Rank These 21st Century Pacers

[Line and Length]

Flem's posts are so obviously provocative and boringly repetitive that I'm not sure what he is aiming to achieve. He quotes Anderson's home and away records ad nauseum but rarely, if ever, looks at this aspect of other bowlers under consideration.

In the words of John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"

 

[TheJediBrah]

Flem's posts are so obviously provocative and boringly repetitive that I'm not sure what he is aiming to achieve. He quotes Anderson's home and away records ad nauseum but rarely, if ever, looks at this aspect of other bowlers under consideration.

In the words of John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"

Actually I think you'll find that the majority of the other bowlers under consideration have much better away records than Anderson, which is Flem's point

bit of a swing and a miss there

 

[Flem274*]

We all know if Anderson played for Sri Lanka or something he would be absolutely loved on here.

England play a ton of Tests again the best teams, home and away. Imagine if how good Anderson's record would be if he got to play an equal portion of his matches against Sri Lanka and West Indies and got to go home after a couple of Tests away to India and Australia like the New Zealand bowlers do.

he has a terrible sri lankan record so not sure he would tbh

addressing the kiwi snipe, if he was here he would probably average well into the 30s going by his kookaburra record.

it's true he's played against australia in australia a lot which is punishing for a swing bowler, but he's also been offered up 21 tests against the west indies, only 10 of his 27 indian tests were in india and we know how they surrender when touring SENA.

all jokes aside, anderson is a good bowler and a great servant to english cricket and it's ridiculous the english media and cw posters declare anderson an all tme great when his reputation is mostly down to test spam and being a demon with the duke. he isn't getting those advantages anywhere else in the world, and he would play his 60-100 tests for a solid 28-32 average and be remembered much more realistically.

he's nowhere near the #2 of the listed bowlers, but he is the mahela jayawardene of them.

 

[Line and Length]

Actually I think you'll find that the majority of the other bowlers under consideration have much better away records than Anderson, which is Flem's point

bit of a swing and a miss there

Not a swing and a miss by any means. Where has Flem presented the career figures of other bowlers to the extent that he repetitively posts Anderson's.

While Flem, as you say, has a point, to leave Anderson out of any Top 10 list of 21st C quicks is purely bait.

Flem doesn't require you to jump to his defence as he is more than capable of rational responses as his later post, where he includes "all jokes aside", would indicate.

 

[Line and Length]

all jokes aside, anderson is a good bowler and a great servant to english cricket and it's ridiculous the english media and cw posters declare anderson an all tme great when his reputation is mostly down to test spam and being a demon with the duke. he isn't getting those advantages anywhere else in the world, and he would play his 60-100 tests for a solid 28-32 average and be remembered much more realistically.

he's nowhere near the #2 of the listed bowlers, but he is the mahela jayawardene of them.

Now we're closer to seeing eye-to-eye and seeing the real Flem. I agree, Steyn and Cummings are clearly the top two of the listed bowlers and I also agree that Anderson is short of being an ATG.

Thanks for the post.

 

[Teja.]

Has Bumrah already had a better career than Bond?

No seriously..

Bumrah's career - 68 wickets @ 20.33 in 14 tests
Away v SA - 14 wickets in 3 tests @ 25.2
Away v England - 14 wickets in 3 tests @ 25.9
Away v Australia - 21 wickets in 4 tests @ 17
Away v WI - 13 wickets @ 9 in 2 tests
Away v NZ - 6 wickets @ 31.6

Bond's career - 87 wickets @ 22.09 in 18 tests
Away v Australia - 3 wickets in 2 tests @ 96.3
Home v Bangladesh - 11 wickets in 2 tests @ 13.6
Away v WI - 12 wickets in 2 tests @ 18
Home v India - 12 wickets in 2 tests @ 16.33
Away v Sri Lanka - 5 wickets in 2 tests @ 38.8
Home v Zimbabwe - 13 wickets in 2 tests @ 9.23
Home v WI - 8 wickets in 2 tests @ 26.2
Home v SL - 10 wickets in 2 tests @ 25.8
Away v SA - 5 wickets in 1 test @ 26.2
Home v Pak - 8 wickets in 1 test @ 19

The more you look into it the more it feels like Bond's test match results look very mythy and reliant on beating up on Bdesh, Zimbabwe and WI mostly at home. Bumrah on the other hand has had elite series away against top teams right off the bat.

I think Bond as a test match bowler gets rated a lot higher than other people with similar records on account of the fact that he had an elite ODI career as well where he showed that he had the ability to be destructive even against the best int'l batsmen and not based on his actual performances in test cricket. This is probably fair tbh because even I admit that Bond's subjective 'quality' was very high compared to other people of his sample size.

I was originally playing devil's advocate here but it looks like I've worked myself into a shoot about this issue. Discuss.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Mooooooonaf Patel

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I really wanna give a shoutout to a lion-hearted bowler from the early to mid 2000s:

Tapash Baisya

 

[Daemon]

Has Bumrah already had a better career than Bond?

No seriously..

