• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Shane Bond - how good?

Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
sayon basak said:
Btw the answer is- "not good enough to continue for more than 18 matches".
Click to expand...
Yes. NZ got much more out of Chris Martin than Shane Bond, and would have in almost every era (the exception maybe the very last one?)

Yes in some fantasy ATG time travelling scenario we may acknowledge that Shane Bond would be a better selection in the 1/30 chance he was actually available, but as a long term captain or selector of a normal side I'd definitely take Martin.

And I know this thread isn't even about Martin, but seriously though just **** unfit quicks pretending they were better than quicks who successfully changed actions, cut pace or whatever else to actually be useful to their Test teams for an extended period.
 
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
Yes. NZ got much more out of Chris Martin than Shane Bond, and would have in almost every era (the exception maybe the very last one?)

Yes in some fantasy ATG time travelling scenario we may acknowledge that Shane Bond would be a better selection in the 1/30 chance he was actually available, but as a long term captain or selector of a normal side I'd definitely take Martin.

And I know this thread isn't even about Martin, but seriously though just **** unfit quicks pretending they were better than quicks who successfully changed actions, cut pace or whatever else to actually be useful to their Test teams for an extended period.
Click to expand...
no, **** you.
 
Bahnz

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
Yes. NZ got much more out of Chris Martin than Shane Bond, and would have in almost every era (the exception maybe the very last one?)

Yes in some fantasy ATG time travelling scenario we may acknowledge that Shane Bond would be a better selection in the 1/30 chance he was actually available, but as a long term captain or selector of a normal side I'd definitely take Martin.

And I know this thread isn't even about Martin, but seriously though just **** unfit quicks pretending they were better than quicks who successfully changed actions, cut pace or whatever else to actually be useful to their Test teams for an extended period.
Click to expand...
If we're talking tests, I think Bond would've had a very similar career to Ferguson: identified early as too valuable to the white ball teams and basically permadropped from test cricket after his first injury.

Martin on the other hand would likely have floated around the squad and played games here and there, in much the way Henry and Doug did while the trio were active and Tickner and Kugz have since they broke up.

So yes, Martin more valuable to the test side in every era.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top