Amar Singh vs Shane Bond

[Lillian Thomson]

Not sure about Bond, but Singh was definitely a better bowler and all rounder than Kapil Dev.

 

[a massive zebra]

Perhaps compare him with Cowie - the best seamer between Larwood and Lindwall.

Cowie took a grand total of 19 Test wickets between Larwood's last Test and Lindwall's debut.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Cowie took a grand total of 19 Test wickets between Larwood's last Test and Lindwall's debut.

WW2

 

[the big bambino]

Wasn't Mohammed Nissar a better/quicker bowler than Singh?

I thought Singh was held in high regard due to his all-round skills

he was thought better purely as a bowler alone. Not just by the writers either but by all the batsmen who mattered who faced both. Neither was he an Indian Anderson, doing better in India than England.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Casino Royal is the best bond film.

Fight me

too reaistic. Bond is meant to be a male fantasy

 

[Archer6K]

Both Hutton and Hammond rated Amar very very high. (Like best in the world kind of high)

There's nothing exceptional in his stats though and he barely played any tests. Bond is a seriously low bar though so Amar gets to be better by default. In fact I have recently learnt that actually playing tests has no relevance to being good so Amar is probably better than every NZ bowler bar Hadlee.

How is Shane Bond a relatively low bar? He had a brilliant avergae (22.1), for bowlers with as many wickets as him or more, he has the second best strike rate (38.7), only George Lohmann is better, he took almost all of his wickets against the better batsman in the opposition, 37.9% of batsman 1-3, 44.8% of batsman 4-7 and only 17.2% of batsman 8-11, essentially he wasn't a stat padder. His home record is obviosuly incredible but his away record is still reasonably very good. Obviosuly he wasn't the best economically but he made up with that by having a brilliant strike rate.

 

[The Sean]

Cowie better than Amar Singh by a good margin.

Cowie bowling from 10.13.

It always fascinates me to watch Richard Collinge bowl - a big, burly 6'5 giant of a man coming in off a run-up that starts in a different postcode then finally delivering the ball at what looks to be just a little above medium pace.

 

[Coronis]

WW2

A factor sure, but its not like Cowie would’ve had that many more tests anyway.

I’d say Bowes was the best pacer between Larwood and Lindwall. Sad thing is over that time period no pacer played over 15 tests, apart from part time batsmen. (Hammond played 41 tests over that period for example

 

[_00_deathscar]

How is Shane Bond a relatively low bar? He had a brilliant avergae (22.1), for bowlers with as many wickets as him or more, he has the second best strike rate (38.7), only George Lohmann is better, he took almost all of his wickets against the better batsman in the opposition, 37.9% of batsman 1-3, 44.8% of batsman 4-7 and only 17.2% of batsman 8-11, essentially he wasn't a stat padder. His home record is obviosuly incredible but his away record is still reasonably very good. Obviosuly he wasn't the best economically but he made up with that by having a brilliant strike rate.

He beat up on some **** teams.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

He beat up on some **** teams.

Yeah really feasted on those famed minnows - the 2000s Australian ODI side.

Bond's team specific test stats are artifacts of small sample sizes, can't read anything from them

 

[Daemon]

His entire test career is a tiny sample size. Sam Curran has played more tests and he’s not even a regular.

If I had to bet on how a brand new Bond that couldn’t get injured would fare in Tests, I’d be all in. Unfortunately we shouldn’t be rating players based on things that didn’t even happen.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Yeah really feasted on those famed minnows - the 2000s Australian ODI side.

Bond's team specific test stats are artifacts of small sample sizes, can't read anything from them

This is a thread about tests, not ODIs

And Bevan and about 100 others REALLY showed ODI performance translates exactly the same to tests didn’t they?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

A factor sure, but its not like Cowie would’ve had that many more tests anyway.

I’d say Bowes was the best pacer between Larwood and Lindwall. Sad thing is over that time period no pacer played over 15 tests, apart from part time batsmen. (Hammond played 41 tests over that period for example

I would go with Cowie,Farnes and Bowes(in order).

 

[mr_mister]

Martindale or Constantine a shout?

 

[Flem274*]

His entire test career is a tiny sample size. Sam Curran has played more tests and he’s not even a regular.

If I had to bet on how a brand new Bond that couldn’t get injured would fare in Tests, I’d be all in. Unfortunately we shouldn’t be rating players based on things that didn’t even happen.

It isn't zero sum though.

Maybe it's fair to rate Chris Martin or Tim Southee as having had the more successful career, but I'll always think anyone who picks them in a team to win a game ahead of Shane Bond to be a bit bold. It's pretty telling the people with the most investment in a theoretical NZ ATG side being competitive almost always pick Bond.