Bumrah's career - 68 wickets @ 20.33 in 14 tests
Away v SA - 14 wickets in 3 tests @ 25.2
Away v England - 14 wickets in 3 tests @ 25.9
Away v Australia - 21 wickets in 4 tests @ 17
Away v WI - 13 wickets @ 9 in 2 tests
Away v NZ - 6 wickets @ 31.6

Bond's career - 87 wickets @ 22.09 in 18 tests
Away v Australia - 3 wickets in 2 tests @ 96.3
Home v Bangladesh - 11 wickets in 2 tests @ 13.6
Away v WI - 12 wickets in 2 tests @ 18
Home v India - 12 wickets in 2 tests @ 16.33
Away v Sri Lanka - 5 wickets in 2 tests @ 38.8
Home v Zimbabwe - 13 wickets in 2 tests @ 9.23
Home v WI - 8 wickets in 2 tests @ 26.2
Home v SL - 10 wickets in 2 tests @ 25.8
Away v SA - 5 wickets in 1 test @ 26.2
Home v Pak - 8 wickets in 1 test @ 19

The more you look into it the more it feels like Bond's test match results look very mythy and reliant on beating up on Bdesh, Zimbabwe and WI mostly at home. Bumrah on the other hand has had elite series away against top teams right off the bat.

I think Bond as a test match bowler gets rated a lot higher than other people with similar records on account of the fact that he had an elite ODI career as well where he showed that he had the ability to be destructive even against the best int'l batsmen and not based on his actual performances in test cricket. This is probably fair tbh because even I admit that Bond's subjective 'quality' was very high compared to other people of his sample size.

I was originally playing devil's advocate here but it looks like I've worked myself into a shoot about this issue. Discuss.

I don't necessarily agree with Bumrah > Bond, but people can't be serious putting bond in their top 3. 18 tests ffs. After 18 Tests even Irfan Pathan averaged 26.

Don't need to value longevity but that's a really low bar.

 

[harsh.ag]

Stuart Clark v Shane Bond would be a good thread. TJB should make it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can we change the title of this thread to: "Shane Bond: Myth Busted"

Not a swing and a miss by any means. Where has Flem presented the career figures of other bowlers to the extent that he repetitively posts Anderson's.

While Flem, as you say, has a point, to leave Anderson out of any Top 10 list of 21st C quicks is purely bait.

Flem doesn't require you to jump to his defence as he is more than capable of rational responses as his later post, where he includes "all jokes aside", would indicate.

Is that really necessary for the point to stand? If I say "Chris Martin was the worst batsman in his NZ team, he averaged 2.36", do I have to post the batting averages of all his team mates for reference? No because 2.36 is a crap batting average.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, there's no doubt thought that Bond's record is flattered by his 4 tests against two truely terrible Zimbang sides. That was the All Blacks vs School for the Blind levels of mismatch, and it's not unfair to discount those from his record.

This is why I tend to rank Bond a fair way down in the NZ all time test bowling ranks. Because while he's probably NZ's GOAT for ODI's we really don't know how good he was in tests. Never toured England or India, just half a test v SA, a pummelling at the hands of Ponting & co (admittedly in his first 2 international games) and some relatively easy wickets against what was - Lara and Chanders aside - an abysmal windies side.

If his body had been up to it, he may well have gone on to be a Steyn-esque nightmare bowler, or he might well have battled his way through to a mearly very good 28ish career average. Sadly we'll never know.

 

[Daemon]

The more I dig into this Bond stuff the more shocking it is. Without Bangladesh and Zimbabwe he averaged 33 away from home - same as Jimmy.

 

[morgieb]

Has Bumrah already had a better career than Bond?

No seriously..

Bumrah's career - 68 wickets @ 20.33 in 14 tests
Away v SA - 14 wickets in 3 tests @ 25.2
Away v England - 14 wickets in 3 tests @ 25.9
Away v Australia - 21 wickets in 4 tests @ 17
Away v WI - 13 wickets @ 9 in 2 tests
Away v NZ - 6 wickets @ 31.6

Bond's career - 87 wickets @ 22.09 in 18 tests
Away v Australia - 3 wickets in 2 tests @ 96.3
Home v Bangladesh - 11 wickets in 2 tests @ 13.6
Away v WI - 12 wickets in 2 tests @ 18
Home v India - 12 wickets in 2 tests @ 16.33
Away v Sri Lanka - 5 wickets in 2 tests @ 38.8
Home v Zimbabwe - 13 wickets in 2 tests @ 9.23
Home v WI - 8 wickets in 2 tests @ 26.2
Home v SL - 10 wickets in 2 tests @ 25.8
Away v SA - 5 wickets in 1 test @ 26.2
Home v Pak - 8 wickets in 1 test @ 19

The more you look into it the more it feels like Bond's test match results look very mythy and reliant on beating up on Bdesh, Zimbabwe and WI mostly at home. Bumrah on the other hand has had elite series away against top teams right off the bat.

