of 15 for an ATG series. I don't think he's more talented than Cummins (Cummins bowled heat at 18), but he's a cricketer Australia made every effort to get in the team ahead of loads of guys with fluffy records because they knew he was a class above. To use Indian examples, some of those early blokes will definitely be in the trials and the selectors may well punt Ishant, Zaheer or another long term bowler for them if they're obviously better. It's like we all know Bumrah is head and shoulders above every Indian quick ever.

I'm a statistics guy because I like my teams to win, but part of selecting to win is the eye test rather than reducing cricket to abstract quantities and mathematics, because that's how you erringly select Southee or Boult over Bond. CW and media ATG team selections have little correlation to how cricket teams are selected in real life, and that's a large reason why I'm beginning to find multi-page ATG debates pointless. In reality the ATG tournament would be decided by which few players go on an absolute tear and who holds their catches.*

*Or a boundary count and a mankad.

ok

 

[honestbharani]

ambli didn't fail from a lack of access, he failed from a lack of ****s given or whatever it was.

Nah... unless you think access only means cricket infrastructure and even then I would argue it was not the same for him as it was for Sachin. There are so many sociological factors about growing up in India, esp. in a pre-IPL generation, that you are disregarding here its bordering on the stupid.

 

[Gob]

Absolutely they would, because test standard players of any quality aren’t worried by pace alone, they’re worried about getting out.

By your reasoning they’d rather not face Lee than military fast-medium Hadlee, which is laughable. They’re not worried about getting hit when they’re that good, they’re worried about getting out.

Kapil Dev challenged both edges, Shane Bond (sadly) challenged both an MRI and an ultrasound. It’s not even a contest.

Bond swung it in massively tbh

 

[h_hurricane]

Bond swung it in massively tbh

In MRI scan obviously.

 

[TheBrand]

Lord Colin > Stokes > Dev.

 

[Burgey]

Bond swung it in massively tbh

Yeah he did, but he only did it for 18 tests, sadly. It's a heck of an insult to any player who takes 400 test poles to say a bloke who played 18 matches was definitively better than them.

I think Bond could have been a great bowler - not Hadlee level but great all the same, but he just didn't play enough to be ranked ahead of someone like Kapil imo. Same thing could be said for a bloke like Patto.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Lillee and Akram have a peer reputation far greater than Hadlee at least.

Lol.
Marshall and McGrath might, but not Lillee and Akram.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Lord Colin > Stokes > Dev.

Best test batting average of the 3.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah he did, but he only did it for 18 tests, sadly. It's a heck of an insult to any player who takes 400 test poles to say a bloke who played 18 matches was definitively better than them.

I think Bond could have been a great bowler - not Hadlee level but great all the same, but he just didn't play enough to be ranked ahead of someone like Kapil imo. Same thing could be said for a bloke like Patto.

I'm happy to say Graeme Pollock (23 tests) was definitely better than Amla (124 tests) and De Villiers (114). Better (at batting) than Kallis as well.

Now I'm not saying Bond is anywhere near Pollock's level (up with Lara as best ever leftie imo), but the same principle applies. In the same way I rate Ryan Harris (27 tests) very highly.

 

[ZK$]

Lol.
Marshall and McGrath might, but not Lillee and Akram.

Lillee and Wasim (and Marshall) are definitely rated higher than Hadlee and McGrath by the majority of their peers.