Looking further afield, Zaheer has probably had a more successful career than Bumrah with 300 wickets all over the world and was the clinching element for India becoming #1 for the first time ever, but you'd be brave not to pick Bumrah over him every time (though my Indian ATG side picks both sometimes to get that left arm swing in there). You always select from the highest talent bracket first and only go down the tiers once it's exhausted.

My examples of Bond and Harris are too extreme for most people right now but longevity being weighted so high as an attribute in cricket right now frustrates me, especially with how blindly we judge it. If you want to be considered better than you are by internet nerds, just go play for England and rack up 50 tests in 2 years.* Squad depth matters far more to the success of a side or player than longevity, because there is always cover for your bad days and you're surrounded by quality players. Bangladesh have a lot of players with longevity (in years) far beyond what their skill deserves (Rubel my bro ily).

I appreciate the case by case basis of this creates a lot more grey areas but I'm fine with it.

*Surviving England's test schedule is a challenge in itself, but I'm gonna need a very small violin if it is used too seriously as a counter. Most sides would gladly swap schedules and finances.

 

[Daemon]

It isn't zero sum though.

Maybe it's fair to rate Chris Martin or Tim Southee as having had the more successful career, but I'll always think anyone who picks them in a team to win a game ahead of Shane Bond to be a bit bold. It's pretty telling the people with the most investment in a theoretical NZ ATG side being competitive almost always pick Bond.

Looking further afield, Zaheer has probably had a more successful career than Bumrah with 300 wickets all over the world and was the clinching element for India becoming #1 for the first time ever, but you'd be brave not to pick Bumrah over him every time (though my Indian ATG side picks both sometimes to get that left arm swing in there). You always select from the highest talent bracket first and only go down the tiers once it's exhausted.

My examples of Bond and Harris are too extreme for most people right now but longevity being weighted so high as an attribute in cricket right now frustrates me, especially with how blindly we judge it. If you want to be considered better than you are by internet nerds, just go play for England and rack up 50 tests in 2 years.* Squad depth matters far more to the success of a side or player than longevity, because there is always cover for your bad days and you're surrounded by quality players. Bangladesh have a lot of players with longevity (in years) far beyond what their skill deserves (Rubel my bro ily).

I appreciate the case by case basis of this creates a lot more grey areas but I'm fine with it.

*Surviving England's test schedule is a challenge in itself, but I'm gonna need a very small violin if it is used too seriously as a counter. Most sides would gladly swap schedules and finances.

Ok

 

[OverratedSanity]

The doubts creep in with Bond in tests not just because he couldn't stay on the park but because of his style of bowling. He was an express pitch it up in-swing bowler. That's conducive to great ODI success, not sure that's a style that works in the long term against good test teams though. Could well have kept working who knows but I'm not entirely convinced. Atleast other overrated bowlers like Harris actually had a peak period with success in different types of conditions against good teams with what seemed like a sustainable MO.

 

[_00_deathscar]

It isn't zero sum though.

Maybe it's fair to rate Chris Martin or Tim Southee as having had the more successful career, but I'll always think anyone who picks them in a team to win a game ahead of Shane Bond to be a bit bold. It's pretty telling the people with the most investment in a theoretical NZ ATG side being competitive almost always pick Bond.

Looking further afield, Zaheer has probably had a more successful career than Bumrah with 300 wickets all over the world and was the clinching element for India becoming #1 for the first time ever, but you'd be brave not to pick Bumrah over him every time (though my Indian ATG side picks both sometimes to get that left arm swing in there). You always select from the highest talent bracket first and only go down the tiers once it's exhausted.

My examples of Bond and Harris are too extreme for most people right now but longevity being weighted so high as an attribute in cricket right now frustrates me, especially with how blindly we judge it. If you want to be considered better than you are by internet nerds, just go play for England and rack up 50 tests in 2 years.* Squad depth matters far more to the success of a side or player than longevity, because there is always cover for your bad days and you're surrounded by quality players. Bangladesh have a lot of players with longevity (in years) far beyond what their skill deserves (Rubel my bro ily).

I appreciate the case by case basis of this creates a lot more grey areas but I'm fine with it.

*Surviving England's test schedule is a challenge in itself, but I'm gonna need a very small violin if it is used too seriously as a counter. Most sides would gladly swap schedules and finances.

Bumrah and Zaheer isn’t remotely comparable.
It depends whom you’re comparing Bond to actually…

Would you pick Vinod Kambli?

Finally, there’s no guarantee, especially once you’re comparing <100 wickets to someone who took 3-5x that.

More tests = more chance you prove or fail.

Look how badly Virat’s stock has fallen. Dude averaged 55 at around the 80 test mark and is at 49 now.
Bond played 18 tests, not 80.