I think Bond as a test match bowler gets rated a lot higher than other people with similar records on account of the fact that he had an elite ODI career as well where he showed that he had the ability to be destructive even against the best int'l batsmen and not based on his actual performances in test cricket. This is probably fair tbh because even I admit that Bond's subjective 'quality' was very high compared to other people of his sample size.

I was originally playing devil's advocate here but it looks like I've worked myself into a shoot about this issue. Discuss.

This forum is notorious for under-rating current players. It's not like Bumrah hasn't been fantastic at ODI's either. I'm not sure I'd do it yet but I think the gap between the two is much closer than people are assuming and realistically Bumrah might only be a year away from overtaking Bond.

 

[Flem274*]

hahaha it's actually quite fair not to rate bond as a test bowler at all because despite some great outings he played so little and was served up some zimbos. the only quibble i'd make with teja is bond's tests were spread out over 10 or so years, so he didn't capitalise on a purple patch like bumrah may be doing (i don't think he is, i think he's the real deal).

in a 'real' selector situation though if he's available for your red ball side you play him. he's the instant win button for even a medium to bad quality side against good sides and the instant competitiveness button against great sides. i give him the same deal i give ryan harris and shoiab akhtar (shoiab made it to 40 odd tests i believe tho?).

for his own country, despite the likes of trent boult having much better careers, there's only one choice imo. bond is a level above.

besides it's not all bad, he averages the same away from home as atg fast bowler jimmy anderson.

 

[Burgey]

The main thing in this thread is Anderson is never ranked any higher than 8th or 9th at best. Anyone who places him higher than that in this list suffers a cognitive deficit.

 

[Line and Length]

The main thing in this thread is Anderson is never ranked any higher than 8th or 9th at best. Anyone who places him higher than that in this list suffers a cognitive deficit.

10 of the 12 posters who have voted place him above 8 with an average position of 4.3 - to say all have a "cognitive deficit" says more about you than it does about those who post here.

 

[Isura]

1. Steyn
2. Cummins
3. Bumrah
4. Asif
5. Philander
6. Rabada
7. Harris
8. Anderson
9. Bond
10.Broad

 

[TheJediBrah]

10 of the 12 posters who have voted place him above 8 with an average position of 4.3 - to say all have a "cognitive deficit" says more about you than it does about those who post here.

Nah I'm going to go with 10 of the 12 posters have a cognitive deficit.

Not saying that Burgey doesn't as well mind you. but he's right about this

 

[Teja.]

hahaha it's actually quite fair not to rate bond as a test bowler at all because despite some great outings he played so little and was served up some zimbos. the only quibble i'd make with teja is bond's tests were spread out over 10 or so years, so he didn't capitalise on a purple patch like bumrah may be doing (i don't think he is, i think he's the real deal).

in a 'real' selector situation though if he's available for your red ball side you play him. he's the instant win button for even a medium to bad quality side against good sides and the instant competitiveness button against great sides. i give him the same deal i give ryan harris and shoiab akhtar (shoiab made it to 40 odd tests i believe tho?).

for his own country, despite the likes of trent boult having much better careers, there's only one choice imo. bond is a level above.

besides it's not all bad, he averages the same away from home as atg fast bowler jimmy anderson.

Yeah, I agree tbh. I consider Boult etc. 'greater' than him based on results but had no doubt that he was an elite quality bowler a few levels above when he was on the pitch based on watching him.

Akthar is an interesting case IMO because while he did play 46 games (178 wickets @ 25.9), he was nowhere near ready to control his abilities in his first few years of cricket which colour his stats negatively a tad bit.

In his first 13 tests which came between his debut in Nov 97 and the end of 1999, he took 34 wickets @ 40.4. He was mostly out on injury iirc for the next couple of years.

In the period between 2002-2007, for a long-ish period of 5-6 years, he was fairly consistently (for a guy who bowled 155 kph) on the park and played 30 tests for 132 wickets @ 21.9 which seperates him from the likes of Bond/Asif imo.

Shoaib was also reliably on the park at his absolute pomp for a decently lengthy two year period over the years 2002 and 2003 where he has historically absurd numbers: 72 wickets in 13 tests @ an average of 15.08 and SR of 30.4. A considerable portion of this was achieved on some incredibly flat batting friendly tracks which makes it even more remarkable. He didn't really discriminate depending on opposition either and if anything did even better against the best line-ups. He averaged 12 v. Australia and 16 v. SA against some extremely stacked batting line-ups for those sides in that period. It's up there with some of the most impressive fast bowling peaks in history and probably unparalleled considering the surfaces he was bowling on.

For that period in the mid-00s where he was both good and regularly playing test cricket, he was almost def. the consistently fastest bowler in history and somehow managed to have the best bouncer, slower ball and yorker in the world.

Even considering his entire career, despite playing 46 tests and having 178 wickets @ 25 along with a peak which blows away Thomsons etc. and being the best pacer of his 2002-2007 era after Mcgrath and ending up with a ATVG career, he has sort of unfairly been remembered by a lot of people as a flash in the pan what-could-have-been and grouped with others of a similar ilk due to the maverick dickhead personality halo he cultivated around him imo.